Don

Be back fully on Labor Day weekend (the start of college football).

What interests does the United States have at stake in the war between Russia and Georgia? Only one: that we remain out of it.

It almost passes belief to think that the Bush administration, bogged down in two wars and planning a third (with Iran), might move toward a confrontation with Russia. Yet that is what the White House appears to be doing. The August 11 Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that

President Bush called the violence unacceptable and Vice President Dick Cheney…said Russia’s actions in Georgia “must not go unanswered”…

Asked to explain Cheney’s comment, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said, “It means it must not stand.”

That phrase should send cold chills down the back of every American. It precisely echoes President George H.W. Bush’s statement in response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, a statement that led to war. The White House cannot be unaware of the parallel, which means it is threatening war with Russia.

Continue Reading

Tina Mistretta’s comment about Australian Shepherds fending off coyotes reflects a trait which was not considered unusual to early owners.* The late Cee Hambo from the 45 Ranch in California spoke often of how her dog, Bull (WTCH The Bull of Twin Oaks) tangled with coyotes to protect her livestock. This was the typical Aussie.

Aussies were expected to defend their master’s property from all intruders, yet gently watch over the family’s children. This type of versatility and adaptability has led them to become popular pets. As the world changes so do people’s expectations of the breed.

Breeders need to educate potential buyers that being a strong guardian doesn’t make the dog vicious any more than being an authoritative or aggressive stockdog does. However, ownership requires an added responsibility. Not everyone, especially the average pet owner, is equipped to deal with a protective Aussie. As a result, some breeders started breeding for Aussies with laidback, easygoing temperaments.

Even though the companion market has significant influence on the breed’s temperament, so does competition in venues such as the trial arena. Stockdog trials have also helped shape the character of many of the Aussies being bred for working today. It wasn’t until people started competing with the breed in Stockdog trials that you heard of someone mistaking them for Border Collies. That topic brought about ASCA’s Working Description for the breed.

Are the changes good or are they bad for the breed? Once again, I ask you to be the judge.

*It is worthy to note that herding breeds with strong guarding instincts such as Australian Shepherds that tended their flocks in the company of shepherds (humans) and are very different than LGD (Livestock Guarding Dogs) breeds that protect livestock without human companionship with low prey drive.

I had an outstanding week at the US Military Academy at West Point. The instructors there from the director down are great people to work with, and are moving to evolve the way DMI develops adaptability in our future leaders. I also invited my friend and comrade, Lieutenant Fred Leland of the Walpo Police Department (outside Boston MA) to attend my workshop and meet several of the instructors at the USMA Department of Military Instruction (DMI). DMI is likened to what ROTC does, focuses on the military education portion of a cadet's development (while other departments or the college focuses on academic development). My intention of inviting Fred was to give instructors of DMI his prospective of using Adaptive Leader Methodology (ALM). Fred used my book Raising the Bar: Creating and Nurturing Adaptive Leaders to Deal with the Changing Face of War as a foundational document to reform his police department.

The following is Fred's recent post,

Law Enforcement & Security published a new entry entitled "United States Military Academy West Point Raising the Bar" on 8/8/2008 8:04:52 AM, written by Fred Leland.

United States Military Academy West Point Raising the Bar

I had a unique opportunity to participate in the Deciding Under Pressure...and Fast workshop as an invited guest of  Don Vandergriff U.S. Army, Ret; along with the training staff of the United States Military Academy, West Point. The class consisted of 15 officers, of the training cadre whose job it will be to teach new cadets the critical tasks of decision making and leadership. Decisions that will need to be made in the heat of the moment under the stress of combat.

The workshop, Deciding Under Pressure...and Fast is part of Don Vandergriff's effort to reshape the culture of training and leadership. To enhance decision making in the field and create an atmosphere of adaptability. This is critical in dangerous and time critical situations such as military combat, police use of force and problem solving, Security reacted issues as well as businesses trying to get the most effective performance out of their organizations.

This class started out with a tactical decision game that tasked all participating in finding a solution to a military problem of security in a area of the world that required humanitarian aid. There is an enemy force large but untrained who fled the city. Your platoon is tasked with conducting security patrols outside the city in heavily wooded terrain with rolling hills. About an hour into the patrol your point man spots what appears to be an enemy patrol armed with small arms moving towards your squad, 2 kilometers south of the city. You are in a concealed position and decide to establish and ambush and position your squad accordingly. You radio headquarter to inform them of the situation. Just as you are about to initiate your ambush the first team leader  points out another enemy unit moving toward and behind you. There is at least six enemy with more following. He is not sure how many. Your location is still unknown to the enemy.

Don exclaims In a time limit of 30 seconds decide whether you will spring your ambush. Develop your scheme of maneuver for either case and rationale for your decision. No questions!

Those participating begin writing their decisions on paper and what seemed like a second Vandergriff began the countdown ten seconds, 5 seconds, 4, 3, 2, 1, ok with a finger pointed at a participant, "what is your decision?" It did not seem like a lot of time but, what was apparent, everyone participating came up with a decision. Each decision was discussed and reviewed over a 40 minute time frame, not planned, just the time it took. Lessons learned; viable, workable, and good decisions were made as to how to handle this rapidly unfolding set of circumstances.

Then came the unconventional tennis ball game, I have seen Don use this once before, its a game he often uses. Seven people form a circle and Vandergriff gives his instructions; the ball starts with me and ends with me. It is not to touch anyone more than once, but must touch everyone. The process begins, 9.34 seconds to make the first evolution. How do we make it faster? Quickly one of the officers took charge and offered advise as to how the team could expedite the process. They give it a try and it is faster. Now Don adds a second tennis ball and then a third which is meant to show the effect of more information and policy and procedure has on complicating things. Then  all seven members begin to communicate and work through the problem of getting three tennis balls around fast as possible. They communication picked up and ideas were bandied about and in the end 3 balls .69 of a second. From 1 ball 9.34 to 3 balls .69 in just a few short minutes.

These examples and others conducted throughout the day were proof in my view of the decision making process being conditioned to make rapid decisions under pressure. You could see it take place as you participated in the class. Don Vandergriff has spent years mastering this process and has written about it in his Book Raisin g the Bar; Creating and Nurturing Adaptability in the Changing Face of War. The book in my view is the most comprehensive and concise how too book, only 114 pages. The book describes Vandergriff's  Adaptive Leadership Methodology which in short is about leadership, training and decision making.

The workshop was not solely about decision making; but making sense of new situations, seeing patterns, and spotting opportunities and options that were not seen before. The participants evolve throughout the days workshop and become more comfortable in a variety of situations, building moral courage and strength of character, that's needed for good decisions in high stress situations. The tactical decision games also teach and assist in developing more advanced and ambitious tactics in a vast array of circumstances. It also stress the importance of knowing your stuff and becoming more familiar with weapons capabilities, employment techniques and other technical details needed to decide. Vandergriff's efforts are to clear the way for rapid decision making under pressure and have been tested through training and in real world experience in combat.

This workshop was also about how to teach, facilitate, mentor and evaluate adaptability.  All participating were split into two groups, and tasked with developing our own tactical decision game which was played out by the other group and then reviewed. Clearly you could see all were enthusiastic about the process of creating a scenario. In the end both games developed by the participants were great educational tools and indeed taught decision making and adaptability.

An important note on this training is that not one power point slide was shown and everyone in the room instructor and student were vigorously participating. No morning break, it was lunch before you knew it! No afternoon break, it was 4PM before you knew it! All spent learning and educating the mind to make decisions under pressure and fast. It worked! And worked well!

These Army Officers and instructor/facilitators will be teaching young cadets, up and coming leaders in our Military.  The Instructors will take their experiences from life and combat themselves and apply these valuable lessons to help prepare the Cadets for the critical decisions they may indeed have to make under pressure in the real world of combat. I was proud to participate and prouder to know these great young men and women are out there, life on the line, making the decisions that need to be made in the defense of freedom! This type of workshop will insure those who participate, as well, as those under their command will be the safer for it!

Permalink: BLOG.LESC.NET/2008/08/07/united-states-military-academy-west-point-raising-the-bar.aspx

The careful work of many years culminates in catastrophe. No one is the wiser for it. Only out on the unglamorous margins are people looking beyond the system for new ways of managing the interaction between humans and the non-human environment. As long as those margins exist, as long as threats to integrity and coherence can be successfully held off, then things can proceed to the collapse point and onward from there, producing a vacuum that will draw in hitherto unwanted and unusable ideas.

We will take as a jumping-off point the credo: We Do Everything Wrong. Every feature of the existing theory and practice of organization and production is a negative symptom of the right way to proceed.

Here are some of our values: bottom-up; open source; gift economy; small-scale; manufactured profusion; self-organization; rhizomaticity; distributedness; resilience; technical simplicity; ready-made DIY techniques; public ownership and control; replicability and adaptability; biomimicry; humility; honesty.

Our failures will beat their successes.

The lecture was part of a Carnegie Mellon series that focuses on what a professor would say to his or her students if s/he could give them one last hour’s worth of advice or wisdom. Pausch agreed to do the lecture before his death sentence, and he stuck with it because he wanted to leave his kids a 21st Century message in a bottle. The lecture described his childhood dreams and how he accomplished them, creating a blueprint for living life along the way.

