• Behavioural Conflict by Andrew Mackay & Steve Tatham

      General Sir Rupert Smith, Martin Bell, untallguy: what a lineup and not one you are going to see on a regular basis. We’re not on each other’s Christmas card lists nor do we play Sunday League football together. What we do have in common is a very high regard for Behavioural Conflict – if you think that you may be going on operations between now and, say, 2050, read this book. If you wish to become a better professional member of the Armed Forces, read this book. In short, read the book – now.

      The authors, Major General Andrew Mackay and Commander Steve Tatham, have subtitled their book, Why Understanding People and Their Motivations Will Prove Decisive in Future Conflict and this neatly encapsulates the main drive of the book: that Influence will be a key factor in future operations and that we, the British Armed Forces, do not do it well and that we need to do it better. Seeing what I see in my current appointment, I agree wholeheartedly with the authors.

      In my opinion, the strongest point made is that we do not fully understand Influence because we do not fully understand the peoples amongst whom we fight. The authors’ argument is that Influence is something tacked on to kinetic operations and that it should, perhaps, be the other way round – that operations should be Influence-driven and that kinetic activities are one of the functions within it. Given that I was always taught that manoeuvre warfare, irrespective of environment, was all about affecting the enemies’ will, and that we need the non-belligerents in the battlespace to favour us, this makes eminent sense. In order to be able to achieve this Influence-driven capability, we need to improve our capabilities by being better educated and trained and conduct better targeting and measurement of Influence effects.

      Linked to this was the notion that it is not the attitude of the people that we need to change in the short-term, it is their behaviour. In the short-term, we do not need the people (or our prospective enemies) to like us; we need them to change their behaviour towards us – eg not shoot at us, not lay IEDs, not provide money to insurgents. The change in attitude towards us can be done in slower time - the current British approach is, arguably, to try and change attitudes.

      The authors take evidence and thought processes from a number of non-military disciplines and I will freely admit that I had to re-read some passages of the book to make sure that I understood what was being said and that I followed the train of thought of the authors. This is not to infer that the book is overly complex or that I am lacking in brains (although one or two of my reporting officers over the years may have a different view). It is just that I had not been fully exposed to some of the arguments that were being put forward and that I was unfamiliar with some of the psychological theories behind them. Ultimately, it makes a lot of sense and, in a lot of areas, could be implemented cheaply and effectively, given a cultural shift in the Armed Forces.

      To conclude, this is a cracking book. Irrespective of what you do in the Armed Forces, I recommend strongly that you read it. The ideas and proposals are not necessarily correct, as the authors readily admit, but they will inspire thought and debate and improve you as a soldier, sailor or airmen.

      Five Mr Mushroomheads

      untallguy



      Click here to buy from Amazon
      Comments 119 Comments
      1. Ronayne's Avatar
        Ronayne -
        Interesting to look at the posts here.

        Seems like there is little truth. Maybe I'm wrong.

        Simple thinking; as has been understood to many 100's or years. We are an army!

        Our job is to protect out nation, directed by our political executive. Save for one occasion! ... and even that is questionable! .. albeit almost 450 years ago.
      1. alfred_the_great's Avatar
        alfred_the_great -
        On the World at One now, BBC R4.
      1. Stonker's Avatar
        Stonker -
        Quote Originally Posted by alfred_the_great View Post
        On the World at One now, BBC R4.
        That will be available for download ( podcast ) in about an hour from now:
        BBC - Podcasts - Radio 4

        Download now available, see link below. Right click and 'save as' to download, left-click to listen online.
        http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/...0120-1300a.mp3
        Available for 1 week from today.
      1. Bubbles_Barker's Avatar
        Bubbles_Barker -
        Quote Originally Posted by Stonker View Post
        Please God.

        It's long overdue.

        And I've been told before (by people better placed than you) that massive change was in the offing

        And been disappointed.

        Don't get me wrong: just understand that changing the Brit Army's way of thinking doesn't take a fortnight.

        There's 300 years of habit to be overturned, and two world wars weren't enough to do that.
        Stonker loves being the lone voice of reason - it's something we learned at school. Change takes time, in the British Army it takes an inordinate amount of time, but it gets there in the end (fingers, toes, arms, legs, eyes crossed).

