mcalvin Blog

Insurgency Model (Paper Section)

2009-05-17T13:16:00.001-07:00

Note: This is a section from a paper that I am writing about Intelligence in Counterinsurgency. It is a draft and being published to get feedback for the paper. Any comments, suggestions or feedback would be greatly appreciated.

A Model for Understanding Insurgency

While this paper is not intended to provide a comprehensive understanding of insurgency, a general understanding is necessary to look at the unique intelligence requirements of a counterinsurgency mission. Bard O’Neill broadly defines an insurgency as “a struggle between a nonruling group and the ruling authorities in which the nonruling group consciously uses political resources (e.g. organizational expertise, propaganda, and demonstrations) and violence to destroy, reformulate, or sustain the basis of legitimacy of one or more aspects of politics” (O'Neill, 2005, 15). The critical components are the asymmetric relationship between the ruling and nonruling groups and the centrality of legitimacy as the ultimate focus of the conflict. These factors distinguish insurgency from interstate conflict or civil war and identify the non-aligned population as a key player in determining legitimacy of either of the belligerent groups. Beyond this broad definition, every insurgency has unique structure and characteristics, and understanding a specific insurgent conflict requires knowledge of certain organizational and motivational factors.

Analyzing and understanding an insurgency requires an accurate picture of both the spatial and temporal domains of the conflict. Figure 1 below contains a generalized model of the insurgency space. This model is of course a greatly simplified and incomplete representation of an extremely complex social and political phenomenon, but it serves to highlight some of the key components necessary to understanding insurgency.

Figure 1: Insurgency Space

The insurgency space exists on the backdrop of a physical space, since all forces and actions exist within the physical world. This space is scalable and need not be contiguous or coincide with any specific political borders or boundaries. Physical space also includes the physical components of cyberspace, such as servers and internet access points, representing the physical access points of an otherwise amorphous medium. The physical space exists as a reminder that all actors within an insurgency must occupy a physical location and that geospatial considerations have direct influence on the other factors in an insurgency.

Within the physical space is the population, which is the central factor in any insurgency. This is typically an indigenous population within a political boundary of control of the government that is being challenged for legitimacy, but it can also represent transnational communities, such as the Islamic Ummah, or more localized bodies, like a particular tribe within a larger population space. The large majority of the population is generally neutral or passively-supportive of either side in the conflict.

Within the population also exists the opposing forces of insurgent and government. It is important to note that these groups exist within - and not separate from - the larger population, since the actual membership of each group draws upon the population. External support exists for both forces and is located both within and outside the physical space of the insurgency, since both insurgency and counterinsurgency alike often contain foreign forces acting on behalf of or alongside indigenous forces. Within the insurgency space, the population dominates the model, both in terms of numbers and importance.

Within the insurgent and government groups are the leadership and organization of each. This includes membership, organizational structure, decision-making processes, communications, and command and control of forces. This can range from traditional hierarchical structures to highly fractured networks of independent cells.

The insurgency space model creates a picture of the physical and population space within which an insurgency exists. Understanding the temporal, cyclic component of an insurgency, including its origins and the actions and reactions that fuel or impede its progress, is the second component of this model. Figure 2 below shows a generalized model of the insurgency cycle.

Figure 2: Insurgency Cycle
Adapted from (Viotti, 2008, 14)

The representation of insurgency as a multidirectional cycle serves to highlight its evolutionary, adaptive nature. There is no true beginning or end within this cycle, and the four components - motivational factors, insurgent strategy and action/reaction, government strategy and action/reaction, and population support - influence and react to the others in the cycle as an insurgency progresses.

Motivational Factors

Motivational factors refer to the grievances or motivations driving both groups within the conflict. While the grievances of the insurgent group which drive it to contest the legitimacy and authority of the government typically draw the most focus in studies of insurgency, the motivations of the government are important as well, especially as the conflict progresses and the government begins to react to insurgent actions.

Motivational factors may evolve throughout the course of a conflict, but the original causal factors that began the insurgency are especially important in understanding the origins and initial nature of the insurgency. Historically, there has been a large range of causalities within insurgencies, from ideological, religious or ethnic, to financial gain or self-preservation.

Strategy and Actions/Reactions

The strategies and actions of both the government and insurgent forces must be considered together, as they drive one another in a continually adapting and evolving fashion. Both are shaped as well by motivational factors, whether causal or continuing. The asymmetric nature of the conflict provides a different range of political and violent actions to each side in the conflict. As insurgents seek to address grievances and further their goals, possible options range from non-violent political activity to guerrilla warfare to terrorism and assassination. As governments seeks to destroy or isolate the insurgent group within the population, they may choose non-violent alternatives, like political compromise or redress of grievances, or violent alternatives, from broad repression to targeted assassination.

