USMC Irregular Warfare Project Operations Analysis Division Bagels

USMC Irregular Warfare Project Operations Analysis Division “Bagels” 12 October 2007

Purpose Present Marine Corps Irregular Warfare (IW) Project Data Development

Project Goal Develop a Prototype Methodology for Analyzing a Marine Corps Irregular Warfare Problem In-House

Agenda • Problem • Conceptual Model • Data

Problem • Given: – Joint, Combined, Inter-Agency, Counterinsurgency (COIN) Environment – Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Area of Operations COIN Mission • Provide: – Plausible Range of Resultant Civilian Population Behaviors

Civilian Population Segments Insurgency Behavior Sectors Insurgent Pro. Insurgent Apathetic Anti. Insurgent Counter. Insurgent

Insurgency Behavior Model Insurgents Counterinsurgents

Pythagoras Simulation • • Agent Sector Representation Event Reactions Agent-to-Agent Interactions Behavior Modifications

Data • • Population segments & sectors Population segment demographics Scenario event list Behavioral Data

Data • • Population segments & sectors Population segment demographics Scenario event list Behavioral Data Why Do People Do What They Do?

Psychological Operations Doctrine The Strength Of A People’s Feelings About An Event Or Issue Is Positively Correlated With The Strength Of Their Behavioral Reactions

Psychological Operations Doctrine The Desire To Fulfill, Alleviate, Or Eliminate Perceived Needs Motivates Behavioral Change Different People In The Same Situation Will Not Have The Same Perceived Needs

Narrative Paradigm People Are Essentially Storytellers The World Is a Set of Stories From Which Each Individual Chooses the Ones That Match His or Her Values

Narrative Paradigm Although People Claim "Good" Reasons for Their Decisions, These Reasons Include History, Culture, & Perceptions About the Status and Character of the Other People Involved

Human Behavioral Data • Data Required – Prevalence of Current Behavior Patterns – Susceptibility From Unfulfilled Perceived Needs – Influence Effect of Events – Salience Effect of Other People • Probabilities, Percentages, and Ordinal Numbers (Quantitative, but Non-empirical)

Akela Province Scenario Fictitious “Troubled Country” Developmental Scenario Troubled Country’s Government Has Turned to the United Nations for Counterinsurgency Assistance Combined Task Force - Consisting of U. S. And British Ground Forces (Including a MAGTF)

Colombia Scenario “Operation Pacific Breeze” - - Humanitarian Assistance / Disaster Relief Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) & Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB)

Intensive Cultural Research • History – Story of a People – WWII, Colonial Era, Earlier – Heroes, Villains • Way Of Life – Religion – Literature – Arts, Sports, Festivals, Holidays – Communications, Media, Interactions

Intensive Cultural Research • Economics – Livelihoods – Environment, Geography – Social Strata • Partitioning – Demographics – Common Consensus Point of View

Buenaventura Urban Poor

Data Elicitation • Charles Osgood’s Semantic Differential – OSGOOD’S method is a development of the Likert Scale in that Osgood adds in three major factors or dimensions of judgment: • EVALUATIVE factor (good - bad) • POTENCY factor (strong - weak) • ACTIVITY factor (active - passive) – SEMANTIC differential is widely used in advertising and marketing research, including questionnaires, interviews and focus groups. The versatility of uses with bipolar adjectives and the simplicity of understanding them have made it ideal for consumer questionnaires and interviews. – THERE are several large scale surveys done, providing data on EPA values for over 1000 different actions, emotions and people, led by David Heise, Department of Sociology, Indiana University

Effect Of Other Population Segments E: Very 5 4 Bad 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 E: Very Good P: Passive P: Very Active A: Weak A: Powerful Salience= E√(P 2+A 2)

Effect of Other Population Segments Action/ Emotion E P A Abandon -2. 28 -0. 48 -0. 84 Applaud 2. 15 1. 63 1. 62 Condemn -1. 86 1. 12 -0. 17 Denigrate -1. 73 -0. 13 -0. 08 Embrace 2. 8 1. 56 0. 36 Salience= E√(P 2+A 2) Action/ Emotion Salience Abandon -7. 00 Applaud 10. 45 Condemn -7. 25 Denigrate -5. 98 Embrace 11. 85

Salience Grouped Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6 Group 7 powerless helpless miserable unhappy weak panicked pitiful uneasy shaken impatient bitter resentful nervous aggravated contemptuous indifferent subdued skeptical conventional normal agreeable serene relaxed hopeful contented stable considerate cheerful secure optimistic helpful friendly excited happy overjoyed

Effect of Other Population Segments