One of Pausch’s childhood dreams was to win huge stuffed animals at carnival games, and to prove that he accomplished his dream he lined the stage with stuffed animals he’d won — animals that were literally bigger than the people carrying them. There is, as I’m sure you can imagine, a lot to take away from a dying man’s message in a bottle to his children, but for some reason I couldn’t stop thinking about all those stuffed animals. Why wasn’t he happy with just one of them? Why did he need a whole stage full? What does a computer scientist care about stuffed animals?

Finally it dawned on me: he must have continued to enjoy winning the animals because the odds of winning were stacked against him.

This realization led me to the revelation that carnival games are essentially a microcosm of the world in which we live. Think about it — why is winning carnival games so satisfying? It’s not because you actually wanted the 4-foot stuffed Snoopy hanging in the tent. It’s not because you measure your own self worth with your ability to throw a ball in a jar or shoot a paper target with a BB gun. It’s definitely not because you think your carnival game prowess will get you laid.

Or is it the latter?

Winning carnival games is satisfying because victory is accompanied by the knowledge that you won even though that shit was completely rigged against you. You knew the other guy was cheating, but you didn’t know how. You knew there were forces working against you, but you didn’t know what. You figured it out, though, and you beat the puppet master at his own game. You followed the rules, stayed behind the line, and made the basket even though the rim was bent out of shape. Maybe it took you a few tries to identify the trick and then learn how to beat it, but you did it.

Enter real life. It’s full of cheating, and there are plenty of invisible forces working against us. If you’re like me, there are probably a lot more working against you than in your favor, but like in a carnival game, you do have some things going for you. At the carnival you probably have good aim even if the basket is rigged or the BB gun shoots to the right. In life you probably have a few people looking out for you even if most people don’t care whether or not you succeed. You also have your natural talents augmented by years of study and practice. In life and in carnival games, if you are smart enough to identify the forces working against, figure out how to get around them, and still play by the rules even when the carnie folk cheat, you win.

During Pausch’s last lecture, he showed a photograph of his elderly father with a huge carnival bear that the father won at age 84. There’s something deeply satisfying about an elderly man smiling at the camera, sitting beside a massive bear that he just won despite the deck being stacked against him. America loves an underdog, and I imagine it’s because we can relate to them. When we go up against the bank, the government, or the job market, we are the underdogs. Hence this image of an elderly man with a bear gives me hope as the deadline for student loan applications approaches and I battle the financial aid office’s invisible-yet-clearly-evil forces.

Of course there are some forces you just can’t beat — Exhibit A: metastasized pancreatic cancer — but the carnival game microcosm demonstrates that we will generally be more successful if we revel in the game rather than resenting it. In many cases we could just choose not to play, but where is the reward in that?

This carnival game adaptability is essential to our success and survival. Biologically it has propelled organisms for 3.9 billion years, and now it propels my peers and I into the next stages of our lives. Adapting is not only professionally necessary, but personally so. Relationships thrive on adaptability and compromise. It therefore appears that carnival game prowess does in fact get people laid.

At first I wondered how the digital age has impacted this adaptability. I began to ponder the effects of such daily practices as modifying search terms or upgrading software — until I realized I didn’t really care. The important point is that humans have been adapting and surviving against the odds for 200,000 years, and there’s nothing the Internet or cell phones will do to change that. Some things are just too universal to be significantly altered by the digital age.

A friend of mine did recently point out, though, that evolution is proceeding at a lackluster rate compared to the snails' pace at which it was already crawling. This is because most people live long enough to reproduce no matter how unintelligent they are, no matter how physically inferior they are, and no matter how weak their immune systems are. It’s not really survival of the fittest anymore — it’s survival of just about everyone. As long as someone lives long enough to reproduce, their inferior genes live on in society. Does this mean that for all our progress, we are actually regressing? Or are there forms of progress that trump evolution? Now that's something worth pondering...

This article appeared in CounterPunch on July 30 and can be found at http://www.counterpunch.org/spinney07302008.html and below.

A Thought Experiment
Should Obama Escalate the War in Afghanistan?
By CHUCK SPINNEY

In a recent essay, entitled "Obama's Politics of Change: Afghanistan & Gore's Transformative Vision, " I noted in respect to the early phase of our war against the Taliban that --

"In the fall of 2001, intel reports said there were between 40-60,000 Taliban, but when we quickly "defeated" them, the intel folks could only account for 6-8000 captured, wounded or killed. Nevertheless, the Pentagon brass and Bush quickly declared victory, even though it was clear at the time that the Taliban headed for the hills in classical guerrilla/Sun Tzu fashion--when faced with superior force, disperse! That's a no-brainer in some circles but not those inside the Beltway. Now we are saying the Taliban are "regrouping" when is not clear they ever degrouped."

Some people objected to my characterization of of the Afghan Was as being a loser, saying the Afghan war is a morally good that must be prosecuted to a victorious end. While tautological reasoning may be comforting, particularly when it is other people's blood that is being split, it is important to ask oneself how a victory might be achieved. Is this merely a question of throwing more troops and bombs at at the problem, or is there more to it than that?

This article references two documents which may help the committed escalator determine whether it is a good idea to ramp up our efforts in Afghanistan with more troops, more military force, more "precision" bombing, which means more collateral damage, including more innocent civilian deaths, and is likely to breed more resentment, and more radicalization. Or whether the inept Mr. Bush and his neocon henchmen have created the conditions for another classical guerrilla war in Afghanistan, not unlike that created by the Soviets in the early 1980s which created misery for them in the late 1980s.

In this regard, readers would do well to remember that (1) Soviets had an easy ride for the first few years, while the Afghan guerrillas leaned how to fight them through a process of trial and error; and (2), that the Soviets reached a point where it became clear that pouring in more Soviet troops and increasing the firepower created more problems than it solved. Which begs the question: Is escalating the war in Afghanistan becoming a yawning trap, into which Mr. Obama and the Democrats seem eager to plunge?

At the heart of this question is the nature of the conflict in Afghanistan, specifically the question of whether or not it has mutated into something that is more akin to a classical guerrilla war as opposed to being part of a Fourth Generation War against al Quaeda. The two attachments below may help the reader to appreciate the different dimensions of this consideration.

A recent report in Newsweek entitled " The Taliban's Baghdad Strategy ," offers a well-informed description of the Taliban's approach to the conflict in Afghanistan. It describes how the Taliban are pursuing a strategy to systematically undermine the authority of the government of Mr Karsai, a man who, it should be remembered, the West, particularly the United States, put into place as the President of Afghanistan, and who, according to some reports, might be receiving financial support from Pakistan's rival India. Is this Taliban strategy something new and peculiar to the so-called Global War on Terror--a war that Mr. Bush, the Pentagon, and now apparently many of Obama's defense advisors, seem to think they can prosecute successfully by relying on more boots on the ground coupled to more "precision firepower?"

Or is the Afghan War more in the nature of a modern guerrilla war, wherein a government established and propped up by unwanted outsiders with their own agendas usually becomes a critical losing vulnerability?

I have also attached below portions of a briefing that may help some of us to understand these latter questions. It contains three slides #91, #92, & #108 from the late Colonel John R. Boyd's legendary briefing of the philosophy and conduct of war, Patterns of Conflict, which was written well before the Taliban even existed. Boyd's aim in Patterns of Conflict was to synthesize a unified understanding of the fundamental nature conflict by examining the history regular and irregular war. Boyd was not a warmonger, but he recognized war is often unavoidable, and his aim was to understand it in a way that it could be prosecuted successfully at the lowest possible cost to society and in a way that reduced the possibility of future conflict. The three slides of his 193-slide briefing describe part of his understanding of the nature of modern guerrilla warfare (i.e., #91 & #92) as well as the nature of a successful counter guerrilla operations (i.e., #108). I picked them because they are the most pertinent to the simple exercise described below.

I want readers to perform a little thought experiment by comparing the information in Newsweek article to that in Boyd's generic observations about the conduct of a guerrilla campaign in Slides #91 and #92. If you agree that the information in the Newsweek report mesh at least enough with the ideas in these slides to warrant further thinking, then ask yourself if Mr. Obama and the Democrats, together with their Afghan and NATO allies and the American public are willing and capable of undertaking the kind of counter-guerrilla campaign that meets ALL of the conditions of Boyd's Slide #108?

And if the answer is NO in either of these two steps, maybe it is time for the US to leave. BUT if you still want to escalate the war and the hemorrhage of blood and treasure in Afghanistan, then you owe it to yourself to come up with some more realistic ideas than those in Slide #108 about how to successfully escalate this war. Simply saying it is a GOOD war may be comforting but it is not enough. Simply saying it is a question of WILL may work as a substitute for thought, but it is no strategy. If staying the course is your choice, then what is needed is a strategy that will work in the real world.

There is one point in this simple exercise that serious readers ought to bear in mind: While these three slides give the essential gist of Boyd's understanding of the guerrilla warfare, he would be the first to warn that one must be very careful not to think of them as an isolated modules or checklists -- they exist in a larger strategic and grand strategic fabric, but I think they are sufficient to get this thought experiment going, at least as a first cut. The venturesome, particularly those who answered NO to the comparisons of this thought experiment, can download Patterns of Conflict in its entirety here.

Franklin "Chuck" Spinney (born 1945, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio) is an American former military analyst for the Pentagon who became famous in the early 1980s for what became known as the "Spinney Report", criticizing what he described as the reckless pursuit of costly complex weapon systems by the Pentagon, with disregard to budgetary consequences. Despite attempts by the his superiors to bury the controversial report, it eventually was exposed during a United States Senate Budget Committee on Defense hearing, which though scheduled to go unnoticed, made the cover of Time Magazine March 7, 1983. Chuck Spinney retired from the Pentagon after 33 years and currently lives on a sailboat in the Mediterranean.

