The US Army/USMC Counterinsurgency Center is pleased to host Major Josh Wineera during a COIN Center

I appreciate the struggle for finding the most effective way to visualize the conflict ecosystem, but personally I found the attempt to make an analogy to the Sun, Planets, and moons not helpful at all.  We can all pick our individual hobby and draw parallels to conflict, but that doesn't mean it is helpful, and usually it is misleading.  Much better to say what you mean, and mean what you way.  

As one who is struggling with essentially the same challenge of 1. translating the essential dynamics and complexity of cultural knowledge for some who have no patience for "academeeze" while 2. attempting to craft training that transfers to on-the-job performance and, by the way,3. has to occur in three days or less (preferably less), I find Major Wineera's Inter-Bella concept interesting. The crucial interrelationship that I am curious about, to extend the metaphor, would be the gravitational forces at work in the solar system. Unfortunately, the dynamics of socio-cultural interactions are not quite so predicable, so physics may not be the best model for reminding students of the more humanistic quality of culture, but as a mnemonic (in its 3D version) for remembering that there are moving parts, it could be a useful beginning. Thank you for your contribution to the discussion Major Wineera.

I was lucky enough to get a brief on Interbella from MAJ Wineera quite early in its development, and also to sit in on some briefs to other audiences and view the various reactions. These generally fell into three categories:

- The Fulda Gapites who cling desperately to a nice safe linear IPB process which will spit out all the answers.

- Those who see it more as a descriptive tool for illustrating complex issues and problems i.e. post-analysis.

- Those who see it as a tool to support the appreciation process for the complex environment.

The first group we're not too worried about as they are safely tucked away in the German Plains awaiting 3rd Shock Army. The other two groups show our Interbella can be perceived differently by different groups but not incorrectly: either way the important bit is that these groups perceive a definite difference shift from the good old days of high intensity conventional conflict to the environment we face today that it ruled not only by complexity to the nth degree but also a driving need for precision the likes of we have never considered before.

Originally, I thought that Interbella should have an adjustable gravitional model so that different weightings can be attached to various influences but that runs the risk of leading us straight back down the path of the acolytes of metricism and push-button responses. Perhaps one day, it will go down that path - certainly it would be interesting to experiment with but only once we have the cultural shift that accepts that ultimately decisions are based upon judgement and experience.

Just a quick comment on Marty Krizan's comment above re socio-cultural interactions, I agree, however, within Interbella, socio-cultural issues would be only one planet within the solar system, albeit probably one with many moons. Also within that solar system must be similar 'planets' covering tactical/operational influences, political, economic, physical, and the opposition.

Interbella in my opinion works fine from a graphical framing standpoint.  The idea of using such a model does not mean that all aspects of physics, predictability, and random actions must wholly apply, when much of the framework is based on helping others visualize relationships of systems.  

Indeed, as we see in the solar models, the gravitational pull keeps many of the patterns in a same flow by constant force, whereas in the complex conflict ecosystem approach, change is dynamic and the variance of "pulls" that are often in flux can shift momentum.  That said, there are a number of "orbital patterns" that can be observed and monitored in the social systems.  This is how in IW we leverage the Historical instances to understand many social relationships and the Anthropological observables to see how change may have occured--or what causes some changes.  This is the component of social / individual personal psychology that is often overlooked in the element of ideology and motivation.  Group dynamics and self-motivators have to factor in for the "x" factor of how change occurs in the system.  To operationalize all of these elements, graphical depiction is often needed to conceptually wrap one's head around the vast considerations.  Thus, the goal of a system designer is to develop a user-recognizable structure that assists in the visual map to have a meeting point for both the user’s mental model of the situation and the situational context itself.

I personally use a similar ecosystem model that Kilcullen speaks of, where we are not looking at tight links and nodes but rather ever changing forces within typical patterns of interaction and recurring roles at micro community level to macro global points that are germaine to a particular operating terrain.   This is the political, economic, social,.... melting pot that makes up a society and / or conflict that has to be fully embraced by planners, analysts, and operators alike, to see how end goals and effects can be realized while simultaneously considering risk rewards (intended and unintended) of the 2nd and 3rd order effects resulting from varied actions.  

Thanks Major Wineera for yet another attempt by those who "get it" to help those who still could use a little help.

Pingback from  article: COIN AO « ocmpoma's catalog

In response to Mr. Krizan's comment: "Unfortunately, the dynamics of socio-cultural interactions are not quite so predicable, so physics may not be the best model ", I would have to say that maybe physics at the quantum mechanical level is quite suitable. At that level actions are (1) statistically probable and (2) in the aggregate make for a general trend that makes sense to the human mind, but when observed too closely (1) create paradoxes and (2) are often affected by the process of observation. I for one think this probabilistic view is a good way for military mind to think so that planning is not focused too narrowly upon the most likely course of action, but considers also the most dangeroues course of action so that warning signals are not disregarded.