The Decision Strategist

Today is Sunday, which means it’s time for the Sunday Morning Strategic Discussion (I’ve really got to work on getting it done before noon). Bait and switch tactics are used all the time in politics today, and there was a great example several days ago with the reaction to the Moveon.org advertisement about General Patraeus.

A bait and switch in retail is when a business offers a product at below cost, but then says the item is out of stock and offers a different item at a higher price. It works because people are willing to pay a higher price to overcome the disappointment of not getting the original item.

In politics the bait and switch is when a group makes a big deal about an issue to shift damaging attention away from themselves. It almost always works.

The reason it works is because the switch issue chosen is something that can be framed in terms of principles that are universally held. In the General Betray Us issue, the Republican party tends to choose an issue they can frame in patriarchal terms such as respect, responsible, morality, honor, and hero. No politician wants to be seen as against those issues.

Democrats tend to choose issues such as Bush’s veto of child health care, that can be framed in terms like giving, caring and children.

Clearly neither party wants to tackle the most important issue at hand, which is getting the US out of Iraq. There are plenty of voters who no longer want us in Iraq, but not a lot of people who think it is a good idea to pull out and leave the country in shambles.

It’s an intractable problem, and the people that come up with a strategy to fix it will gain a lot of political capital. Only there may not be a solution. If history is any guide, occupying forces only succeed if they are ruthless enough to commit virtual genocide and maintain total control over information (such as China in Tibet), a tactic that few in the US or the rest of the world would sit still for.

I don’t have a strategy for getting out of Iraq, and in my experience most people have nothing to suggest. Difficult though it may be, I think it’s time we started to consider solutions. Let’s start with goals. Part of the difficulty of the situation is that we don’t share common goals. Depending on your political leanings, you may think our current goal in Iraq is any or all of the following:

• Fight terrorism
• Ensure cheap access to oil
• Spread Democracy
• Stabilize the country enough to leave
• Ensure global dominance

And many more I’m sure. Our views are so disparate on this subject that there is little wonder we have no coherent strategy for what we are doing in Iraq.

Every analyst of the Iraq War focuses on what is wrong in Iraq, but I have a different take that people don’t want to hear: we won’t be out of Iraq until we fix our own problems. Most importantly, until our fractured nation can arrive at some common ground.

Let’s start by looking at some alternative points of view. If you’re conservative, consider reading these posts:

• Common Dreams
• Develnet
• Scott Teresi

If you’re liberal, start with some of these links:

• Right Wing News
• Conservative Voice
• Clarion

And then there’s the libertarians:

• LewsRockwell

Pretty crazy isn’t it? We will not be successful in Iraq until we reconcile these views. It may not seem like a big step, but until we have a common goal and reason for our existence in Iraq, we cannot begin to measure success or failure there, or determine how and when we should leave. There can be no real strategy.

If you have ideas about a strategy for Iraq, or a reason that you think we’re in Iraq that I missed, let me know. As always, I’ll post your responses next Sunday.

I’m tired of listening to both parties as they jockey to place blame. It’s time to shift the dialogue towards a solution.

- zot

Popularity: 20%

Vote for this post on: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Previously I’ve talked about strategy in 9-11 conspiracy theories, human behavior in the information war and strategy of cooperation versus competition. For this Sunday’s strategic discussion, I wanted to present a scenario from one of my favorite science fiction books: The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein. The book is a great study of a small colony in a unique situation working to establish independence from their rulers. They have no military weapons and little in the way of resources, but they have an artificial intelligence that is sympathetic to their cause.

The strategic lessons in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress are applicable to any guerilla scenario, and indeed are recognizable by anyone who follows guerilla tactics. All of these tactics are being used by people in Iraq to combat the U.S. Perhaps the next Sunday discussion should involve a discussion of tactics from the point of view of the occupier.

The Scenario

Colonists of the moon, all prisoners or descendants of prisoners, are ruled by the Authority which is appointed by Earth. They are trying to overthrow the Authority and install a severely limited government (remember when there was a political party that advocated limited government powers?). The colony is essentially an anarchy. Few rules are enforced by the Authority except those that generate revenues for the Authority (and hence for Earth). The colony industry revolves around mining, and women are a very small minority.

The important points are:

• The colonists have no weapons.
• If they overthrow the authority, Earth can attack them and there are no weapons on the moon.
• They have access to a friendly AI who controls all computers on the colony.
• There are other colonies on the moon that they must either coordinate with or act alone.
• Earth is dependent on minerals and ore from the moon, which are shipped to earth regularly via a giant gravity catapult.
• Women are a severe minority and are treated with great respect.

The Analysis

The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress is written from the strategic perspective of the colonists trying to overthrow rule from Earth. Anyone who has read the book will know the strategy the colonists use, but we can extrapolate some of the key points here.

• Use the environment to your advantage. There are two ways that the colonists use their environment to their advantage. One is that they use the urban structure of the moon colony to merge with the public and become undetectable. The other is that the moon has a gravitational advantage over the earth. This gives them their only real weapon, which is launching gigantic rocks at Earth. Because of Earth’s gravity, they need only a small amount of fuel to get the rocks falling to earth. It’s a classic example of turning weaknesses into strength by thinking outside the box.
• Exploit cultural differences. The soldiers of the Authority are from Earth, and their treatment of women is significantly different. Moon colonists react violently to the way the soldiers treat women. Creating a lot of opportunities for soldiers to be rude to the female colonists creates animosity.
• Emphasize strengths. The main strength of the colonists is their friendly AI “Mike”. Mike serves as a coordinating center to which different cells of colonists report. In this way no more than one cell can ever be compromised.
• Avoid weaknesses. The colonists are severely underarmed. Direct confrontation with soldiers would be suicidal. Like any guerilla group, the colonists fight small skirmishes and fade into the populace when reinforcements arrive.
• Conserve resources. A major problem on the moon is a lack of resources. Every time the moon sends minerals to Earth, their value decreases. The situation is made worse by the lack of organic material. One of the first goals of the colonists is to institute mineral trading on a mass-exchange basis. Every ton of minerals shipped to Earth must be replaced by a ton of material from Earth.

