Home Contact Map Who Search Share
Google Page Translation
Aug 16 to Sept 12, 2001
The Framework for Action-Response Assessment was written as a basis for assessing the correct response to terrorist attacks - an attempt to provide a basis for developing a long term strategic response to terror within a framework allowing for a calculated and informed response to the basis of the terrorist action and not just to the individual acts of terror themselves. While this is in the format of a questionnaire or a study, it is neither of these. This is for the strategist who must make an assessment as to the type of response to be used. In the following, the power base may be the specific group involved in the terrorist action or in a broad based movement, it can be all those answering a call to take up arms. The main text relates to response on an international level, while some of the points made relate to regional or internal conflict situations.
History has taught us there are no short term responses to broad based terrorist action
Index
Assessment of:
reaction
provocation
balance / equality
honor as fuel
shifts in power / resources
perceived weaknesses
decision making
timing
response types
possible aftermath
ongoing action
possible negotiation
strengths / weaknesses
__________________
to top
Reaction Status
One of the most problematic assessments is the determination of the level of appropriate
response. To do this, determining the level of an attack within the context of an ongoing
crisis is crucial. Under response as well as over response often carry severe consequences.
Correct assessment is therefore paramount.
Note: In some sections, a high degree is desirable, in others, the opposite. The overall degrees can not be added up to produce a final total since single items may outweigh all the rest in a given situation. Therefore, the efficacy of the scales are to be found in the thought processes involved in the evaluation of single items.
degree to which the response is seen as instigation and not just response
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the response is a threat to innocents
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the public of the opposing side is outraged and needs an answer
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which response will justify continuance of the struggle and further counter action
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the response is seen as provoking the need for external allies or the
need for internal renewed commitment to conflict
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the response causes further unification or an entirely new type of unification
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the response will lead to a desire for revenge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which response will be seen by the opposing side as unjustified, given the level and
form of the opposing act, to the opposing leadership, the population and external power bases
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the response will be seen as a threat to basic values or concepts held
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the response engenders a feeling of helplessness
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Where negotiations are possible, the degree to which the response will cause a
move away from negotiation.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Assessment of the act which provokes the response:
degree to which the action is meaningful simply because it succeeded whereas others
like it did not.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree of involvement of the major opposing power base or secondary power bases
before, during, and after the event.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree of control by opposing power base over actions on the ground
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which this action signals a new approach or a turning point to either side
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which action advances the cause of the opposing power base
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which action advances the cause of secondary power bases and the net effect
on the component parts and the whole
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the action was a success in terms of
making a statement
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
providing a base for further actions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
providing solidarity to opposing side
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the action was a failure
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
if a failure, degree to which the failure was meaningful to the opposing power base
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which this act or any other event plays into the hands of those in opposing power base
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree of external support and the assessed positions and level of commitment of outside forces for whatever reason
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which power is concentrated in main power base
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which each side is seen as the instigator
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Response is about balance. If the response upsets the balance, then counter response is necessitated.
Unfortunately, equality can not be ascertained with the certainty of monetary transactions. However, beyond the emotionality generated by an event, there is a general sense for both sides of what is justified given the circumstances.
Balance can be achieved in many different ways. Assessment involves the following:
degree of equality of resources lost by each side
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree of equality in terms of the way or methods used to deliver the response
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree of equality in terms of the suffering experienced by each side
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree of equality in terms of giving up a value or asset held which is under negotiation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Honor often fuels a conflict
Conflict grows when honor becomes an issue. Even if this is not the major force fueling the
opposing acts, it can become the overriding motivating factor either for a leader or for
followers, or for those who are placed in the position of supporters. All response MUST
take this into consideration. Leaders may disappear from the scene but if honor has become
an issue, either for a leader or for the population identifying with that leader, than the conflict
can continue and increase in its dedication, its preparation, and the willingness to carry the fight
forward.
To avoid
Avoid any act which attacks the honor of the other side, reduces your status in the eyes of the other,
or is a sign of weakness, or has any signs of acting for revenge. In this regard, the following should
be assessed:
degree to which the response is catering to calls for revenge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the acts of individuals or small groups are allowed to have a determining
role in the history of an entire people, a region, or the world order.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the overall structure, dynamics and fabric of a plan are determined by the
fortuitous success of single events.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which response and major changes are directed and motivated by fortuitous
events, planning mistakes, or lapses in security.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the response takes 'unfair' advantage of others weaknesses
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the response indicates not taking opposing side seriously or belittles the
opposing side
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the response is showing off, or has a purpose unrelated to the action
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which emotions have been determining factors in the way in which a plan of action
proceeds.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
The conflict grows when either side perceives that there has been a significant shift.