Population Support

The fourth component of the cycle is population support. This refers to the alignment and actions of the population group that does not have active membership with either side in the conflict. The support of the population, which determines the legitimacy of the government or insurgency, is the primary target of both sides in the conflict. It is directly shaped by the actions of both groups and influenced by the same motivational factors that drive government and insurgent actions. As the cycle continues, the neutral population may choose active membership on either side, bolstering government or insurgent forces. More common is the passive support of either side, which can take the form of financial assistance, intelligence on belligerent actions, or sanctuary for insurgent forces. Passive support is often coerced through fear or intimidation as part of government or insurgent strategies. Population support is the lynchpin of the insurgency cycle, as it drives the strategies and actions on both sides and shapes the legitimacy of each group.

Using the Model

As mentioned above, this model is a highly generalized and imperfect representation of an extremely complex type of conflict. In looking at the role of intelligence within a counterinsurgency mission though, the two components of the model can serve to highlight the dominant factors that must be addressed in both the spatial and temporal domains. This understanding can inform the questions that intelligence must seek to answer and the role that intelligence must play in confronting an insurgency.

Voluntary Executive Compensation Limits

2009-02-10T22:32:00.000-08:00

The executive compensation cap that the Obama administration is placing on banks that receive government support has been welcomed by the American public. The backlash against the compensation that some of the CEOs for these failing companies are receiving has been understandably strong. Half a million dollars a year in salary, which is the cap being placed on banks receiving assistance, seems like more than enough compensation to most Americans, but it is far below the norm for executives of the largest corporations. Most people probably agree that a salary cap on executive pay for failed companies in need of rescue is justified, but what about companies that aren’t failing? How much money does someone really need to make for him or herself before it is enough? Placing government restrictions on the compensation packages for all private companies is, I would argue, not a good option. I think it would be inefficient and interfere too closely in the workings of private corporations, leading to further potentially stifling restrictions.

What if there are those out there though who are willing to lead a major corporation for the modest sum of, say, $1M a year? Now why would an executive with the skills, experience, and reputation to lead a multi-billion dollar corporation choose a self-imposed salary cap far below the amount that the market is clearly willing to support? I would argue that at some point, they are earning enough by any reasonable measure, and being among the first executives to do so could, I believe, ultimately be good for business. With the economy as it is today, you would be hard pressed to find too many consumers who look kindly on the amount being paid to so many corporate executives. If a small group of highly reputable, skilled executives chose to form an organization of like-minded professionals, willing to lead their companies for a reduced compensation package and donate the offset amount to a philanthropic organization like the Gates Foundation, I believe that consumers would resonate with the idea. While I’m sure there are those that already invest substantial amounts to charitable causes, there are certainly those that do not. This movement could force all companies to make a change, lest those that do not take a substantial PR hit - and ultimately a drop in profitability.

I am certainly not arguing that all corporate executives are greedy people with no social responsibility. Many have done wonderful things for this country and the world, but compensation seems unnecessarily disproportioned, and there is no norm or precedent for limiting this in any way. Do the men and women leading these companies need to make this much money? Are the same qualities that make them successful – drive, ambition, competition – the same that make them seek higher and higher compensations? Are there any out there who have both the will to make a choice like this, and the ability to step into the job? Is there some obvious piece that I am ignoring that makes this seem ridiculous? Men like Bill gates and Warren Buffet have set the stage for fortunes made in the competitive market being transferred into the world of philanthropy. Why not continue the trend to the next step and demand that the leaders of these companies extend their leadership beyond the boundaries of their corporation and onto the world stage for the betterment of humanity?

This organization of executives could assume a catchy name like Humanitarian Organization of Philanthropic Executives (HOPE) and could market itself as a HOPE company, sharing where the money that would have gone to executive compensation has gone instead. Or it could follow the lead of Warren Buffet and give it to the Gates Foundation for management. Given a choice between similarly priced items of similar quality, I would image that, given the right amount of public awareness of the subject, consumers would overwhelmingly choose the company with voluntarily limited executive compensation. I imagine the media would jump all over something like this as well. I’m sure there are some very clear obstacles and limitations that I’m missing here, which is why I’m writing this on the blog to solicit input from friends. It may be a naïve idea, but it’s an idea, and that’s where discussion gets started.