[Slides 90, 91, and #108 of John Boyd's Patterns of Conflict]

Slide 90: MODERN GUERRILLIA CAMPAIGN

Action

• Capitalize on discontent and mistrust generated by corruption (real or imagined), exploitation, oppression, incompetence, and unwanted presence of existing regime to evolve a common cause or unifying theme as basis to organize and maintain mass popular support through a militant political program.
• Set-up administrative and military organization, sanctuary, and communications network under the control of the guerrilla political leadership without arousing regime's intelligence and security apparatus. Build-up a shadow government, with "parallel hierarchies", in localities and regions that can be made ripe for insurrection/revolution by infiltrating cadres (vanguards) who can not only subvert existing authority but also convert leaders and people to guerrilla cause and organizational way.
• Exploit subversion of government and conversion of people to guerrilla cause to create an alien atmosphere of security and intelligence in order to "blind" regime to guerrilla plans, operations, and organization yet make "visible" regime's strengths, weaknesses, moves, and intentions.
• Shape propaganda, foment civil disorders (such as rallies, demonstrations, strikes, and riots), use selected terrorism, perform sabotage, and exploit resulting misinformation to expand mistrust and sow discord thereby magnify the appearance of corruption, incompetence, etc., and the inability of regime to govern.
• Employ tiny cohesive bands for surprise hit-and-run raids against lines of communications to gain arms and supplies as well as disrupt government communication, coordination, and movement. Retreat and melt into environment when faced by superior police and armed forces.
• Disperse or scatter tiny guerrilla bands to arouse the people (and gain recruits) as well as harass, wear-out, and spread-out government forces while larger bands, or mobile formations, concentrate to wipe-out his dispersed, isolated, and relatively weak fractions by sudden ambush or sneak attack.
• Play upon the grievances and obsessions of people (via propaganda, re-education, and selected successes) as well as encourage government to indiscriminately take harsh reprisal measures against them in order to connect the government with expanding climate of mistrust, discord, and moral disintegration. Simultaneously, show (by contrast) that guerrillas exhibit moral authority, offer competence, and provide desired benefits in order to further erode government influence, gain more recruits, multiply base areas, and increase political infrastructure hence expand guerrilla influence/control over population and countryside.
• Demonstrate disintegration of regime by striking Cheng/Ch'i fashion, with small fluid bands and ever larger mobile formations, to split-up, envelop, and annihilate fractions of major enemy forces.
  Idea
• Defeat existing regime politically by showing they have neither the moral right nor demonstrated ability to govern and militarily by continuously using stealth/fast-tempo/fluidity-of-action and cohesion of small bands and larger units in cooperation with political "agitprop" (agitation/propaganda) teams as basis to harass, confuse and ultimately destroy the will or capacity to resist.

Slide 91: MODERN GUERRILLA CAMPAIGN

Essence

• Capitalize on corruption, injustice, incompetence, etc., (or their appearances) as basis to generate atmosphere of mistrust and discord in order to sever moral bonds that bind people to existing regime.
  Simultaneously,
• Share existing burdens with people and work with them to root out and punish corruption, remove injustice, eliminate grievances, etc., as basis to form moral bonds between people and guerrillas in order to bind people to guerrilla philosophy and ideals.
  Intent
• Shape and exploit crises environment that permits guerrilla vanguards or cadres to pure-up guerrilla resolve, attract the uncommitted, and drain-away adversary resolve as foundation to replace existing regime with guerrilla regime.
  Implication
• Guerrillas, by being able to penetrate the very essence of their adversary's moral-mental-physical being, generate many moral-mental-physical non-cooperative (or isolated) centers of gravity, as well as subvert or seize those centers of gravity that adversary regime must depend upon, in order to magnify friction, produce paralysis, and bring about collapse.
  Yet,
• Guerrillas shape or influence moral-mental-physical atmosphere so that potential adversaries, as well as the uncommitted, are drawn toward guerrilla philosophy and are empathetic toward guerrilla success.

Slide #108: COUNTER-GUERRILLA CAMPAIGN

Action

• Undermine guerrilla cause and destroy their cohesion by demonstrating integrity and competence of government to represent and serve needs of people--rather than exploit and impoverish them for the benefit of a greedy elite. *
• Take political initiative to root out and visibly punish corruption. Select new leaders with recognized competence as well as popular appeal. Ensure that they deliver justice, eliminate grievances and connect government with grass roots. *
• Infiltrate guerrilla movement as well as employ population for intelligence about guerrilla plans, operations, and organization.
• Seal-off guerrilla regions from outside world by diplomatic, psychological, and various other activities that strip-away potential allies as well as by disrupting or straddling communications that connect these regions with outside world.
• Deploy administrative talent, police, and counter-guerrilla teams into affected localities and regions to: inhibit guerrilla communication, coordination and movement; minimize guerrilla contact with local inhabitants; isolate their ruling cadres; and destroy their infrastructure.
• Exploit presence of above teams to build-up local government as well as recruit militia for local and regional security in order to protect people from the persuasion and coercion efforts of the guerrilla cadres and their fighting units.
• Use special teams in a complementary effort to penetrate guerrilla controlled regions. Employ (guerrillas' own) tactics of reconnaissance, infiltration, surprise hit-and-run, and sudden ambush to: keep roving bands off-balance, make base areas untenable, and disrupt communication with outside world.
• Expand these complementary security/penetration efforts into affected region after affected region in order to undermine, collapse, and replace guerrilla influence with government influence and control.
• Visibly link these efforts with local political/economic/social reform in order to connect central government with hopes and needs of people, thereby gain their support and confirm government legitimacy.

Idea

• Break guerrillas' moral-mental-physical hold over the population, destroy their cohesion, and bring about their collapse via political initiative that demonstrates moral legitimacy and vitality of government and by relentless military operations that emphasize stealth/fast-tempo/fluidity-of-action and cohesion of overall effort.

____________

· * If you cannot realize such a political program, you might consider changing sides!

Senator John McCain’s position on the situation in Iraq is wrong on two counts, which means his criticism of Senator Obama is also wrong.  The twin pillars of McCain’s assessment of the war are a) the surge worked and b) because the surge worked we are now winning.  Neither of those views is based in fact.

The first represents the long-recognized logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc, i.e., because one event occurred after another, it was a consequence of the first event.  Because the cock crows before sunrise, he thinks he makes the sun come up.  Because violence in Iraq dropped after the surge, McCain claims the surge caused the reduction in violence.  He is quick to add that he supported the surge at the time, which Obama did not.  In the real world, neither rooster nor Senator has quite so much reason to strut upon his dunghill.

The reduction in violence in Iraq, which is likely to prove temporary, has four causes, the least of which is the surge.

In order of importance, they are:

1. Al Qaeda’s alienation of much of its Sunni base, a consequence of its attempt to impose its Puritanical version of Islam before it won the war and consolidated power.  This is a common error of revolutionary movements.  The smart ones back off and take a “broad front” strategy until the war is won, at which point they cut their “moderate” allies’ throats.  Al Qaeda’s non-hierarchical structure, coupled with the message it employs to recruit, may prevent it from adopting a broad front strategy.  If so, that may prove a fatal weakness.
2. A change in policy by the U.S. Marines in Anbar Province whereby they stopped attacking the Sunni population and started paying it instead.  As the FMFM 1-A argues, in 4GW, cash is your most important supporting arm.  The Marines’ new policy, which has now spread to the U.S. Army and beyond Anbar, enabled the locals to turn on al Qaeda and its brutally enforced Puritanism.
3. General Petraeus’s decision to move U.S. troops off their FOB’s and into populated areas where they could protect the population instead of merely protecting themselves.
4. Last and least, the surge, which made more troops available for #3.  Absent the other three developments, the surge would have achieved nothing.

In his first assertion, Senator McCain is claiming credit where credit is not due.  In his second, that we are winning in Iraq, he fails to understand what “winning” means in a Fourth Generation conflict.

The current reduction in violence in Iraq does not mean we are winning.  Nor does al Qaeda’s incipient defeat mean we are winning.  We win only if a state re-emerges, the state we destroyed by our invasion.  A reduction in violence and the defeat of al Qaeda are necessary preconditions for the re-emergence of a  state, but they are not sufficient to ensure it.

A state will be re-established in Iraq only if and when authority comes from a person’s position in the state hierarchy, e.g., governor, minister, mayor, army or police commander, functionary, etc.  Services must also come from the state.  At present, as best as I can determine, this is happening seldom. If at all.  Rather, authority derives from non-state bases such as relationship to a tribe, clan or militia, and services are provided by the U.S. military, NGOs, and Iraqi militias or religious organizations.  An Iraqi who holds a nominal state office may have authority, but his authority is not a product of his state office.  A local Iraqi government may provide some services, but the government in Baghdad is seldom the source of the resources or authority to provide those services.

In fact, the relative peace now prevailing in Iraq is largely the product of deals the U.S. military has made with real non-state Iraqi authority figures.  These deals were both necessary and prudent, but they represent de facto acceptance of the reality that there is no state.

