DOCSLIB.ORG

Confrontation Analysis : How to Win Operations Other Than War / Nigel Howard

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Confrontation Analysis : How to Win Operations Other Than War / Nigel Howard About the CCRP The C4ISR Cooperative Research Program (CCRP) has the mission of improving DoD’s understanding of the national security implications of the Information Age. Focusing upon improving both the state of the art and the state of the practice of command and control, the CCRP helps DoD take full advantage of the opportunities afforded by emerging technologies. The CCRP pursues a broad program of research and analysis in information superiority, information operations, command and control theory, and associated operational concepts that enable us to leverage shared awareness to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of assigned missions. An important aspect of the CCRP program is its ability to serve as a bridge between the operational, technical, analytical, and educational communities. The CCRP provides leadership for the command and control research community by: n articulating critical research issues; n working to strengthen command and control research infrastructure; n sponsoring a series of workshops and symposia; n serving as a clearing house for command and control related research funding; and n disseminating outreach initiatives that include the CCRP Publication Series. This is a continuation in the series of publications produced by the Center for Advanced Concepts and Technology (ACT), which was created as a skunk works with funding provided by the CCRP under the auspices of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (C3I). This program has demonstrated the importance of having a research program focused on the national security implications of the Information Age. It develops the theoretical foundations to provide DoD with information superiority and highlights the importance of active outreach and dissemination initiatives designed to acquaint senior military personnel and civilians with these emerging issues. The CCRP Publication Series is a key element of this effort. Check our website for the latest CCRP activities and publications. www.dodccrp.org DoD C4ISR Cooperative Research Program Senior Civilian Official and Chief Information Officer, OASD (C3I) Mr. Arthur L. Money Director, Performance Assessment Dr. Margaret E. Myers Director, Research and Executive Agent for CCRP Dr. David S. Alberts Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense, or any other U.S. Government agency. Cleared for public release; distribution unlimited. Portions of this publication may be quoted or reprinted without further permission, with credit to the DoD C4ISR Cooperative Research Program, Washington, D.C. Courtesy copies of reviews would be appreciated. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Howard, Nigel. Confrontation analysis : how to win operations other than war / Nigel Howard. p. cm. -– (CCRP publication series) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 1-893723-00-3 pbk 1. United States—Armed Forces—Operations other than war. I. Title. II. Series. UA23.H568 1999 355.4—dc21 99-22842 August 1999 CIP Confrontation Analysis: How to Win Operations Other Than War Nigel Howard Table of Contents List of Tables and Figures ...................................... iii Acknowledgments ................................................. vii Preface ................................................................... ix Chapter 1 ............................................................... 1 Chapter 2 ............................................................. 21 Chapter 3 ............................................................. 61 Chapter 4 ............................................................. 95 Chapter 5 ........................................................... 133 Chapter 6 ........................................................... 155 Chapter 7 ........................................................... 189 Chapter 8 ........................................................... 215 Chapter 9 ........................................................... 253 Chapter 10 ......................................................... 275 Bibliography ........................................................ B-1 i List of Tables and Figures Table 1. Confrontation between Allied Forces and Rebels ............................................................. 9 Figure 1. Traditional relationship between politicians and military .......................................... 14 Table 2. UN commander confronts ethnic militia .. 23 Table 3. Local commander confronts roadblock .. 25 Figure 2. The six phases of conflict resolution ..... 30 Table 4. The Drunk, His Wife, and His Friend ...... 74 Table 5. Status of Northern Ireland peace talks when Tony Blair took over .................................. 119 Table 6. Status of Northern Ireland talks after Blair shifted position ........................................... 124 Table 7. Northern Ireland options in 1993-1994, showing in detail the position taken by the British and Irish governments in the Downing Street Declaration................................ 141 Table 8. Moryan government no longer wants a cease-fire ........................................................... 167 Table 9. The general has thought up a new card, “Blame the government” ............................ 