Assessment of Possible Strategies return to top
(although they may have worked in the past but under different circumstances with
different end goals and different power bases)
physical destruction of symbols of authority
under the assumption that the authority is singular
under the assumption that authority is at least partially based on physical symbols of power
under the assumption that the physical structures are important to
the attainment of end goals
under the assumption that physical property weighs more heavily than honor, vision, etc.
under the assumption that some reaction is better than no reaction
but
leads to an increase in the sympathy for the leadership
leads to a strengthening of the authority as embattled but capable of continuance
leads to the development of alternative means to achieve the same goals
leads to continuation of the struggle since the physical structures are not central to the end goal
and the loss has little meaning since it can be readily rebuilt
demand for total acquiescence
under the assumption that once acquiescence is achieved, the other side will
be more malleable in negotiation
under the assumption that pride is not a relevant factor in an ongoing conflict
under the assumption that the other side is willing to capitulate because it some of the following: Does
not have the strength to continue, does not have its own agenda, recognizes the
dominance of the other side, etc.
but
leads to increased resistance to capitulation
is interpreted as an attack on honor
leads to a strengthened sense of honor to resist and fight
attempts to dislodge or destroy power base
under the assumption that the power base is too weak to withstand
under the assumption that another perhaps more moderate power base will replace old
but
leads to a coalescence of power
leads to a sense that national pride as well as the individual pride of the leadership
is being threatened
leads to a breakdown of those forces which can control more radical elements
attempts to limit movement of populations
under the assumption that if population cannot communicate or congregate
it can not prepare attacks
under the assumption that there is greater control over the movement of weapons
etc. from one area to another
under the assumption that increased hardship of the population will cause a backlash
against the leadership
but
leads to a lowering of the standard of living of the population and increasing frustration
leads to a sense of being unfairly penalized for the policies of a small segment of the
population but increases a sense of unity under duress
leads to an increase in the identification with the more radical elements of the population
leads to new ways to get around the limitations thus providing new means of carrying forth
the fight
construction of physical barriers for protection of the population
under the assumption that physical barriers make entry less likely or at least more
difficult, gives warning signal to prevent surprise, and gives a sense of greater security.
but
leads to the development of new ways around the barriers
leads to a situation in which warning signals are often too late, give too little time to react proportionally to the threat and
are rarely sufficient to protect and can never be complete
leads to a false sense of security so that there is in actually less preparedness
increased vigilance
under the assumption that vigilance is sufficient to reduce the success of terrorist attacks
but
leads to increase in the number of forces deployed without ever fully countering the threat
leads to increasingly sophisticated means of circumventing by the other side
which can lead to greater loss since the success rate is lower meaning that the payload must
be greater to have an effect
can lead to greater paranoia and hence unrealistic perceptions of the threat
increased counterintelligence
under the assumption that knowledge of when attacks are planned can
provide countermeasures and prevention
but
leads to increased splintering and separation of power on opposite side
leads to increased internal culling, summary sentencing and execution of 'traitors'
leads to greater restrictions of the population and a subsequent loss of privacy, rights
leads to increased counterintelligence as used by the other side
increased pressure on leadership to force compliance
under the assumption that the leadership is weak and will reverse its tactics to stay in power
under the assumption that the leadership is sensitive to what is happening to its infrastructure
but
leads to heightened resolve to defy and push forward regardless of costs
targeting of central figures and active opponents
under the assumption that if the leaders and most active members are removed from the field, the organizations
they control will fall apart
under the assumption that individuals will be afraid to take on leadership or active roles
under the assumption that the number of individuals capable of carrying the fight forward are reduced
but
leads to increased affirmation to carry the fight forward
leads to increased sense of a need for revenge
leads to greater purging of suspected informants
leads to more fragmentation and hence less control by those capable
of ending the conflict
increased separation of two interdependent populations involved in a conflict
under the assumption that separation will increase security
but
leads to more economic desperation with less work, less economic sufficiency of population
and the search for alternative means to support self, family
leads to the acceptance of support from outside sources which are generally inimical to peace
leads to new methods of overcoming separation
leads to greater coalescing of attitudes and fears and the view by both sides that the
populations are different.