So McCain is wrong on both counts.  The fact that a Presidential candidate is fundamentally wrong on so important a subject as the war in Iraq is disturbing.   More disturbing is the nature of the errors.  Both represent carryovers of Bush administration practices.  The first, stating that the surge is the cause of reduced violence, represents the Bush White House’s cynical practice of assuming the American people are too stupid to understand anything even slightly complex.  The second, claiming we are winning the Iraq war, represents President Bush’s policy of making statements that are blatantly at odds with reality and figuring that if the truth catches up with them, it will do so too late to alter the course of events.  It was the latter practice that got us into the Iraq war in the first place.

Together, the twin pillars of McCain’s Iraq assessment, both built of sand, give substance to the Democrats’ charge that a McCain Presidency would represent a third term for George Bush.  They also raise the question of whether they are honest mistakes or, like the arguments the Bush White House used to sell the Iraq conflict, simply lies.  One would hate to think that McCain’s “straight talk” comes from a forked tongue, but the parallels with Bush administration practices are too obvious to overlook.

William S. Lind, expressing his own personal opinion, is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation.

I love your counter arguments.

I still disagree with all of them.

Having been a student of population issues since I was a teenager (as I said in an earlier post, I was a geek), I am a big follower of Thomas Robert Malthus and Paul R. Erhlich, so I would like to challenge the arguments for overpopulation (or the argument that we just cannot do it). I am also a Christian (so I am always taking on my "brothers" in this discussion). But, I consider myself a realistic Christian. I only want the best for people under realistic conditions. I would just say that both scientists above were off by 30 years or so, but they are right all the same.

First of all, where I stand, overpopulation comes down to a matter of choices?

What do I mean by choices?

Well, okay, take all your arguments, that we can support more people, for the moment, but why?

Why do we want to be so crowded?

Why do we want to have billions at or below the poverty line?

Why do we constantly want to seek and develop technology to help stay just a foot ahead or even with population growth (most of this technology is or has been very damaging to our environment)?

Why do we want to eliminate entire ecosystems and species of animals?

Of course the first answer is that we cannot tell people what they can or cannot do in the bedroom, or how many children they can have. Well, yes, I agree with that (I hate how big and controlling our government has gotten). But, being a student of the Constitution, one of the aspects other than the pursuit of happiness is the responsibilities of the citizens. What the citizens return to the state for their security and their freedoms to pursue their dreams.  It is each citizens' obligation to others to plan their families. As I have began to realize as I work harder and earn more, I get taxed a lot more. The person, regardless of income, has a large family (I consider anything over two kids this), who pays for everything? Well, yes, if the person is making good money, you can say they are? But, are they really? No, lets take public schools. Who pays for public schools? Well, I will tell you that most people by themselves cannot afford to pay for their child's public school bill on top of everything else. But, people don't see it that way.

There are also the issues of road use, free space, land use, etc...Additionally, we now have crowded public schools, less learning as discipline declines. I know many teachers and they tell me that the issue is with the parents (my Father was a principle and said the same to me all the time), they want kids because of the image, but beyond that, they dump them off on the schools for everything. So, it would be nice that every large family home schooled, and truly devoted their lives to their children. But even if they did, they are still a burden to their fellow citizens for the reasons I cite above.

The other counter argument to overpopulation has always been the care and funding for the older generations. It is a good one, but one that again goes to civic obligation of my fellow citizens. First of all, It is my responsibility to ensure I can care for myself, in old age, where ever. It is not the government's, as many people have been brain washed into believing.

We must be held responsible for our choices. A year ago, I had both heart surgery and got diagnosed with Gout right after that. For weeks in September and October I was bedridden with my wife caring for me constantly. When I found out I had Gout in late September, I asked myself, this is a warning. I have two choices, I can continue to live as I am and get worse, or I can change my lifestyle (no drinking, red meat, get back to constant exercise, etc..., which applied to my heart as well). I chose the latter. I am now 29 pounds lighter and feeling great. But, I also have to think about being dependent on others, and them having to take care of me. I don't want that. This is why I am against national health insurance as well. Why should you and I pay for the fat ass who sits on the couch after work and eats away? Who is going to pay for that person's medical bill? When they are older? People are relying too much on our government for everything. I also saw what the great free medical care did to the military, it indirectly encouraged larger families. When people don't directly pay for their actions, well they tend to act in certain ways.

Second, another reason our culture (politicians) doesn't want to talk about the issue of overpopulation, is for two reasons, one we are a culture that measures success on short term growth. More people, more cheap labor and more consumers (why have the government always looked the other way at illegal immigration? Until recently when local areas cannot afford them anymore, and people are starting to get stressed by crowded conditions).  This in turn means constant growth somewhere, housing, Wal-Mart sales, whatever. I contend that a viable, smart run economy does not need a growing population to be successful. Businesses must be innovative to be successful in a culture of stable non-growing population.

Second, if you cannot be responsible yourself, then how can you tell others to be so? Meaning, the large percentage of our politicians today, our "leaders" are former business men and or lawyers. They were measured by today's short term definition of success, they made money and they have a lot of stuff, sometimes under questionable conditions. But, all the same, they were selected based upon a definition that has little if nothing to do with leadership. Politicians are survivors, and they tell the people what they want to hear. Overpopulation, the discussion of it, can get into some sticky areas with religious and special interest groups who have misinterpreted the Bible's "go forth and bear fruit." But, all the same, they want to avoid arguments and confrontation (got to know your subject as well, and most of our politicians will not look beyond their morning EXSUM to do so).

By the way, I took on two children when I got married, and that was my obligation. I did not want my own children because I see how the world is going.

Third, we are now at the most critical stage of resources, the main two: energy and water. Everything else depends on them. One of my constant contentions is that overpopulation is outstripping the ability to support it. There has been no pause time. Our nation needs this badly, a leveling off of the population so we can fix our infrastructure, damaged ecosystems, slow down sprawl, etc...The result of what is occurring to us today, is a result of the fact that overpopulation is stripping our ability to support it. Overpopulation has now outstripped the ability of water to support us. What is the Middle East really in conflict over? Water. Look at our far west, mega cities built upon nothing starting to have water wars. Hell, it is happening to my home town of Chattanooga, Tennessee who have oversized Atlanta breathing down their neck to move the border with Georgia a mile north so they can claim some of the Tennessee River.

I will not even go into the pollution issues. China, hell they are having problems keeping the air clean around the Olympics. I remember someone a year ago arguing with me that the green revolution in food production has allowed us and will allow us to keep abreast of population growth. Okay, say it does. How do you get the food there? What are the consequences of the petro based runoff of fertilizers? Now, you are in competition with petroleum use for cars?

My question to myself, "but why do we have to go through all this?"

Why cannot we level or balance our population, both as a nation and as a globe, so people have a better quality of life, so children can grow up healthy and better educated. Where is the mandate that we must have 9 billion people? 10 billion? 12 billion? There is no sound reason to support this. The only argument for is individual choice. But at what cost? Our globe cannot support it. The cultures cannot support it, and my prediction is that we will soon reach the breaking point, which is going to lead to chaos and anarchy. We are creating an entire new class of people, the underclass-criminal and warfighting groups composed of deposed men and women that cannot go anywhere else, but because of our unrealistic views of population, we are to blame.

This is where overpopulation becomes a big national security issue.

When anyone argues with pro overpopulation, I always end up asking them,

"Now, just be honest with me on this one, are you willing to give up, lower, your standard of living to take on more people?"

Everyone that answers, says "no."

The rest just ignore the question.

Second, I will ask, "do you like dealing with congestion, constant lines, overcrowded parks, waterways, etc...?

They all say "no" as well. I say, well we have already got there, and it is only going to get worse.

My solution, is using the positive, a world with a manageable population (2-4 billion), in that our society has the moral courage to talk this issue in public instead of it being a forbidden or shameful subject-"you must be a Nazi or racist if you believe that." No, I just want a better life for everyone that is here.

Thanks for your time.

Don

What is left? LEADERS OF CHARACTER making hard decisions.

What is Congress doing?

Do the Republican and Democratic candidates for President have plans that are detailed and overlap? Are they realistic, or are they the same old: ask little of us, don't ask us to sacrifice, allow us to continue to live the fantasy of strip malls, unlimited gasoline, and suburbs beyond the horizon (don't worry, food will come from the Arctic or somewhere long away hauled by big trucks).

What are "We the People," citizens of this great country doing?

We keep talking about peak oil, mortgage meltdown, drug wars along our Southern borders, overpopulation, as well as the rise of 4th Generation Warfare. I believe right now our nation, which I love dearly (I consider the U.S. Constitution one of the greatest documents), is facing its greatest crisis in a series of catastrophic problems, that cannot wait to be addressed any longer. But what has anyone done so far about our energy crisis? NOTHING. There is a lot of debate about everything, but no moral courage to do anything that requires taking a risk to one's career and begin leading. Oh, we don't want to piss anyone off.

What I don't see on the blogs are many recommendations to how get out of these catastrophic problems. In my opinion, doing as is, that is "drill, drill and drill" according to Senator John "I know how to win wars" McCain, are mere fantasies. Senator Barrak "Jetsetter" Obama meets with the very "experts" that got us in this mess. We need some true leaders to stand up and lead us in the right direction. They are going to tell us things that make us uncomfortable, make us squirm, make us mad, but if they lead by example, I believe most of us will accept their proposals to make the future better for all of us, to provide us options, that will not exist if we continue down the destructive path we are on now.