175 iii Table 10. After the Moryan president has accepted the UNFORMOR position ................... 180 Table 11. Bosnian government refuses to discuss a cease-fire............................................ 221 Table 12. Dilemmas facing characters in table 11 .............................................................. 226 Table 13. What made UNPROFOR angry? The situation preceding table 11 ........................ 228 Table 14. The dilemmas facing characters in table 13 .............................................................. 229 Table 15. Ultimatum to the Bosnian Serbs ......... 233 Table 16. Grand strategic pressure on the Bosnian Serbs .................................................... 237 Table 17. Ultimatum to the Bosnian Serbs with context cards added from grand strategic model ................................................................. 241 Table 18. Dilemmas in table 16 .......................... 243 Table 19. Dilemmas in tables 15 and 17 ............ 244 Table 20. Real pressure brought to bear at last on the Bosnian Serbs ......................................... 247 Table 21. Dilemmas in table 20 .......................... 248 Table 22. Resolution (deceptive) of the operational drama, with grand-strategic context 250 Table 23. Ultimatum to the Bosnian Serbs with threatening grand strategic context............. 264 Table 24. Dilemmas facing characters in table 22 .............................................................. 269 iv Figure 3. Computer screen showing briefing on character role for Bosnian government ......... 283 Table 25. Confrontation between representatives and suppliers ...................................................... 297 v Acknowledgments his book is based on research commissioned by T the UK Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) at the beginning of 1997 into how Confrontation Analysis might be applied to Peace Support Operations. The idea of turning the research into a book came from Dr. David S. Alberts, Director of Research and Executive Agent for the C4ISR Cooperative Research Program. For this I am most grateful to him. Andrew Tait (now with SAIC, then with DERA) was responsible for suggesting the original research project. His suggestion was taken up by George Brander and Paul Willis of DERA, while Peter Murray- Jones also took a keen interest. Many persons with knowledge or experience of peace support managed to find time to assist with the research, including MajGen Pennefeather (Commandant-General of the Royal Marines), Brig Alastair Duncan, Col Robert Stewart (Retd), LtCol Philip Wilkinson, Brig B.C. Lambe, Prof K.C. Bowen, Michael Codner and Edward Foster (Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies), Prof James Gow, Indjana Harper and Vesna Domani-Hardy. Capt David Fifield helped to make military contacts, and Brig R. Lambe (Retd), Steve Lea, George Rose and Graham Mathieson were among many at DERA who helped by responding to the ideas. The basic ideas have themselves been worked out in collaboration with Peter Bennett (now at the UK Department of Health), Prof Jim Bryant and vii Prof Morris Bradley, as well as through interactions with numerous academic and business colleagues over many years. Finally, I must express my gratitude to Dr. Richard E. Hayes and Richard Layton, Evidence Based Research, Inc., and their staff, Lynne Jennrich and Margita Rushing for their work on drafts of the book, and Meg Rittler for her work on the figures and cover design. © British Crown copyright 1998/DERA. Published with the permission of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency on behalf of the Controller of HMSO. viii Preface his book presents a simple idea. A Peace T Operations campaign (or Operation Other Than War) should be seen as a linked sequence of confrontations—in contrast to a traditional, warfighting campaign, which is a linked sequence of battles. The objective in each confrontation is to bring about certain “compliant” behavior on the part of other parties, until in the end the campaign objective is reached. This is a state of sufficient compliance to enable the military to leave the theater. If this simple idea is accepted, we can show how the new technique of Confrontation Analysis (derived
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Manipulation of Suspects and Unrecorded Questioning: After Fifty Years of Miranda Jurisprudence, Still Two (Or Maybe Three) Burning Issues
    MANIPULATION OF SUSPECTS AND UNRECORDED QUESTIONING: AFTER FIFTY YEARS OF MIRANDA JURISPRUDENCE, STILL TWO (OR MAYBE THREE) BURNING ISSUES ∗ CHRISTOPHER SLOBOGIN INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1158 I. THREE GENERATIONS OF INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES ................. 1160 II. THE LEGALITY OF SECOND-GENERATION TECHNIQUES .................. 1164 A. Coercion ................................................................................... 1164 1. Manipulative Techniques That Are Coercive ..................... 1168 2. Manipulative Techniques That Are Not Coercive .............. 1171 3. The Rights Predicate and State Action ............................... 1173 4. Summary ............................................................................ 1177 B. Reliability ................................................................................. 1177 1. The Defendant’s Burden of Production .............................. 1181 2. The Prosecution’s Burden of Proof .................................... 1187 III. RECORDING ...................................................................................... 1188 A. The Constitutional Arguments .................................................. 1190 B. Extending the Recording Right Beyond the Stationhouse ........ 1192 IV. A WORD ON INTERROGATION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS .............. 1194 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 1195 Fifty years after Miranda,