        Unless you're talking about logistics of course - if you think we kiss off influence.................
      1. Stonker's Avatar
        Stonker -
        Quote Originally Posted by alfred_the_great View Post
        On the World at One now, BBC R4.
        Listened to it this afternoon.

        Am I alone (again, Bubbles ?) in thinking there's something ironic about how the MoD Strat Comms Ninjas, when invited to respond to a challenge based in large measure on their primitive ability to function effectively in an age of ubiquitous media coverage, simply issued the Beeb with a written statement? ( bunch of )
      1. alfred_the_great's Avatar
        alfred_the_great -
        Quote Originally Posted by Stonker View Post
        Listened to it this afternoon.

        Am I alone (again, Bubbles ?) in thinking there's something ironic about how the MoD Strat Comms Ninjas, when invited to respond to a challenge based in large measure on their primitive ability to function effectively in an age of ubiquitous media coverage, simply issued the Beeb with a written statement? ( bunch of )
        Probably because Cdr Steve is the MoD's main Strat Comm man!
      1. Caecilius's Avatar
        Caecilius -
        Quote Originally Posted by alfred_the_great View Post
        That might be true, but having seen the RN's output from the last two ACSCs, I would submit it's business as usual.
        You should have been at the talk given by Sir Simon Gass at RUSI last week. The talk itself was pretty bland, but the nature of the 'off the record' questions from very senior (star rank) army officers definitely showed a trend towards thinking about how we can better manage the political-military interface next time we are involved in a similar conflict. Overall, the Q&A session would have been very encouraging to anyone who thinks that the Army is struggling to adapt intellectually to modern conflict.
      1. Stonker's Avatar
        Stonker -
        Quote Originally Posted by Caecilius View Post
        You should have been at the talk given by Sir Simon Gass at RUSI last week. The talk itself was pretty bland, but the nature of the 'off the record' questions from very senior (star rank) army officers definitely showed a trend towards thinking about how we can better manage the political-military interface next time we are involved in a similar conflict. Overall, the Q&A session would have been very encouraging to anyone who thinks that the Army is struggling to adapt intellectually to modern conflict.
        Not necesarily.

        It is equally (if not more) likely that this is just "flavour of the month" enthusiasm: a fad.

        A trend (as opposed to a fad) can only become evident over time, and needs to be evidenced - if it occurs - by objectively demonstrable changes in the way things are done, and - more importantly - by success as a result of doing.

        As a f'rinstance, there was a time - over half a decade, in fact - when Mission Command was all the rage. It was discussed with enthusiasm (but without much grasp of the problem associated with adoption) by anyone and everyone who fnacied they were on the way up.

        According to doctrine, it was successfully implemented, more or less overnight, in 1989, yet any objective measures would show you that nothing much has changed (at least not for the better), and there is compelling evidence to indicate that the Army's C2 performance in GW2 was actually slower and less responsive than it was in the early 80s.

        You might also ask - quite reasonably - what happened to all those lessons we might have learned and absorbed into doctrine, from all the post-imperial conflicts since the withdrawal from East of Suez began? There ain't much sign of any of that having been incorporated into Brit ops in the last (say) 8 years, despite Kitson's Bunch Of Five or sundry other fashionable-at-the time works of military thought.

        Wishful thinking does nothing to move things forward (or, in old money, "One swallow doesn't make a summer")
      1. alfred_the_great's Avatar
        alfred_the_great -
        Quote Originally Posted by Caecilius View Post
        You should have been at the talk given by Sir Simon Gass at RUSI last week. The talk itself was pretty bland, but the nature of the 'off the record' questions from very senior (star rank) army officers definitely showed a trend towards thinking about how we can better manage the political-military interface next time we are involved in a similar conflict. Overall, the Q&A session would have been very encouraging to anyone who thinks that the Army is struggling to adapt intellectually to modern conflict.
        Much love to the British Army, but I'm more concerned with the RN. Let me, guess, zero to nil Dark Blue representation at this talk or Q&A session?
      1. Caecilius's Avatar
        Caecilius -
        Quote Originally Posted by alfred_the_great View Post
        Much love to the British Army, but I'm more concerned with the RN. Let me, guess, zero to nil Dark Blue representation at this talk or Q&A session?
        The MA to the Special Representative for Afghanistan (he's a Commander) was there, but otherwise no.
      1. One_of_the_strange's Avatar
        One_of_the_strange -
        Quote Originally Posted by Caecilius View Post
        You should have been at the talk given by Sir Simon Gass at RUSI last week. The talk itself was pretty bland, but the nature of the 'off the record' questions from very senior (star rank) army officers definitely showed a trend towards thinking about how we can better manage the political-military interface next time we are involved in a similar conflict. Overall, the Q&A session would have been very encouraging to anyone who thinks that the Army is struggling to adapt intellectually to modern conflict.