The greatest problem we have is LEADERSHIP.  I keep asking "where have all the leaders gone?" It is up to "We the People" to push aside the "Cheerleaders," and get some leaders of character. Right now, this time around, I don't see it, not in our two party, closed political system. Plus, it is funny how Congress has the lowest ratings in history, but I bet not very many Senators or Congressmen lose their jobs in this or any other near term election (Well I hope the likes of Congressman Ron Paul keeps their job. I consider him one of the few strategic leaders this nation has, as well as one media person doing their job, Mr. Lou Dobbs on CNN).

But, if I had my way, this is what I would pursue objectives or aiming points (taking a generation to get too, doing it too fast may do more harm than good),

1. Rebuild the passenger rail system (and public transit at all scales) with electrification (run off alternative energy as it comes on line)
2. Reinhabit our small cities and small towns, while decanting the suburbs and our supersized metroplexes
3. Grow much more of our food locally around these places, regain our bulldozed farmland in the east coast areas that were once suburbs and strip malls
4. Rebuild local networks of retail and wholesale trade
5. Prepare to resume manufacturing at smaller scales
6. Raise interest rates to reward savings (I sent out a great financial  study a couple of months ago by a guy from St. Louis University).
7. Do not waste alternative energy production on automobile use (encourage everything from walking, biking, trolleys, etc...)
8. Encourage and sponsor a Manhattan Project for alternative energy (knock down the regs and special interest groups blockages)
9. Start investing heavily in nuclear energy (need to start building plants now-look at France, 80% nuclear)
10. Stop encouraging overpopulation, no tax breaks for more than two children (anyone listen to the Diane Rehm show with Paul Ehrlich: "The Dominant Animal" (Island Press) Paul Ehrlick warned of a looming ecological crisis in his1968 best-selling book, "The Population Bomb." Also, whenever we send food aide, we send family planning as well. As one person noted six months ago "can't feed don't breed."
11. Enforce the immigration laws on the books as they are now (also look at France for not enforcing any laws at all and not immersing immigrants into their population, as is occurring here with Latinos). We need to stop acting as the "spillover pond" for the rest of the 3rd World. They need to start being responsible.
12. Cut the size of the Federal government by 50% including the defense budget

Just for your information, I am of neither party. I believe both parties are one in the same--all interested in preserving the status quo of power.

Okay, blast away at me; but at least recommend something better if your are going to criticize what I propose. If you like these points, please email them to decision makers.
Take Care,
Don

Humans can be said to behave in the same way. When children are born, they know no limits. They feel that they are able to do anything whenever they want and whatever they want. This is because they know that they are able to. However, as they grow up, society begins to impose its values on them, telling them that there are some things that they are not able to do. These children began to adapt to societal expectations and behave accordingly. While society may be more comfortable with such arrangements, there are adverse consequences for these children: it destroys their dreams. Adaptability often leads to conformity. And conformity destroys individualism, which is a key factor in ensuring societal progress. As can be seen from the example on the grasshoppers above, it only takes a crisis to move people out of their comfort zones (which are often too late).

At this juncture, it will be safe to say that humans should be adaptable to change. That is, they should be prepared to move out of their comfort zones and adapt to the new environment, which is true. Most literature in the market has advocated us to move out of their comfort zones. This encouragement is well justified since change may well be the only constant in this world. However, what the books didn't emphasis is that moving out of our comfort zones too quickly or at a wrong time will plunge us all into an abyss, and this is not exactly a desired outcome that we want. In another words, being unable to adapt to changes and moving out of our comfort zones at a wrong time or too quickly are equally bad.

When we do not move out of our comfort zones, we stagnate (which is never a good thing). When we do not read more books to enrich ourselves, we lose the opportunity to learn and update ourselves with the happenings in the world. When our leisure hours start to increase, the world has lost another individual whose valuable contributions to society will have benefited many. When we hold back our input during discussion sessions, our team might lose some valuable feedback but more importantly, we will have an increased tendency not to think critically over time. 

However, when we move out of our comfort zones often (as is often encouraged by the media), we run the risk of being unstable. While the media has warned us about being too comfortable or complacent within our comfort zones, there are times when staying within our comfort zones is a valid and - more often than not- better option. For example, a loving couple is able stay in lifelong marital bliss simply because they have chosen to remain in their comfort zone. This is especially so for developed countries who is facing an onset of globalisation. With an increase in choices and expectations, many of us in developed countries will probably have the option of not hanging on to our old possessions, not to mention relationships. This might probably explain the increase in the divorce rates and the short life-span of recent marriages. Therefore, while there are some of us who feel that minimal or no effort is required for us to stay in our comfort zones, the abovementioned examples proved that this is untrue.  Coupled with the erosion of traditional values such as respect and commitment, there are fewer individuals around who will make an effort to invest in relationships, which are becoming more fleeting by the day. Therefore, staying in our comfort zones required (at times immense) effort. Fortunately, there are still many of us who believes in putting effort to stay in the comfort zones, especially when it comes to establishing and nurturing positive relationships instead of developing more superficial ones, as this is the right thing to do.

There's a misconception among some of us that much more effort is required to move out of our current comfort zones but in reality, I believe that an equal amount of effort is required to stay and move out of our comfort zones.

Having said this, what is the best thing to do? Adapt to changing circumstances or remain in our comfort zones?  While we have often been persuaded to move out of our comfort zones, I feel that the most important factor is the ability to understand and analyse a situation well before deciding on our course of actions. When it comes to marriage, staying committed by being in the comfort zone is important. However, when it comes to career advancement, it's reasonable for employees to take measured and calculated risk by moving out of their comfort zones in a bid to further their career.

Seen in this light, our decision to remain or move out of our comfort zones is actually bidirectional. This is unlike what has often been advocated, which is to constantly move out of our comfort zones.  An apt metaphor will be Argentine tango, which is primarily an improvisational dance. An Argentine tango dancer will move according to how his or her partner reacts.  In this instance, we take on the role of the Argentine tango dancer while our partners are our situations and circumstances. When our partner moves closer, we reciprocate. And when they draw away, we do likewise. In this way, we adapt and in the process moves in and out of our comfort zones with ease and comfort.

Personally, I feel that life's like that.

We do not walk through life. We dance through life. We waltz through life. But I feel that the most accurate description is that that we tango through life.

Carpe Diem!

A Methodology for Leading Into the Unknown

The following testimony on Grand Strategy is excellent, and I could not agree with it more. It amazes me that the so called smart people within Washington D.C. with all their resumes and think tanks, cannot figure this one out. In my opinion, we still have time to salvage and put our nation back on course, but the hard part is that it is going to take smart and tough leaders to do it. As I have said before and before, "where have all the leaders gone?"

His testimony is reproduced below:

Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on the future of U. S. grand strategy to members of this committee.

In American practice, grand strategy almost invariably implies conjuring up a response to emerging threats or prospective challenges beyond our borders. The expectation is that an effective grand strategy will provide a framework for employing American power to shape that external environment shape having in recent years become a favorite term within the community of strategists.

These days inhabitants of that community expend considerable energy (and imagination) devising concepts intended to enable the United States to win the Global War on Terrorism, transform the Greater Middle East, or manage the rise of China.

These are honorable, well-intentioned efforts and may, on occasion, actually yield something useful. After all, the grand strategy of Containment, devised in the wake of World War II, did serve as an important touchstone for policies that enabled the United States and its allies to prevail in the Cold War.

Yet there is a second way to approach questions of grand strategy. This alternative approach, which I will employ in my very brief prepared remarks, is one that emphasizes internal conditions as much as external threats.

Here is my bottom line: the strategic imperative that we confront in our time demands first of all that we put our own house in order. Fixing our own problems should take precedence over fixing the world's problems.

The past decade has seen a substantial erosion of U. S. power and influence. This has occurred in part as a result of ill-advised and recklessly implemented policy decisions, the Iraq War not least among them. Yet it has also occurred because of our collective unwillingness to confront serious and persistent domestic dysfunction.

The chief expression of this dysfunction takes the form of debt and dependency. In the not so very distant future these may well pose as great a danger to our well-being as violent Islamic radicalism or a China intent on staking its claim to the status of great power.

To persist in neglecting these internal problems is in effect to endorse and perpetuate the further decline in U. S. power.

Let me illustrate the point with two examples.

Example number one is energy. I hardly need remind members of this committee of the relevant facts. Once the world's number one producer of oil, the United States today possesses a paltry 4% of known global oil reserves while Americans consume one out of every four barrels of worldwide oil production.

President Bush has bemoaned our addiction to foreign oil. He is right to do so. The United States now imports more than 60% of its daily petroleum fix, a figure that will almost surely continue to rise.

The costs of sustaining that addiction are also rising. Since 9/11, the price of oil per barrel has quadrupled. The nation's annual oil bill now tops $700 billion, much of that wealth helping to sustain corrupt and repressive regimes, some of it subsequently diverted to support Islamic radicals who plot against us.

Since the 1970s, Americans have talked endlessly of the need to address this problem. Talk has not produced effective action.

Instead, by tolerating this growing dependence on foreign oil we have allowed ourselves to be drawn ever more deeply into the Persian Gulf, a tendency that culminated in the ongoing Iraq War. That war, now in its sixth year, is costing us an estimated $3 billion per week--a figure that is effectively a surtax added to the oil bill.

Surely, this is a matter that future historians will find baffling: how a great power could recognize the danger posed by energy dependence and then do so little to avert that danger.

