PDA

View Full Version : Strengthing 3GW behavior in the Ron Paul Revolution




henrique.duarte
01-04-2008, 01:26 PM
I am sorry for the length of the post. Please be patient :-)

I would like to start a discussion on the parallels on grassroots movements and the military thinking on 3rd and 4th Generation warfare, and how to translate this into a stronger Ron Paul revolution dynamics.

The main drive behind this discussion is clarifying what are the different roles that each component of a political movement structure should fulfill.

I will start with a basic reference that will allow you to do your own research on this:

search Google / wikipedia - John Boyd - I bet this name gets the attention of a good bunch of U.S. Marines out there.

B.T.W In my humble opinion this is one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century.

The main gist of John Boyds thinking is summarized in the follow quote from wikipedia (please do your research on the OODA loop concept that is mentioned bellow)

"Boyd theorized that large organizations such as corporations, governments, or militaries possessed a hierarchy of OODA loops at tactical, grand-tactical (operational art), and strategic levels. In addition, he stated that most effective organizations have a highly decentralized chain of command that utilizes objective-driven orders, or directive control, rather than method-driven orders in order to harness the mental capacity and creative abilities of individual commanders at each level."

I will not delve right now on the theoretical basis and prior empirical evidence supporting 3GW and 4GW strengths.
I will simply illustrate the strength of these theories with the current empirical evidence drawn from the Ron Paul Revolution movement:

The initial success of the Ron Paul movement is due to following:

The message was spread through a "highly decentralize chain of command"

1.The strategic level directive control role was full field by Ron Pauls message of Freedom, Prosperity and Peace and a clear goal - to elect Ron Paul. THE OODA loop at this stage was entirely ideological and developed a priori.

2. The Operation level - a cluster of supporters (O)bserved and (O)riented i.e. recognized a few ideal tools to find like minded local support and used them i.e. (D)ecided and (A)cted:
The internet through meetup, forums and other such tools
- this allowed people to group up voluntarily

3. The tactical level (OODA) - people gathering as result of actions taken at the Operation level and (O)bserved their local conditions - family, friends, neighbors, towns and assessed their political thinking i.e. (O)riented themselves politically in order to be able to (D)ecide the best way to transmit the message to them. They, individually and/or in groups, then (A)cted as a result of this OODA process.

A premium medium to convey aggregate information was used - the internet - a very transparent and informative campaign at Operational level also provided precious feedback at operational/strategic level to the grassroots.
Best tactics were filtered through success/failure assessment at tactical level, through "real world" observation of what worked best - talking to people/successfull arguments etc, and quick transmission of this information by the individuals through the internet.

Notice how the Ron Paul Movement has a prodigiously fast OODA loop process when compared with old style campaigning. Some OODA loop acelerators have been quickly recognized with the expression that something "went viral".

Particularly significant is the fact that it is at the individual and local groups level that exists the fundamental capacity to observe and orient, and where the best decisions and actions can be taken.

This means:

A. NO ORDERS FROM THE TOP, THEY INTERFERE WITH THE PROCESS - limiting/skewing the observation/orientation/decision/action of the individual/local groups has two strong problems:

(1) The OODA loop takes longer e.g. people have to wait for orders from the top to act (put signs, go marching, whatever);

(2) observation at operational and strategic level is always poorer than at a tactical level (e.g polls suck) no matter how good the the information gathering - this leads to poor campaigning decisions (inappropriate adds for a certain constituency and so on)

You know your neighbors, you know the best way to convince them. Campaign at a higher level should stick to a clear message for name recognition/issues. I.M.O. No sugar coating / sound bite crappy ads. Canvassing strategies should be left in the hands of the local supporters.

Remember our behavior is an iterative process, that is why it is called a loop, the OODA "loop". Anything that slows down or conditions our behavior i.e. our Observation/Orientation/decision/action, diminishes the efficiency of our actions - THE MORE LIBERTY THE BETTER

B. The top focuses on clarity of goals and best transparent access of aggregate information gathered by the grassroots or generated by the political thinking at Strategic level. E.G. full access to speeches, decisions, funding details, poll data etc etc. The top must contribute - not centralize, but contribute, to the spreading of all this information.

It is this information that strengthens the OODA loops at lower levels:
e.g. Polling information, support feedback, funding data etc complement lower level observations and allow for better orientation and better decisions;
strong speeches and arguments, fliers etc can also provide tools for grassroots campaigning (action)

I have to emphasize the following - the best way to keep this movement spreading is by limiting interference from the top.
If they tell you that "we must do a lot of traditional campaigning" you should be wary.
I do not know if the story running around about a corrupted centralized database of people to contact to take to the caucuses is true but this would be a prime example of traditional campaigning inefficiency.
A 3rd Generation Warfare style of operation would immediately have delegated the responsibility to build and manage this types of data at the lowest level possible e.g. precinct captains?. Each small group would run its own operation. Aggregate information could and should be compiled at a higher level but only for improving its own OODA loop, and not to control the information!
The fundamental point of this type of organization is individual responsibility and accountability - you have heard this before haven't you :-)

THIS MEANS YOU HAVE TO TRUST COMPLETELY THOSE AT THE TACTICAL LEVELS - the grassroots

The Ron Paul campaign HQ has succeeded to a certain extent in doing this but they must resist all control temptations.

I do not know how this translates at trench level. I am Portuguese, and am in Portugal so I do not know the ins and outs of political campaigns in the USA but I am willing to discuss these ideas with those that are involved. In fact I urge everyone that is involved in canvassing to do their own research on this and to promote this types of procedures, because they have been and will be the key of the Ron Paul revolution success.

A few examples successful 3rd Gen. Warfare style operations:

1. the only two armies that effectively applied 3rd generation warfare were also considered the two best armies of the 20th century (by very far):
The WWII German Wermacht and the Israel IDF - another really strange historical coincidence :-)

2. Toyotas Production and R&D operational models (lots of books on this). Toyota is soon to become the greatest car maker in the world

I am sorry for the rather difficult to read text but this is a deep and critical issue. I am counting on the normal Ron Paul supporter reaction. To go and study it.

here is a good link to start:
http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/boyd_military.htm

JPFromTally
01-04-2008, 01:29 PM
Interesting post.