increased pressure on general population to cause it to put pressure on power base to capitulate
or to change leadership
under the assumption that the leadership in based principally on popular support
under the assumption that the population has the power to overthrow the power base
under the assumption that the population is not afraid of the power of the leadership base
under the assumption that the population does not agree with the power base
but
leads to increasing misery
leads to increasing fodder for propaganda - the underdog syndrome
leads to more desperation and the search for new means of economic survival and security (increase
in the number of individuals willing to give themselves to the cause)
use of greater force in retaliation than that used in the instigating action
under the assumption that if the opposing side sees that too much is being lost for too little gain,
it will cease its activities and ask for peace
but
leads to renewal of calls for revenge and increased activity toward retaliation and new round of violence
leads to a sense of unfairness and hence a feeling of increased hatred and resolve to continue the fight
instant and sure retaliation for each act
under the assumption that if they know that retaliation is sure and swift, they will not
do whatever they plan to do for fear of the results
but
leads to greater identification, anger, and in return, instant and sure revenge attacks
Factors leading to escalation return to top
Some of the following relate to one side, some to the other, and most to all sides in a
conflict. Some may not appear to be relevant at any one
point in time in the ongoing process, but this list
represents the types of forces operating to keep a confrontation
going and produce a cycle of violence which is difficult to break.
constant input of new reasons for retaliation
buildup of arms and means to fight
increased influx of funds from external sympathizers to finance operations
creating a contract which must be fulfilled
worsening economic conditions leading individuals to perform extreme measures for family
increased insult to honor
increased pressure from general public for answers, security, revenge, retribution
loss of hope that the situation will get any better
increase in number of errors in targeting and erroneous deaths due to
increase in activity
escalation of propaganda against the other side
increased challenge to be able to outsmart the opposite side
elevation of sense of duty to nation and family to new levels of martyrdom and new demographics
backlog of people emotionally, psychologically, physically ready to do whatever is needed
lack of a viable exit plan
entry level to negotiation unrealistic given the current forces at play
too many independent forces in play to form a unified front
increasingly myopic view of the ends, means, understanding of the other side
increasing isolation of leaders who still control hence weakening control capability
increasing humiliation of individuals seen as central to overall cause
increasing threat to opposing leadership thereby increasing attempts to
protect, and prove right
increase in the development of a multitude of tactics to take the place of an overall strategy
increasing divisions within the power base leading to
the assurance that the struggle will succeed and hence should continue
increase in measures which are seen as eventually separating the populations
and hence the future possibility of partnership, economic cooperation
leading to a sense of hopelessness
increasing disintegration of centralization of power base
leading to increasing fragmentation and independent leadership which is not controlled by the center
sense of fragmentation of power which can only be counterbalanced by calls to rally and react
Thoughts on de-escalation return to top
Actions which have been planned for days, weeks, months are not stopped and because of
instant reaction and the ensuing outrage and anger, a new cycle of revenge is fueled.
Modulate response to fit or balance the attack according to ultimate goals and not the
immediate or intermediate states of temporary balance or containment. Depending on overall strategy, the power of nonresponse should not be underestimated.
Final strategies of leaders, or hidden agendas, may be far reaching and sweeping, but it is the
d day to day struggle which determines the final outcome. Leaders and their plans are temporary at their best unless all sides
to a conflict keep the momentum going until they become reality.
A leader may have more or less regard to losses in lives than the general population, but in the
end, it is the population which responds.
The pain of loss is the same for all populations involved. One population may be
more willing to have loss based on the view of the battle which is being fought,
but the pain is the same to family, parents, children, friends.
Reduce those actions which cause instant revenge responses from the other side.
Do not underestimate the resourcefulness of the opponent or the fact that development of new
stages of conflict are self generating under duress.