Example number two of our domestic dysfunction is fiscal. Again, you are familiar with the essential problem, namely our persistent refusal to live within our means.

When President Bush took office in 2001, the national debt stood at less than $6 trillion. Since then it has increased by more than 50% to $9.5 trillion. When Ronald Reagan became president back in 1981, total debt equaled 31% of GDP. Today, the debt is closing in on 70% of GDP.

This is no longer money we owe ourselves. Increasingly, we borrow from abroad, with 25% of total debt now in foreign hands. Next to Japan, China has become our leading creditor, a fact that ought to give strategists pause.

Given seemingly permanent trade imbalances, projected increases in entitlement programs, and the continuing costs of fighting multiple, open-ended wars, this borrowing will continue and will do so at an accelerating and alarming rate. Our insatiable penchant for consumption and aversion to saving only exacerbate the problem.

Any serious attempt to chart a grand strategy for the United States will need to address this issue, which cannot be done without considerable sacrifice.

Now there are those who would contend that the Bush administration has already formulated a grand strategy, one that will carry us well into the current century. The centerpiece of this strategy is the Global War on Terrorism, in some quarters referred to as the Long War.

In fact, the Long War represents an impediment to sound grand strategy. To persist in the Long War will be to exacerbate the existing trends toward ever greater debt and dependency and it will do so while placing at risk America's overstretched armed forces.

To imagine that a reliance on military power can reverse these trends toward ever increasing debt and dependency would be the height of folly. This is the central lesson that we should take away from period since September 11, 2001.

Shortly after 9/11 then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld framed the strategic problem facing the United States this way. "We have a choice," he said, "either to change the way we live, which is unacceptable, or to change the way that they live; and we chose the latter."

What we have learned since then is that the United States does not possess the capacity to change the way they live, whether they are the people of the Middle East or the entire Islamic world. To persist in seeing U. S. grand strategy as a project aimed at changing the way they live will be to court bankruptcy and exhaustion.

In fact, the choice facing the United States is this one: we can ignore the imperative to change the way we live, in which case we will drown in an ocean of red ink; or we can choose to mend our ways, curbing our profligate inclinations, regaining our freedom of action, and thereby preserving all that we value most.

In the end, how we manage, or mismanage, our affairs here at home will prove to be far more decisive than our efforts to manage events beyond our shores, whether in the Persian Gulf or East Asia or elsewhere.

No, my book is dealing with what type of Soldier and leader we need to deal with the future of warfare.  It also goes beyond that with the type of culture you need to fight 4GW. If the truth hurts, then don't read it. But, if you want hard hitting solutions to what we need to do, then you might enjoy it.  I must admit, that the book is unbiased. The Army is doing some good things in getting its Soldiers and leaders ready for 4GW, but like any large bureaucratic organization belonging to this country, it also has a lot of work to do.

I devote two chapters to the an explaination of 4th Generation Warfare and the theories of John Boyd. I also devote a chapter to our society. This sets the foundation for the other chapters that focus on what transformation really has to be, as well as one on actual recruiting; but I think the hot chapter will be how Soldiers and leaders should be developed called "Training (and Educating) Tomorrow's Soldiers and Leaders."

I got some great ideas from guys in the Asymmetric Warfare Group (AWG) that I have the privilege to work with in my day job. I also talk about the evolution of how my own leader development model, called Adaptive Leader Methodology is used and progressing in the Army.

In reference to my recent "Culture of Incompetence" blog, I have a chapter in my forthcoming book called "U.S. Society's Impact" which talks about how our society has not set the foundation needed to fill the ranks of our units with good Soldiers and leaders. It is taking a lot of hard work by many good leaders right now to get them as ready as they can be.

Jul.14.2008
by dni

On War #266: Viva Colombia!

By William S. Lind
July 14, 2008

The war between the Colombian state and the Marxist FARC is not a Fourth Generation conflict, because it is fought within the framework of the state. The Colombian government seeks to maintain control of the state, while the FARC want to replace it. It’s all about who runs the state, not offering alternatives to the state.

Nonetheless, some lessons for Fourth Generation wars may be drawn, because the way in which the war is fought — a guerilla-style insurgency — similar to many (not all) Fourth Generation conflicts. The recent successful rescue of hostages long held by the FARC is a case in point. It was a brilliant victory for the Colombian government and armed forces, on all levels, including the moral level. What might the U.S. Armed Forces learn from it that they could apply in Iraq, Afghanistan, and (we fear) elsewhere?

Continue Reading »

Here is a transcript of what I talked about (BG Warner focused on the operational and strategic levels of development, and our views parallel and support one another).

Warfare has evolved to the point that the central idea is that small unit leaders in direct contact with the enemy can see and react to situational changes much faster than could the more senior leaders in the rear. This occurs despite the advent of information technology. This technology laid over an Industrial age hierarchal force structure can make it tempting for leaders to micromanage. Thus, the decision cycle slows down. Small unit leaders who were once only concerned with choosing which battle drill now make decisions which have strategic implications.

The Army acknowledges the need for change. The Army has begun an evolution in the way we develop-train, educate, access, promote and select-leaders, specifically how do we evolve adaptability. In the past, the "Competency theory" of learning dominated course curriculums, and there remain signs of it continuing today in leader development. A good example of competency theory is "Leave no child behind." It prescribes what to think and not how to think-"teaching the test." Order and control are central to Programs of Instruction (POIs) that use the "Competency theory" as its foundation.

Leader development for Asymmetric war must be based on quality, not quantity, at every grade level. The rule should be, "Better no officer [leader] than a bad officer [leader]." Schools must constantly put students in difficult, unexpected situations, and then require them to decide and act under time pressure. Schooling must take students out of their "comfort zones." Stress-mental and moral as well as physical-must be constant. War games, tactical decision games, map exercises, and free‑play field exercises must constitute bulk of the curriculum. Drill and ceremonies and adhering to "task, condition and standards" (task proficiency) in name of process are not important. Higher command levels overseeing officers' and NCOs' schools must look for courses adhering to a few principles, while allowing instructors to evolve their lesson plans using innovative teaching techniques and tools to an ever changing environment. Those leaders who successfully pass through the schools must continue to be developed by their commanders; learning cannot stop at the schoolhouse door.

Current research-the work of Dr. Robert Bjork at UCLA (2005)- tells us the most frequent type of decision making for leaders in a time critical environment is recognitional, which requires a large amount of experience. Research also tells us that competence in decision making is solidified by making a large number of decisions in a stressed environment (Vandergriff 2006). Leaders must understand that deciding when and how to close with an enemy may be the least important decision they make on an asymmetric battlefield. Instead, actions that builds and nurture positive relationships with a community, local leaders and children may be the defining factors for success, as well as the primary tools that contain an insurgency, build a nation, or stop genocide. True tactical prowess often entails co-opting the local population's will while shattering the cohesion of Asymmetric adversaries.

Adaptive Leader Methodology (ALM)(known as Adaptive Course Model (ACM) in my book Raising the Bar) is a cultural change rather than a specific set list of exercises. ALM develops adaptability through the Rapid Decision Marking (RDM) process using the experiential learning model through scenario based learning. ALM is a system that promotes self-actualized learning via weakly structured situational problems. Additionally, ALM parallels the latest findings of the academic world in leader and cognitive development. The ALM program of instruction (POI) employs techniques that are "desirable difficulties" as pointed out by Dr. Robert Bjork in his keynote presentation at the TRADOC hosted "Science of Learning Workshop" August 1, 2006. ALM espouses institutionalized inductive reasoning in order to prepare leaders for the complex wars of the future.

The Basic Officer Leader Course (BOLC) II courses at Fort Sill, OK and Fort Benning, GA have been using ALM for the past 18 months. The last six months have intensified as the demand for information on ALM as well as the workshop "Deciding Under Pressure and Fast" that teaches ALM. Since January 2008 trips to brief ALM and conduct the workshop have been to San Diego, CA (Joint Conference on Military Ethics), Fort Huachuca, AZ; Fort Benning, GA; Fort Monroe, VA; Fort Knox, KY and the United States Military Academy (USMA) at West Point, NY. ALM has become institutionalized as Lieutenant General Benjamin C. Freakley, Commander U.S. Army Accessions Command, signed a policy letter, dated 24 April 2008 titled "Basic officer Leader Course (BOLC) Policy and Guidance," mandating ALM certification for BOLC instructors. The Asymmetric Warfare Group (AWG) has also used ALM in its incentives, and it hosted an Adaptability Conference 3-4 June 2008 with Day 1 focusing on ALM's workshop while day 2 focused on Outcome Based training.

With ALM being institutionalized by Accession's Command, and now being used by BOLC II, the Department of Military Instruction (DMI) and Behavioral Science and Leadership (BS&L) courses at USMA, as well the beginning of implementation by several BOLC III and Captains Career courses, requests for the ALM workshop "Deciding Under Pressure and Fast" have increased. DMI at USMA has scheduled a certification of all new instructors in early August, followed by other workshops and lectures at Fort Huachuca, AZ; Fort Leonard Wood, MO, as well as a return to Fort Knox, KY to review and observe the use of ALM in the classroom and in the field.

I just send my submissions to this contest, hopefully I'll win!

The favicon is based on the logo, so it can unleash its power much better when used in connection with the logo, but can also be used on its own as it has the letters “u” and “l” inside, standing for UserLogos(.org).

