Just Five Smooth Stones

New Yorker recently published an article called "How David Beats Goliath." I have been thinking about it a lot since I first came across it thanks to 10-4 Good Buddy.

The basic thesis is simple. The only way that a smaller, slower, weaker team/person/nation/army can beat a larger, stronger opponent is to redefine the rules of the game. The smaller entity must refuse to play by the rules of the larger, and instead play only the game that maximizes whatever advantages they have, but downplays or minimizes their weaknesses. The article mostly uses a basketball analogy, but shows some applications to other spheres as well.

This is one reason this article so captivated me. It strikes me as one of those observations that holds so much truth on so many levels that it bears real study. Of course, the most obvious application is at a national level where we are having to learn quickly to adapt our goliath nature to use davidian tactics. One of the most remarkable things about today's U.S. Military is that they actually are beginning to learn how to use Davidian tactics, even though they are goliath. Can they learn them fast enough and apply them consistantly enough? Or are we doomed as goliath to always be at the mercy of little people with slingshots?

There is a tendency to be angry at the terrorist for not playing fair. I think we can be angry at them for attacking us. We can be angry at them for being wrong, and wrongheaded. We can be angry at them because they have sworn to be our enemies. But we can't blame them for adopting the tactics they use. There are no other tactics open to them. They simply cannot defeat us in open direct battle. They HAVE TO use guerilla tactics. They have to refuse to play by our rules. Recognizing that, then we need to refuse to play by theirs. Meaning we need to be better at their game than they are. I'm thinking mostly of the situation in Iraq here, possibly also Afghanistan and Pakistan. Not so much terrorist attacks here in the U.S.

Cheney and his gang, seem to think this means we should terrorize the terrorists. That is why we can't refuse to use torture techniques. I have read some persuasive arguments along these lines. Even so, I think that that may be falling into the trap of playing their game of their strengths. They are good at creating chaos, dividing allies, sowing fear. It is cheap, direct and hard to stop.

Unless...we play the game by our strengths. We have resources and expertise. Rather than attacking the terrorists, perhaps we should place more of our resources and energy into protecting -- and thereby winning the hearts of -- the people. Repair the grid. Provide clean water. Help with food, clothing, cooking fuel, heat. At the same time, use military force to stop bombs and attacks. Make the streets safe. Rather than attempt to instill terror in the hearts of the people, we should be protecting and providing for them to win over the hearts of the people.

As the articles suggests, this is a hard hard strategy. Like the full court press, it involves a great deal of physical commitment and dogged determination and real stamina. But it has the advantage of effectively undercutting the terrorist agenda. Far from being soft and squishy, it is actually a seriously hardnosed approach.

Beyond the national political and military implications, I also love this article for the personal implications. Davidism as a way of dealing with personal problems. Refuse to play the game given you. Instead, redefine the game to your own strengths. I'm working on this.

Tribe

Over the past year, the term “tribe” has come to my attention from several different directions.

Assistant Village Idiot uses the term to describe a sort of sociological unified field theory (or perhaps only a general relativity theory) wherein tribal identity is so ingrained into human behavior and thinking that even we moderns find ourselves assuming tribal identities. Membership in modern social tribes is not so much a matter of name identification as it is the assumption of certain social/political/sub-cultural cues or signals. To see AVI’s analysis, go here.

A few months ago, Seth Godin, renowned marketing guru (on wonders if he has the word “guru” on his business card) spoke on the subject of tribes as relates to marketing. Successful marketers are people who actually leverage technology to create associations of people he calls Tribes. Whenever someone figures out how to tap into the sentiments of enough people who are thinking the same thing, but are unconnected, that person unleashes social power of some magnitude. That opportunity is greater than ever through the power of techno tools related to the internet. Tribe becomes a sort of sophisticated, fluid, self-inventing psychographic.

Along a completely different line, Tim Larkin of Target Focused Training (which deserves a post of it’s own) directed me recently to Scott Pressfield’s analysis of the War in Afghanistan. Unlike the other two, Scott is not redefining the term Tribe here, but is using it in the classic sense. He uses the classic concept of tribe and tribalism to help us re-frame the way we view the conflict in Afghanistan. It’s all about the tribes. His analysis contrasting the meaning of being a citizen of a nation, as opposed to a member of a tribe is outstanding. I hope that our commanding officer’s responsible for the conflict in Afghanistan can grasp this concept. Our leaders must recognize that asymmetrical warfare has already become the dominant model around the world and we are just playing catch up.

You can see all the video's in Pressfield's analysis of War in Afghanistan here.

It’s just fascinating to see how one word can be used to clothe such different types of ideas.

Whiles Any Speaks

I generally seek to live my life so that regrets play no large part. For the most part, with a few notable exceptions, I have managed this fairly well. Recently, one of those exceptions has been playing on my mind. I regret that I have not served in the armed forces.

When I was a boy, I dreamed of being a US Marine. One of my older brother is a Marine. He served for 30 years before retiring as a Sargeant Major. I always idolized him for that, although in fact, I really didn't know him all that well as he is some 15 years older than me. Of my 5 brothers, 2 others served in the Air Force, so military service was seen as honorable in my family, although not necessarily expected.

Upon graduating High School, my focus was on college. In college, my focus was on graduating, and toward the end, on getting married. During that time I went through an unfortunate pacifistic phase -- one I view now as typical of the intellectual exploration of the young. Naive but understandable. In addition, of the few times I mentioned the possiblity of military service, my fiance reacted strongly to the negative. So I did not pursue it. This was in the late 80's and there was no pressing reason, in the national perspective, for a guy like me to pursue military service.

The Gulf War gave me pause, but of course it was over almost as soon as it began. Pretty soon I had surpassed the cutoff age for enlisting. It was now a moot point.

Then came 9/11 and the aftermath. A few years ago, I heard that the Army had increased the maximum age for enlistment to 42. That year I turned 43. Nevertheless, although the point is still moot, I regret now that I did not enlist.

There are many many good reasons for me to have NOT enlisted. I won't even recite them here as I'm sure you can guess them. I am fully aware that war is not a game, and I do not think I am overcome be romantic notions of military glory. Yet there is something deep inside, or hidden way back in my brain that wishes that I had stepped up and done my duty.

I've been thinking of Shakespeare's St. Crispin Day speech from Henry V.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

I'm afraid I do now "hold my manhood cheap" when I think of those who are now
in Iraq and Afghanistan or wherever they are posted around the world, working to insure my safety and that of my children. I loath and detest the fact that we fight in Iraq, and think we should never have gone there. But now that we are in it, we must finish it and finish it properly. I regret that I cannot be a part of that, even though I
know that to do so would be a terrible disruption and would put my life at risk.

Yet when others are doing so, and I am not, I feel cheap. Can't help it. I just do.