    [Show full text]
  • Traditions in Conflict: the Internationalization of Confrontation Kweku Vanderpuyet
    Cornell International Law Journal Volume 43 Article 3 Issue 3 Fall 2010 Traditions in Conflict: The nI ternationalization of Confrontation Kweku Vanderpuye Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Vanderpuye, Kweku (2010) "Traditions in Conflict: The nI ternationalization of Confrontation," Cornell International Law Journal: Vol. 43: Iss. 3, Article 3. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj/vol43/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell International Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Traditions in Conflict: The Internationalization of Confrontation Kweku Vanderpuyet This article considers internationalnorms concerning the right to adver- sarial confrontation in positing a normative analytical standard of admissibil- ity with respect to the "right to examine" guaranteed under Article 67(1)(e) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It considers the notion of confrontation in the context of both the Continental European tradi- tion, as well as the Anglo-American Common Law conception of the right, focusing on U.S. constitutional doctrine and relatively recent developments in English jurisprudence. It also surveys the scope of the right to examine as defined by the U.N. Human Rights
    [Show full text]
  • Hierarchical Graph Models for Conflict Resolution
    Hierarchical Graph Models for Conflict Resolution by Shawei He Athesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Systems Design Engineering Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2015 © Shawei He 2015 Author’s Declaration This thesis consists of material all of which I authored or co-authored: see Statement of Contributions included in the thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. Iunderstandthatmythesismaybemadeelectronicallyavailabletothepublic. ii Statement of Contributions I declare that the original ideas, theories, and case studies in this thesis were proposed and developed by myself alone. My two PhD supervisors, Professor Keith W. Hipel and Professor D. Marc Kilgour, provided guidance and suggestions for refining my ideas as well as improving the organization and presentation of this thesis. Chapters 3 and 4 are based on two published journal articles, of which I am the first author. These papers, listed below, are also shown in the References and referred to at appropriate locations in my thesis. He, S., Kilgour, D. M., Hipel, K. W., and Bashar, M. A. (2013). A Basic Hierarchical Graph Model for Conflict Resolution with Application to Water Diversion Conflicts in China. INFOR: Information Systems and Operational Research, 51(3), 103-119. He, S., Hipel, K. W., and Kilgour, D. M. (2014). Water diversion conflicts in China: A hierarchical perspective. Water Resources Management, 28(7), 1823-1837. iii Abstract The hierarchical graph model is developed for representing strategic conflicts having a hierarchical structure. More specifically, in a hierarchical graph model, one or more decision makers (DMs) at a higher level are involved in lower level or local disputes, such as when a central government is participating in separate disputes with di↵erent provincial governments.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundation of Subjective Confrontation Analysis Page 1 of 11
    Foundation of Subjective Confrontation Analysis Page 1 of 11 Foundation of Subjective Confrontation Analysis Pri Hermawan1, Kyoichi Kijima2* Department of Value and Decision Science, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, 152-8552 JAPAN [email protected] [email protected] *Correspondence can be directed to this author, as the primary contact. Abstract The purpose of the paper is to introduce a foundation of subjective confrontation analysis of negotiation. Negotiation is something that we do every time and happens in every aspect of our life. The fact that in negotiation process each side can have different aims and interests often give some potential for conflict. As a foundation of subjective confrontation analysis of negotiation, we first identify negotiation as reciprocal proposals of positions and threats by two characters who are involved and share a common frame on which they negotiate. Inconsistency between the proposed positions may lead them to face dilemmas to be resolved in order to achieve agreement. Next, we formally define three types of dilemmas that might arise in such negotiation in terms of dramatic model. Then, after proposing a new theoretical framework to resolve one of those dilemmas, we will apply the concepts of dramatic model for analyzing the conflicts that arise in a river pollution case in Indonesia. Finally, we will discuss its findings and ideas for further research. Keywords: confrontation analysis; subjective frame; negotiation; dramatic model 1. Introduction Negotiation is part of our life as a social human being. We propose one position to the other party, and if accepted, the negotiation process will end in cooperation.