The Logo itself tries to show the adaptability of UserLogos.org and its users by having different versions, different shapes, different effects (shadow or glow) and different colors.

The items themselves should act as generic logos, trying to represent logos itself without having to be connected with for example Google, Ebay, Wikipedia and so on.

For the case the background is dark, this version should be chosen:

And finally the favicon:

Oh so tiny!

That's it! What do you think? What could I improve?

Don Vandergriff and Fred Leland (LESC) Form Training Alliance & Bring Deciding Under Pressure... and Fast to New England

With scientific discoveries and technological changes being developed so rapidly in our society it is easy to forget the importance of the human mind and how it relates to decision making and conflict, in our rapidly changing world. For a majority of U.S. communities, college campuses and businesses the first line of defense is an Public Safety Force (law enforcement and security officers)- dedicated individuals, often lacking both the resources and the experience required to confront lethal and, seemingly, unpredictable threats. MAJ Don Vandergriff and Law Enforcement & Security Consulting (LESC) is in the position to change that. Don Vandergriff and Fred Leland (LESC) have formed a training alliance to bring this evolutionary method of training to security and law enforcement officers. Deciding Under Pressure...And Fast will better prepare leaders and frontline personnel to mange the information and decision-making process in support of confident, legal and effective policing and security practices. Don and Fred have worked with the military, armed and unarmed security and law enforcement officers to develop their capacity for "in the moment tactical decision making." This formed alliance, both students of the theories of COl John Boyd, teaches individual officers, and team leaders, how to assess, adapt and manage threats to better protect the public and themselves.

Purpose:

Cultural change begins with the application of a new leader development model in place of techniques being used today in both institutions and operational units. A new leader development approach known as the Adaptive Course Model (ACM) is cultural rather than a prescribed list of procedures and exercises. ACM develops adaptability through the use of outstanding teachers who use the experiential learning model to teach rapid decision making (RDM) process. ACM forms the beginning of the next revolution- a revolution in education-that will spur an evolution into a new personnel management system centered on professionalism and flexibility. This course will focus on how to begin the evolution into a new leader paradigm.

Deciding Under Pressure...and Fast will introduce teaching, facilitating, mentoring and evaluation techniques for adaptability that will enable leaders to set conditions allowing students to develop effective decision making skills using Recognition Primed Decision-making (RPD). Testimonials from former cadets serving in Iraq and Afghanistan validate to cadre how well ACM worked. This course will save leaders time by presenting them with results from our experiments after four years of teaching adaptability in potential leaders.

Lesson outline:

The course presents the unknown through a series of games. Don Vandergriff has taught the course to Army, Marines, Navy Seals, Cadets and Businesses more than 30 times. Fred Leland has taught decision making to law enforcement and security practitioners as well they have never taught the same way twice. This is because they practice what they preach. They have formed this training alliance to allow the course to evolve based on input from students and new techniques from various other disciplines such as law enforcement, security and private businesses, as well as new techniques from their studies. This is why Don Vandergriff and Fred Leland have adapted, teamed up to present these valuable techniques to the law enforcement and security professions.

The Course will cover:

• Tools in developing adaptability
• Historical snapshots from Sun Tzu to the present regarding adaptability. Evolution of the roots of maneuver and guerrilla warfare.
• Categories of conflicts: attrition, maneuver, and moral and how they apply to law enforcement and security
• Synthesis: common patterns of how leaders decide and lead-blitzkrieg (conventional) and guerrilla (unconventional): fundamental role of grand strategy

Results

As a result of attending this seminar, participants will be introduced to:

• Cognitive development
• Problem solving skills
• Metacognitive skills
• How to facilitate
• Tools to help teach and develop adaptability
• Scenario based education
• Tactical decision games
• Ethical decision games
• The ability to develop and continue scenario based training program in your organization

The Boyd Cycle: How Air Force Combat Training Applies to Law Enforcement and Security

A key component in much of Deciding Under Pressure...And Fast is the Boyd Cycle, also known as the OODA Loop. The cycle consists of a tactical decision making process which, when understood and utilized properly, improves response times, confidence and resolve. Through development of the power of observation, orientation, decision and action (OODA) and the implementation of these individual processes in a repetitive cycle, officers improve their ability to correctly assess threats and the reaction time needed to deal with them.

COL John Boyd

The Boyd Cycle is named for COL John Boyd the legendary USAF fighter pilot and creator of the most revolutionary combat strategy since Sun Tzu. Boyd wrote the first manual on Jet Aerial Combat (Aerial Attack Study). He is widely regarded as th father of the F15 and F16, having influenced the tactical requirements for both fighter. Boyd's famous OODA loop is taught at the USAF, USMC, US Army, Federal/State/Local police department, security firms and businesses.

Instructors

Major Donal E. Vandergriff, who has been called "the most influential major in the U.S. Army," is an award winning teacher, writer and lecturer who specializes in leadership education and training. in the United States and all over the world, he has served in numerous troop, staff and educational assignments, retiring in 2005 after 24 years of active duty as and enlisted Marine and Army officer. Major Vandergriff has extensive experience commanding troops, first in Korea, then at the National Training Center, and two tours in the Middle East.

Major Vandergriff has extensive experience commanding troops, first in Korea, then at the National Training Center, and in two command tours in the Middle East. His units won numerous awards under his leadership. In March 1998, he was selected to teach ROTC at Duke University, followed by appointment to the Georgetown University ROTC Department in 1999-2005. He has also served on several special panels dealing with leadership in the post-Soviet era, including the Army Chief of Staff's task force on transformational issues and the Vice Chief of Staff's Objective Force Task Force. His study on the operations of the US-led coalition that entered Baghdad in 2003 was widely briefed inside the Army and eventually covered by the civilian media.

As an educator, he taught military science in the Military Science Department and leadership in the Executive Masters in Leadership (EML) program at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University. He also was a professor at the American Military University.

"My goal is to show organizations how to build and nurture adaptability, deal with leader development and personnel management and build and sustain a learning organization."

Fred Leland, is an active Lieutenant, with the Walpole PD and a former United States Marine. He is an accomplished and accredited trainer with more than 28 years experience teaching Law Enforcement, and security professionals. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy Class 216, where he specialized in terrorism related topics, leadership and management. He is currently an instructor for the Massachusetts Municipal Police Training Committee where he teaches decision making, use of force, terrorism, leadership and incident command to veteran law enforcement officers. His specialties are handling dynamic encounters, threat assessment, use of force, and decision making.

Fred is a student of the late modern day Strategist COL John Boyd and the Ancient Strategist Sun Tzu. He founded Law Enforcement and Security Consulting, Inc (LESC) in 2006 with the focus of bringing these principles to law enforcement and security. A key component in much of LESC Training is the Boyd Cycle, also known as the OODA Loop. The cycle consist of a tactical decision making process which, when understood and utilized properly, improves response times, confidence and resolve. Through development of powers of observation, orientation, decision and action (OODA) and the implementation of these individual processes in a repetitive cycle, officers improve both their ability to correctly assess threats and the reaction time needed to deal with them. LESC is a licensed trainer through the Science of Strategy Institute which focuses on bring these time tested and proved methods to, businesses looking to improve their overall organizational performance.

"My philosophy and that of Law Enforcement and Security Consulting is teaching the strategy and tactics essential to detecting, avoiding, defusing and resolving conflict to leadership and frontline personnel of law enforcement and security."

Reaching Our Goals is About Evolutionary Adaptability

A culture of innovation is typified by an environment within which every single person in the organization is invested in the organization's success and feels responsibility to implement new and better ways to achieve organizational objectives. people are encouraged to try alternative paths, test ideas to the point of failure, and learn from experience. Experimentation and prudent risk-taking are admired and encouraged. experimentation is not a destination to be reached, but an unending process of trial, feedback, learning, renewal and experimentation again. The organization as a whole is agile, ready to learn, continually changing and improving. it is fast, flexible and never prepared to sat: We have finished getting better." Innovative organizations depend less on forecasting, planning and control and more on scanning, agility and feedback. Innovative organizations embrace uncertainty, recognizing that an uncertain future potentially holds as many opportunities as it does threats. ~Brig. GEN David Fastabend and Robert Simpson define in the article "Adapt of Die:" Excerpt from the book, Raising the Bar: by Don Vandergriff.

Where: Taunton Holiday Inn
700 Myles Standish Blvd
Taunton, MA 02780

Date: Tuesday October 14th 2008 (8:30AM-4:30PM)

Contact: Law Enforcement & Security Consulting, INC, Fred Leland fred@lesc.net or phone #508-298-2023 or Don Vandergriff at www.donvandergriff.com

Cost: $250.00 per person

Continental breakfast and lunch will be served.

We keep electing the same "cheerleaders."

I love to read Fabius Maximus's web pages (linked on my blog page) because he retains a sense of balance while providing recommendations on how to fix them.  Today, at no time in the history of mankind, does the data exist providing answers to how to fix many if not most of the world's problems, particularly in relation to our nation. Yet, at the same time, mankind for all its declaration of being the most intelligent beings on this planet, appear to be the most stupid.

We know what is going to happen, it has already occurred in the 1973 oil embargo or as CNN titles it documentary on what happens if gasoline runs out "We were warned" we can imagine through well factual presentation.

Our country in which I love, but want to argue with, is facing major crisises not in the future, but now. At no other time in our history, not even during the Civil War, World War II or the Great Depression have we faced problems that will destroy our great nation.

