The trouble with writing this post is that there are so many choices. I have to weigh various ideas and ask myself 'is this just good to know, or is it critical to our understanding of national security?'
There's a lot out there that is just good to know, particularly with regards to game theory, negotiation, nationalism, economics, technological change, and more.
The first point I want to make, or remake (as I can't emphasize this enough) is that everything is situationally dependent. Getting a clear-eyed view of the situation is over half the problem, especially since there are so many reasons to obscure or hide what's going on.
That said, getting that clear eyed view is a bit like qualitative analysis. That is - quantitative analysis seems solid and reassuring, since it's based on numbers and facts. Find a good sample size, conduct a poll, run some analysis on the results. Maybe get a standard deviation, or regression analysis, or something.
Qualitative analysis can be different. It involves in depth interviews with small groups of people. Yet it's important, as well, because sometimes how we frame the situation determines what we find. You can't create a poll and run statistical analysis if you don't know what questions to ask in the first place, or how to explain a correlation in your findings. Qualitative analysis, then, ideally involves an open-minded and in depth inquiry into a particular situation...which allows you to develop some sort of framework as to what factors are involved, how and why.
Qualitative studies work hand in hand with quantitative, since once you have a theory about what's going on you can create your quantitative studies and do some research to validate your framework. See if the correlations match what you predicted, etc.
In order to get a clear eyed understanding for a national strategy, you have to know what questions to ask in the first place, and how to interpret the answers. (This is why I'm going into those underlying assumptions in more depth.)
Underlying assumptions can encompass anything. Optimist or pessimist? Cooperation or competition? Do we live in a world where every nation is out for itself, or is there room for common ground? Zero sum game, or the opportunity for a win-win?
These things seem very basic, almost not worth mentioning. Yet consider water rights.
When I was in Helmand province, water was a big issue. People who lived upriver could use water freely, and grow crops that required plenty of irrigation. Those downriver, on the other hand, were left to make do with water that was more scarce and sometimes even salty. This limited what crops can grow profitably. (Opium, btw, grows in these conditions well enough that finding an economically comparable alternative for farmers is difficult. Especially since there was apparently a new strain established that used even less water.)
I talked to a hydrologist about the situation, and he insisted that there was enough water for everyone - it's just that everyone had to agree on how to use that water. This is where underlying assumptions come into play. If you think cooperation is possible, if you think other people would abide by an agreement, then it makes sense to get together and negotiate how you're going to use that water.
If, on the other hand, you think agreement is impossible, that everyone is selfish, and that everyone is going to ignore the agreement and get as much water as they can regardless...then there's no point negotiating anything. Get what water you can get, while the getting is good. (This also ties in with game theory, and social dilemmas. Understand that game theory is often based on artificial environments where students or other subjects are asked to respond to various scenarios. It's an interesting field that raises good points about how we actually interact, but be careful about how you apply those findings to the real world.)
So anyways. Applying this to national security - if you think we're capable of creating, implementing, and enforcing an agreement then you will think one way. If, on the other hand, you think it's impossible...you'll choose a completely different set of options. (Consider how this applies to the recent nuclear treaty with Iran).
What I'm personally most interested in, btw, is how you change from one view to another. Or rather, from distrust and opposition to cooperation...the other direction happens all too easily on it's own.
That is, if the hydrologist in Helmand was right and there was plenty of water (if everyone worked together) then how do you convince people to cooperate and support such an agreement? Particularly when their own history and experience shows that such agreement is unlikely?
There's a lot out there that is just good to know, particularly with regards to game theory, negotiation, nationalism, economics, technological change, and more.
The first point I want to make, or remake (as I can't emphasize this enough) is that everything is situationally dependent. Getting a clear-eyed view of the situation is over half the problem, especially since there are so many reasons to obscure or hide what's going on.
That said, getting that clear eyed view is a bit like qualitative analysis. That is - quantitative analysis seems solid and reassuring, since it's based on numbers and facts. Find a good sample size, conduct a poll, run some analysis on the results. Maybe get a standard deviation, or regression analysis, or something.
Qualitative analysis can be different. It involves in depth interviews with small groups of people. Yet it's important, as well, because sometimes how we frame the situation determines what we find. You can't create a poll and run statistical analysis if you don't know what questions to ask in the first place, or how to explain a correlation in your findings. Qualitative analysis, then, ideally involves an open-minded and in depth inquiry into a particular situation...which allows you to develop some sort of framework as to what factors are involved, how and why.
Qualitative studies work hand in hand with quantitative, since once you have a theory about what's going on you can create your quantitative studies and do some research to validate your framework. See if the correlations match what you predicted, etc.
In order to get a clear eyed understanding for a national strategy, you have to know what questions to ask in the first place, and how to interpret the answers. (This is why I'm going into those underlying assumptions in more depth.)
Underlying assumptions can encompass anything. Optimist or pessimist? Cooperation or competition? Do we live in a world where every nation is out for itself, or is there room for common ground? Zero sum game, or the opportunity for a win-win?
These things seem very basic, almost not worth mentioning. Yet consider water rights.
When I was in Helmand province, water was a big issue. People who lived upriver could use water freely, and grow crops that required plenty of irrigation. Those downriver, on the other hand, were left to make do with water that was more scarce and sometimes even salty. This limited what crops can grow profitably. (Opium, btw, grows in these conditions well enough that finding an economically comparable alternative for farmers is difficult. Especially since there was apparently a new strain established that used even less water.)
I talked to a hydrologist about the situation, and he insisted that there was enough water for everyone - it's just that everyone had to agree on how to use that water. This is where underlying assumptions come into play. If you think cooperation is possible, if you think other people would abide by an agreement, then it makes sense to get together and negotiate how you're going to use that water.
If, on the other hand, you think agreement is impossible, that everyone is selfish, and that everyone is going to ignore the agreement and get as much water as they can regardless...then there's no point negotiating anything. Get what water you can get, while the getting is good. (This also ties in with game theory, and social dilemmas. Understand that game theory is often based on artificial environments where students or other subjects are asked to respond to various scenarios. It's an interesting field that raises good points about how we actually interact, but be careful about how you apply those findings to the real world.)
So anyways. Applying this to national security - if you think we're capable of creating, implementing, and enforcing an agreement then you will think one way. If, on the other hand, you think it's impossible...you'll choose a completely different set of options. (Consider how this applies to the recent nuclear treaty with Iran).
What I'm personally most interested in, btw, is how you change from one view to another. Or rather, from distrust and opposition to cooperation...the other direction happens all too easily on it's own.
That is, if the hydrologist in Helmand was right and there was plenty of water (if everyone worked together) then how do you convince people to cooperate and support such an agreement? Particularly when their own history and experience shows that such agreement is unlikely?
No comments:
Post a Comment