I guess I have to ask myself too, if I were ever to have the skill and ability to be a corporate executive at the level discussed here, would I be willing to impose the compensation restrictions on myself for which I now argue? I would like to think that I would be. While it is of course a generalization, Generation-Y has been described as having a greater focus on social responsibility and working for a cause rather than a paycheck. It could be blind idealism, but maybe an idea like this needs a future generation of talented executives to become a reality

Thoughts about War and Peace (Taking a Break from Homework)

2009-01-31T16:48:00.000-08:00

So it's been a while since I created my blog and made my triumphant first post (as Briggs, Nikkel and Jarrod so eloquently noted in the comments on that post). I decided to write this post in the middle of a reading assignment today, actually writing down some of the thoughts that went through my mind instead of just thinking them and going back to reading. It is pretty raw and unedited, so I apologize for any glaring mistakes.

While reading an article called "The Obsolescence of Major War" for my National Security Issues class today, it finally donned on me that while I had always known that "war is bad", I had never really thought about the idea of war as it relates to mankind and the world in which we live. It had always seemed like such a natural, unavoidable consequence of history. Years may pass between wars, and indeed, during most of my childhood, there were no major wars to speak of. The 1991 Gulf War was the biggest such event until shortly after September 11, 2001, when, for my generation, a new ear of history emerged. The fact that the United States was "at war" became a reality.

This article makes the point though that even though conflict may seem to widespread and constant today, the incidence of major wars between developed states has actually declined greatly since World War II. According to the article, on May 15, 1984, the major countries of the world had entered the longest period of peace since the time of the Roman Empire. The United States and Soviet Union never entered into direct confrontation. The countries of Europe, which had been fighting wars for most of recorded history, have now begun creating a common "European" identity and building a common security. The idea of France and Germany engaging in direct military confrontation today seems ludicrous. They may engage in heated economic competition, but the days of Franco-German warfare seem a thing of the past, at least as the world looks today. While so much international theory today is focused on the decline of the state and the rise of the non-state actors - transnational criminals and terrorists, multi-national corporations, and NGOs - the relative peace that we have today can almost be seen as a triumph of state sovereignty, at least among major states. Even the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can hardly be seen as interstate wars. The war against Iraq as a "state" lasted only weeks, and the "Iraq War' as we have come to know it is being fought against non-state insurgents. The war in Afghanistan was waged against the Taliban, which could barely claim any right as a sovereign government of Afghanistan. Established states seem to have moved beyond competition on the field of battle and into competition in the economic and political arenas.

This view may of course seem shortsighted and could be crushed by unforeseen circumstances that could bring two major state powers into military conflict, but in terms of trends, warfare seems to have moved beyond the interstate arena and pushed downwards, such that states are now engaging non-state actors that are struggling at the seams of an international system still dominated by a framework based on state sovereignty. I do not wish to speak of non-state actors as a monolithic unit though. Multi-national corporations are certainly not engaged in direct confrontation with states. The relationship there, while sometimes complicated and tense, can ultimately prove beneficial to both entities, and I would argue that NGOs pose no threat to the key players in the international system.

It is those non-state actors that are diametrically opposed to the dominance of states - criminal and terrorist organizations or illegitimate rebellions - that will now draw the full weight of state-power in a changing era of warfare. The cooperation of numerous states in combating piracy off of the Horn of Africa is an example of this. Conflict is certainly not going to disappear in the near future. I would argue that it is declining though. The spread of advanced communications technology around the world has now made it possible to make the world aware of conflict wherever it emerges. Warfare and struggle may seem to dominate the pages of our newspapers daily, but it could only be the awareness of those events that has been increasing over the last half-century.

I don't want to make this sound too optimistic. There are atrocities and brutality ongoing in this world, and there is much work if the evolution towards a more peaceful international system is going to continue. I really wish only to raise the idea that war is not a necessity, and that despite the horrors we see in the news, mankind may be making progress. Perhaps recognizing this and seeking to build upon this is a first step.

In case anyone is interested, the article that I read can be found here. The PDF is Mueller's entire book, but the section I read is the Introduction.

First Blog Post

2008-09-11T19:40:00.000-07:00

This is the first of hopefully many posts on this blog. I've started to really appreciate the usefulness of being able to share ideas using collaborative technologies like blogs and wikis, so hopefully friends and family will enjoy being able to visit this blog and learn a little more about me, my thoughts, and the things that are going on in my life.