The good part, is that they are fixable now with some sacrifices. The sad fact is, there is no leadership to lead us to and through fixing them. Instead we will continue to react after the fact to disasters, and then it will be too late.  Adaptation of a culture must occur as an evolution over generations to be most effective. The U.S. has a history of reacting and fixing a problem after something disastrous has occurred. The problems are now becoming too large to react too and fix later.

We don't have the agility or will to do that, and must make the choices now. One of my greatest fears is the fiscal catastrophes we are now facing going unsolved due to hurbris, greed, lack of leadership, and plain stupidity.  We have been convinced by decades of politicians, starting with Ronald Reagan that we can be as the song says "Be happy, don't worry" in regards about living today and not worrying about the future.  But, Presidents afterward, and of course the people that voted for them, have ignored the problem. Maybe the problem will go away if I ignore it?

"I don't think so baby!"

There is small hope.

I have linked a great paper, the best I have seen on the issue by Laurence J. kotlikoff called "Is the United States Bankrupt?"  Dr. Kotlikoff details the problem well, but he also recommends workable solutions; which I have long believed are the best solutions and fairest to us all. The problem is, it is going to take strong leadership to point and lead the way. And right now, the majority of our fellow citizens are voting for either Republican candidate Senator John McCain or Democratic candidate Senator Barrack Obama, neither of which as addressed this issue at all.

"Maybe if I don't talk about or address the people want mind?" I guess this strategy works if you want to get elected to political office.

Only Libertarian candidate Bob Barr has offered similiar solutions as presented below in the paper.  Of course, it is projected he will only get 3% of the total vote in November. 

People love living in a fantasy.

Please read Dr. Kotlikoff's article, and if you believe, put pressure on your representative to start doing something.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/07/Kotlikoff.pdf

News is only bad if one does not want to make the necessary changes to solve it.

Don

A great teacher is a leader, a mentor, someone who encourages life-long learning. A teacher's objective is to make their students better than they are. A teacher does not have an ego, but has pride in putting out the best students, but pride does not prevent the assimilation of better ideas, whatever it takes to give the best to their students.

The greatest compliment a teacher can receive is years later when hearing from a former student that says "thanks, you prepared me for...and you made a difference in my life." A good teacher may not even get great evaluations during or right after the conclusion of their course. As a matter of fact, they may come under criticism, especially in today's environment where answers are always given and immediate results are sought, from students because the teacher is forcing them to think and discover.

The great teacher will always bend the rules, does not need supervision, objectives, purpose or strict lesson plans, the last thing they need is an inspection to critique their teaching methods and progress. They are likely a pain in the ass to bureaucratic administrators and supervisors because they cannot (or will not) be controlled through lesson plans and schedules. Anyway, when visitors come to observe, they have a hard time grasping what the teacher is doing to their students. They want to see someone lecturing on the platform.

A couple of people come to mind: my ROTC instructor Major Stanley Piet and my father Virgil Vandergriff.

One of my role models was Major Stanley Piet (now retired Lieutenant Colonel). "Major Piet" (and at our ROTC reunion two years ago, at age 61 "Major Piet" attended and got the same respect as when we were cadets-he still does Iron Man competitions) was [is] a hard man, formal, technically and tactically proficient, maintained high but obtainable standards, and was physically fit-at the same time, he was adaptive always innovative out of the norm on how he taught, and what he taught.

In his three years from 1981-1983 as Military Science Instructor for the juniors or Military Science IIIs at the University of Tennessee, the program won the Warrior of the Pacific Trophy two of those three years for the top program (based on the MS III performance at then called Advanced Camp). The program recognized him for this achievement as well.

First, Major Piet expected high but realistic standards out of us. We were going and striving to be lieutenants in the United States Army, and to him we had to be confident and competent.  He wanted no lost lieutenants with a map who were the centerpiece of jokes in units coming from his program.

What do I mean by "high but realistic standards"? While we were writing Operations Orders, or in the field doing free play force on force exercises (he was doing it before anyone really did it), you thought there is no way we can do this? But, it made you study harder, and when he mentored you one on one in his office over an operations order test, he did not give you any slack at all. But, as long as you showed improvement and put in a 100 percent, you got through it. But, the experience was implanted in you to constantly seek doing better than the standard.

When we did physical training, he would run with you, and expect you to beat him on long individual runs. When we did tactical exercises, he wanted to see initiative and decisiveness vice risk aversion. His approach was if you built competence in the grammar of the profession of arms, then you would have the confidence to be adaptive. Grammar is defined as communication (writing and presenting orders), battle drills, land navigation and physical fitness.

Major Piet was also a believer in a meritrocracy. There was no getting by in anything you did in his course. He gave out few As and many Fs. I remember the class size in September of 1981 starting at around 60 something MS IIIs and by the time we attended Summer training in June of 1982, it was down to 30 people. After each quarter (UT had three quarters), he would post one through last ranking by our class room door. This fact made us proud that we had accomplished something.

At the same time we competited with each other, Major Piet constantly stressed selfless service and team work. We had to help each other when in follower roles to make it through his year. In our recent reunion, 23 years after our commissioning, the bonds are still strong.  It validated in our minds that you could have face to face ethical competition and still embody the value of selfish service. Major Piet did this through the discussion of cohesion and followship, minimizing the impact of "Spot light Rangers."

From the first day of class, Major Pietput us through exercises that challenged us, that were at levels others would say was too hard for cadets to do, who showed you the answers after you played with the exercise, and would not say you were wrong, but that you could do better. Compliments were few and far between.

Another example of a great teacher was my father, Virgil Vandergriff. I did not totally understand until I reached my 40thyear, and then even more so after his death in July 2005.

My father began the foundation that Major Pietsolidified.  "Once you started something don't quit," he would tell me. "Do the best you can, just finish everything you begin and put in a 100%." My father was even more sparing with compliments than was Major Piet, which just made me work harder. Just stands in stark contrast to today's society where we give awards for even just finishing, and everyone is now termed a "professional."

My father always emphasized the truth.  Telling the truth was always better than lying, no matter the consequences. "If you don't know the truth, you cannot fix it," he would say (boy our politicians today could use that dose of honesty). Along with this maxim was his belief in a person's word, "once you give your word to do something, you are committed."  This was in everything you did, from showing up on time to following up with people to make sure your committment or obligation was fulfilled. "If you have doubt, don't commit to something."

As a teacher, I held my students to these same standards.

You get what you get.

First of all, anyone who wants a great team, be it a unit, course or non-military organization wants great people.  Successful firms go out of their way to recruit the right people. But, the military personnel system, while trying somewhat to fit round pegs into round holes, usually gives you what they can, particularly today under the conditions of constant deployments.

Today's personnel system operates on out of date assumptions established in the Industrial Age, guided by such laws as the up or out promotion system created prior to World War II and institutionalized right after World War II.  It is also based on assumptions used in the Progressive era and the rise of trade unions to manage people, all pointing to the theories of the great industrial management guru Frederick Taylor (foundation for Henry Ford's assembly line).

So, courses everywhere find that they have an instructor pool that has varying talents, ranging from very good to poor--some of their instructors are task oriented, some are people oriented, some are innovators, but most are bound by their own experiences with "that is how we did things."

And now, you want to complicate things by adding a better way to impart learning on your students and get away from the turn key methods you have been using?

Whenever I teach, present and run one of my workshops, the people I talk to by large say "We get what you are saying, and we believe it is better." But then there is the excuse, "I don't have the instructors that it takes to do your adaptive leader stuff you talk about." (this quote came from a serving Army officer, a commander).

When Lieutenant Colonel Allen Gill, the former Professional of Military Science (the boss) and I were at Georgetown Army ROTC, did we get to handpick the cadre the Army gave us?

Al recently asked me about how my workshops were going, and I told him about the common thread of the excuse mentioned above. He immediately told me "do they think I got to handpick my instructors? No I did not."

So, what do all you aspiring leaders do out there to get the right instructors that can teach in an ALM inspired course?

Recently at my workshop, a Command Sergeant Major provided the answer, "it is our responsibility to develop our leaders [instructors], we have come to rely too much on TRADOC and the school system to do this." The same goes for courses, they must certify their instructors in how to use the methods outlined in the Adaptive Leader Methodology (ALM), and for all it is worth, non-military organizations must also develop internal courses to develop their leadership because ALM is also very compatible with the business world as well (at least according to several business and leadership professors I know).

These courses must consist of more than doing dumbing down material that prepares its students to "cover your ass" with a coverage of regulations, policies, etc...as well as how to look good on the platform, how to use power point, how to prepare a visitors book. The focus of all the certification course I have reviewed is on how to prepare a teacher to instruct using the competency model (think of leave no child behind or training to take the test). Surprisingly, very little time is spent on "how to teach" using emerging innovative approaches and tools.

ALM is all about techniques, how to teach and what tools to employ at the appriopriate time to develop adaptability in your students, Soldiers or employees. It is about how to challenge students to seek more answers. ALM is about encouraging life long learning. These are covered in detail in my book Raising the Bar: Developing and Nurturing Adaptability to Deal with the Changing Face of War, so I will not go into detail here.

The answer to this question is you can figure it out (because the material is available to provide examples). You take the initiative to develop an internal instructor course to make your entire cadre (or leaders) better. 

Contact me and I can help.

Next, what makes a good teacher?