I’m sure there are intricacies and ideas I’m missing here. As with all posts, I welcome your thoughts and comments. As with all Sunday strategic discussions, I will post a summary of your points in next Sunday’s post.

-zot

Popularity: 33%

Vote for this post on: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

In it’s first (not quite whole) month, The Decision Strategist has posted 34 articles. Here are some of my favorites:

• The What am I Doing with My Life? series discusses how I am attempting to decide what to do in the near future.
• The Buy or Rent? series discusses the benefits and risks of buying a house versus renting, as well as providing a spreadsheet to calculate net worth for each option.
• How to Fight Advertising was my first post about the psychology of marketing and how consumers can turn that on their head. A strangely popular post.
• How to use Paired Comparison in Application Planning describes the process of deciding which task to tackle next as I move on with the application I’m trying to build.

Favorite missed post:

• Housing Pundits and the If-Then Fallacy describes people attempts to manipulate a simple human error for their own benefit. I really thought this post didn’t get the attention it deserved, mostly because these tactics aren’t just used by real estate agents, but also by spouses, parents, kids, and anyone trying to convince you of their point of view.

Thanks for all of you readers, especially those who took the time to leave a comment.

-zot

Popularity: 19%

Vote for this post on: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

For this week’s Sunday morning strategy discussion I wanted to talk about the thorny subject of 9-11 conspiracy theories. Last night the history channel had a segment on 9-11 conspiracies, where it basically compared the claims of the 9-11 truth movement to testimony from witnesses. I haven’t seen loose change or any other information regarding these theories, but I do know a lot of people that have seen it and believe it. The history channel said something like 36% of Americans think that the current administration may have had something to due with 9-11. The 9-11 conspiracy theory is no longer fringe.

The segment was a brilliant and subtle, not for convincingly debunking the conspiracy theories, but for the presentation of information so that it appears objective while really promoting the debunker’s perspective. Their main strategy was to present conspiracy theories as young, unprofessional, generalists while the debunkers looked professional and presented more fact-based information.

Information is a key in any conflict or decision, but it’s the center of any effort to convince the populous of your point of view. Both sides have taken advantage of releasing information early and often.

The Situation

Lets set up the situation from either side. You can take the role of a government official in charge of confusing and dispersing the movement, or you can take the role of a conspiracy theorist fighting to get your message out. The 9-11 situation provides plenty of information for use in determining a strategy. Mine is below.

My Strategy

I’ll take the role of each side here just for fun.

Government

As the government trying to convince people that conspiracy theorists are wrong, you’re kind of in a sticky situation. People who already believe in the conspiracy are not going to believe anything you say, regardless of how true it is. There are two possible angles of attack that I see:

• Movement Leaders. Movements typically rely on a few passionate leaders who are responsible for motivating people and for disseminating information.
• New Members. If the number of new converts to a movement can be stemmed or stopped, the movement itself begins to shrink and lose influence.

My strategy to counter the movement would focus on these two aspects. Forceful removal of leaders can backfire severely, so I would encourage them to leave of their own free will. Perhaps co-opt some of them by offering participation in official processes, or examine their lives for individual weaknesses.

The number of new recruits is already limited by the stigma that surrounds conspiracy theorists. They are typically portrayed as fringe members of society at best. This marginalization could be intensified with funding and encouragement through studies and media.

The other strategy I would pursue, assuming I had nothing to hide, would be to release as much information as possible for independent verification. While there would always be accusations of modified documents, it would sharply reduce conspiracy theory believers.

Movement

Movement leaders benefit from the inherent confusion of the 9-11 attacks and a public that is highly dissatisfied with the government. The problem they face is that the public views any unusual and outrageous claims as inherently presented by fringe members of society. Disagreeing with the standard accepted view gets you labeled as fringe almost by definition.

The other issue at hand is that I’m not clear what the goals of the movement are. If the object is just to ‘get the truth out there,’ then the strategy is different from what it would be if the goal is to have members of the conspiracy indicted.

Regardless, there are at least two things that are essential to the 9-11 truth movement’s efforts:

• Credibility. Establishing credibility is paramount. Without it it will be impossible to gain the public moment needed to create any kind of change or spread information effectively.
• Information. Verifiable information that supports the movements view and that is indisputable would go a long way in accomplishing goals. Unfortunately this information is either non-existent (if the theories are wrong) or probably very closely guarded and/or destroyed (if the theories are right).

As a movement leader then, I would focus on revising my presentation of data to be as professional as possible. This includes how the movement dresses, actions it takes, press releases that are made, studies and videos that are released, etc…

I would also work on building inroads to highly respected institutions. Even if they disagreed or were unwilling to support the movements efforts, any debates or exchanges of information, especially if public, would help to popularize conspiracy concerns. Next steps would depend on what your long term goals were.

As before, leave me comments with your strategies, or critiques and suggestions of what I have presented here. I’ll post the revised strategies next Sunday.

-zot

Popularity: 14%

Vote for this post on: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.