        Well, the cynic in me says that the real way to handle a pointless, futile conflict is not to turn up. Not refight the last war next time we go anywhere.

        My take is that today politicians have a view that the UK military should have handled the "political-military" interface by telling Blair what a fucking stupid idea it was. I think they also would have expected military strategy to go beyond "crack on chaps" and to have commanders complaining about what a mess it was before they retire and write their memoirs.

        Until the Army takes that on board - and it is a hard, hard thing to do to accept that most of your career has been spent on largely pointless wastes of blood and treasure - nothing that matters will change.
      1. alfred_the_great's Avatar
        alfred_the_great -
        Quote Originally Posted by One_of_the_strange View Post
        Well, the cynic in me says that the real way to handle a pointless, futile conflict is not to turn up. Not refight the last war next time we go anywhere.

        My take is that today politicians have a view that the UK military should have handled the "political-military" interface by telling Blair what a fucking stupid idea it was. I think they also would have expected military strategy to go beyond "crack on chaps" and to have commanders complaining about what a mess it was before they retire and write their memoirs.

        Until the Army takes that on board - and it is a hard, hard thing to do to accept that most of your career has been spent on largely pointless wastes of blood and treasure - nothing that matters will change.

        If you read the TELIC and HERRICK reports, there are some pointed lines about advice being given on the basis of 'what the market will bear' i.e. we just tell them the good news. JDP 5-00 makes it very clear that we should give military advice based on military judgement (i.e. we need x or y) and on no other basis.

        Sherad Cowper-Coles also makes the very good point that the other bits of 'A Comprehensive Approach' can't get a look-in compared to the Armed Forces (especially the Army). The FCO or DfID will never generate the front page headlines that inevitably drive a Minister's decisions, so we rely on the latter to produce a Strategy based on 'outrage'. There is an amusing little meme somewhere that shows various commanders since 2002 in Afg saying 'next year is the critical year, we just need a little more money and people'.....

        Throw in people like Stu Peach, Richard Dannatt, Mike Jackson, David Richards (and unfortunately Mike Boyce, who was hated by Blair and Brown), and what you'll get is a conflict being used as a numbers justification game, with the results we are seeing now.
      1. Stonker's Avatar
        Stonker -
        Quote Originally Posted by alfred_the_great View Post
        If you read the TELIC and HERRICK reports, there are some pointed lines about advice being given on the basis of 'what the market will bear' i.e. we just tell them the good news. JDP 5-00 makes it very clear that we should give military advice based on military judgement (i.e. we need x or y) and on no other basis. . . . .[snip]

        Throw in people like Stu Peach, Richard Dannatt, Mike Jackson, David Richards (and unfortunately Mike Boyce, who was hated by Blair and Brown), and what you'll get is a conflict being used as a numbers justification game, with the results we are seeing now.
        1. That is behaviour inculcated early on: when you're Adjutant/OC/Bn 2ic, and if you want to get on, you'll make every effort not to tell your CO that there might be better ways of achieving his goals than his latest half-baked wizard wheeze. Question is, how do you transform a tribal culture like that, into one where genuine integrity (i.e. doing your duty and speaking truth to power) really is rewarded. The likes of Jacko were all too ready to bang on about 'integrity', but didn't show much sign of spine when it was needed.

        Losing Small Wars sees this manifested as the Army's senior commanders pretty much looking for another fight after Eye-rack (wasn't it handy that we had AFG on the boil) in order (a) to recover a reputation badly bashed about by Basra, and (b) justify the Army continuing to exist at its current size.