This shift can be in the power used, area or value effected, quantity of resource affected, or a
substantial increase in the current 'acceptable' measures and hence imbalancing of the current
status quo. High degree in the following indicate imbalance:
degree to which the type or power of the response is seen as unjustified
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the response level is shifted up the scale of societal, cultural, moral or religious values
e.g., from resource destruction to symbol destruction or impingement on cultural values
like honor, sanctity
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the time frame to rectify, rebuild, rebalance has been substantially increased
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which a non renewable, non retrievable, unattainable resource, or value is destroyed
or removed.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the effect of the response is wider or deeper than the triggering action. i.e. population
affected is substantially greater, or the economic penetration is greater, or there are ripple
effects throughout the society which has a significantly greater effect than the action.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the force used represents a higher degree of conflict, or of destructive power
regardless of the actual action performed.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the honor of the other side becomes an issue
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Success for the other side is seldom measured in material terms but usually in psychological terms. For instance, weaknesses in the face of opposing action (most weaknesses are visible to opposing side).
General
degree to which there is inaccurate assessment of other's strengths and weaknesses
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree of insufficient preparation for what is thought to be possible or inevitable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which there is reliance on scenarios and belief in certain strings of cause and
effect
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which there is reliance on historical example. The conditions and components
of the present are not the same. Only broad concepts applied loosely can be instructional.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which there is insufficient intelligence gathering of the forces at play in the situation,
or the refusal or inability to use knowledge possessed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which believe that situation is beyond correction - that it is locked in
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree of internal, inter-personal, inter group conflict
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which sense of loss, vulnerability, outrage, betrayal, inadequacy, impotence,
hate, fear, despising, or grief rule the form of response
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Decision Making
degree to which there is the refusal or inability to use knowledge possessed for whatever
reason
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which there is inadequate use of advise or refusal to weigh the advise of others
as part of the final equation.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree of satisfaction with own strengths
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which there is the belief that an inevitable role is being played
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree of inability to learn from and correct mistakes, to critique actions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which there is snap decision making based on the actions of others and not on the
realities of the situation and full rational assessment.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Timing
Timing is crucial. What is right one moment can be wrong the next. Decision making is a
dynamic process which must be open to change. The leader who does not constantly
reassess the field will make errors, some absolutely critical, which could have been avoided
by small changes made in response to changing circumstances.
Assess value of the types of response
degree to which there is value in threat as against action
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which there is value in non response
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which there is value in offering peace in place of revenge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which there is value in negotiating from moral strength instead of physical
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
APPENDIX - ASSESSMENT OF OTHER'S STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Assess overall context
degree to which the type of action taken opens up or forces new methods of
response
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the response hardens the resolve or strengthens the other side
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the balance of power is shifted
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the response effects far more than the the intended target i.e., the
entire population
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which particular type of response weakens your position
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which response signals a new stage in the conflict
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the action indicates to the opposing side a weakening, or the confusion
of your leadership
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which response is not seen as part of an overall strategy towards a set goal, but
is off course, too little or too much given the time period, the realities of the situation,
the resources, the preparedness, and the desire for non renewal of the confrontation.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Assess resources of other side
Allies & Opposing Sides
degree to which there are external bodies willing to enter into combat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which external bodies will be drawn into a conflict against their wishes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the power of these bodies and the resources at their disposal accumulate
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which public opinion both internally and worldwide is aligned on the opposing side
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which possible allies have nothing to lose by involvement and a perception of
everything to gain, whether or not illusory
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
justification
degree of perceived non fuzziness around the justifications made for continuation of the conflict
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the claims have precedence
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which the claims are perceived as moral, legal, justifiable, or righteous
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
preparedness by opposing side
degree to which internal public opinion expresses the belief that the conflict is justified
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which individuals are willing to give all for the cause
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree of preparation for conflict
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which population is ready to support any decision of the leadership regarding the conflict
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
means
degree to which there is the hardware, but more importantly, the will with which to wage
all out conflict or a protracted conflict
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which there is the determination of individuals to fight regardless of the means
available
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
organization of opposing side
degree to which there is the organization to carry out the strategic plan
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which there is the internal structure to gain the information necessary in a
protracted conflict
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which there are the means and connections to obtain the necessary skills,
implements, weapons to carry on the conflict
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Assess the past and its effect on the opposing side
degree to which this type of response has generated support
from within
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
from abroad
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
from supporters
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which this type of response has had "negative" results in the past
in similar conflict arenas
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
degree to which this type of response has strengthened opposing leadership, the process of decision
making, the general standing of the opposing power bases
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
________________