        Not unreasonably, he labels this as Militarism: engagement in military operations for the sake of military capability.

        As to Cowper-Coles' point: he may not be wrong, but I don't see that as a reason for the Army failing to discharge its professional duty - which is to insist on understanding, and making plain to Ministers, the limits of what military capability is capable of achieving.

        It's basic Clausewitz: War is the continuation of politics with the admixture of other means. War is also of limited utility Any military operation short of war that does not recognise that fact, and incorporate an admixture of means appropriate tothe achievement of its objectives, is hardly likely to succeed.

        Worht remembering also, that Charlie Von C also doubted the sanity of anyone who decides to start a war without being clear what they are aiming to achieve, and how they are going to achieve it.

        There's a thought, indeed.
      1. BuggerAll's Avatar
        BuggerAll -
        I did the Military PsyOps course in 1997 and BG Info Ops Offr was one of my jobs in FRY. I was one of the enthusiastic amateures described in this book. since then I have been interested in 'infuence' (as it's now called) but have had no outlet for that interest.

        Having also spent 10 years working in the Far East I am also familiar with the idea that other cultures do not necessarily think the same way that 'we' do and are not necessarily motivated by the same things.

        I hope this book becomes required reading and that the kind of reforms that the authors are calling for in military thinking come in because I'm pretty sure that tyey are largly correct.

        One thing that has struck me as odd about this book is the title. 'Behavioural Conflict'. The book is discussing 'influencing behaviour during conflict' which might have been a better title.
      1. Stonker's Avatar
        Stonker -
        Quote Originally Posted by BuggerAll View Post
        I did the Military PsyOps course in 1997 and BG Info Ops Offr was one of my jobs in FRY. I was one of the enthusiastic amateures described in this book. since then I have been interested in 'infuence' (as it's now called) but have had no outlet for that interest.

        Having also spent 10 years working in the Far East I am also familiar with the idea that other cultures do not necessarily think the same way that 'we' do and are not necessarily motivated by the same things.

        I hope this book becomes required reading and that the kind of reforms that the authors are calling for in military thinking come in because I'm pretty sure that tyey are largly correct.

        One thing that has struck me as odd about this book is the title. 'Behavioural Conflict'. The book is discussing 'influencing behaviour during conflict' which might have been a better title.
        Check yr PMs.
      1. alfred_the_great's Avatar
        alfred_the_great -
        Is there a way to get all these comments moved to the SOSC forum thread?
      1. Stonker's Avatar
        Stonker -
        Quote Originally Posted by alfred_the_great View Post
        Is there a way to get all these comments moved to the SOSC forum thread?
        Old, tired, and old-wife-beater'd, so 'scuse me: SOSC . . . ? Soldiers Old, Sausages Conquered?
        =======

        O - Wait !! - Starff Officers Starff Coolidge?
      1. GoodIdeaAtTheTime's Avatar
        GoodIdeaAtTheTime -
        Quote Originally Posted by Stonker View Post
        1. That is behaviour inculcated early on: when you're Adjutant/OC/Bn 2ic, and if you want to get on, you'll make every effort not to tell your CO that there might be better ways of achieving his goals than his latest half-baked wizard wheeze. Question is, how do you transform a tribal culture like that, into one where genuine integrity (i.e. doing your duty and speaking truth to power) really is rewarded. The likes of Jacko were all too ready to bang on about 'integrity', but didn't show much sign of spine when it was needed.
        I had a CO announce that he'd cleared all of the 'baggage' from his office as he took 'command' and prepared to 'crack on'. All of the filing cabinets were duly shredded. Fast forward 12 months and he proudly announces the three questions he is going to take to his meeting with the Bde Comdr. I didn't have the heart to tell him that his predecessor asked the same three questions fourteen months earlier and the answers could have been found in one of the aforementioned cabinets.

        I did have a chat with the Adjt on the subject but we eventually agreed that as he had a career it might be best if he bought me a beer, I kept quiet, and the boss 'cracked on'.
      1. Bad CO's Avatar
        Bad CO -
        Quote Originally Posted by alfred_the_great View Post
        Is there a way to get all these comments moved to the SOSC forum thread?
        This thread has now been copied and can be viewed here.

        Pse note that future comments in here will not show up in that thread and vice versa.