    [Show full text]
  • Confrontation Analysis in Natural Gas Extraction from Shared Field
    واﻛﺎوي ﺗﻘﺎﺑﻞ در ﺑﺮداﺷﺖ از ﻣﻴﺪان ﻣﺸﺘﺮك ﮔﺎزي اﻳﺮان و ﻗﻄﺮ ﺑﺎ روﻳﻜﺮد ﺗﺌﻮري درام ﻋﺎدل آذر1* ، ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﻧﺠﻔﻲ ﺗﻮاﻧﺎ2 ، ﺣﺴﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪي3 .1 اﺳﺘﺎد ﮔﺮوه ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ، داﻧﺸﻜﺪه ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ و اﻗﺘﺼﺎد، داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﺗﺮﺑﻴﺖ ﻣﺪرس، ﺗﻬﺮان، ﺗﻬﺮان .2 اﺳﺘﺎدﻳﺎر ﮔﺮوه ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ ، ﻣﻮﺳﺴﻪ ﻋﺎﻟﻲ آﻣﻮزش و ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ و ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ رﻳﺰي، ﺗﻬﺮان، ﺗﻬﺮان .3 ﻛﺎرﺷﻨﺎس ارﺷﺪ ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ ﺻﻨﻌﺘﻲ، ﻣﻮﺳﺴﻪ ﻋﺎﻟﻲ آﻣﻮزش و ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ و ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ رﻳﺰي، ﺗﻬﺮان، ﺗﻬﺮان در ﻳﺎﻓﺖ: /21 /11 94 ﭘﺬﻳﺮش: /1 /12 94 94 ﭼﻜﻴﺪه ﻣﺪﻟﺴﺎزي و ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺗﻌﺎرض از ﻣﻨﻈﺮ رﺷﺘﻪ ﻫﺎي ﮔﻮﻧﺎﮔﻮﻧﻲ ﺻﻮرت ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ. روش ﻫﺎي ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻲ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺘﺎﮔﻴﻢ از ﺟﺎﻣﻊ ﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﺪل ﻫﺎﻳﻲ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮاي ﻣﺪﻟﺴﺎزي و ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺗﻌﺎرض ﻣﻮرد اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﻗﺮار ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ. ﻣﺮور ادﺑﻴﺎت ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﻧﺸﺎن ﻣﻲ دﻫﺪ ﻛﻪ در ﻣﻴﺪان ﻣﺸﺘﺮك ﮔﺎزي اﻳﺮان و ﻗﻄﺮ، وﺟﻮد ﻣﻨﻔﻌﺖ ﻣﺸﺘﺮك و ﻋﺪم وﺟﻮد ﺗﻌﺎدل در ﻗﺪرت ﻃﺮﻓﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻋﺚ اﻳﺠﺎد ﺗﻌﺎرض ﺑﻴﻦ دو ﻛﺸﻮر ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ. ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ ﺗﺎﻛﻨﻮن ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺟﺪي در زﻣﻴﻨﻪ اﺑﻌﺎد دﺧﻴﻞ در اﻳﻦ ﺗﻌﺎرض اﻧﺠﺎم ﻧﮕﺮﻓﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ. در اﻳﻦ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﻈﻮر ﺷﻨﺎﺳ ﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﻣﻮﺟﻮد از ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺗﻘﺎﺑﻠﻲ و روﻳﻜﺮد ﺗﺌﻮري درام ﺑﻬﺮه ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ. ﺑﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻮر ﺑﺮ اﺳﺎس اﻃﻼﻋﺎت ﺟﻤﻊ آوري ﺷﺪه ﺣﺎﺻﻞ از ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﻫﺎ ﭼﺎرﭼﻮﺑﻲ اراﺋﻪ ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ ﻣﺆﺛﺮ در ﻣﻴﺪان ﻣﺸﺘﺮك ﺑﻴﻦ اﻳﺮان و ﻗﻄﺮ را ﻧﺸﺎن ﻣﻲ دﻫﺪ. اﮔﺮﭼﻪ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻫﺎي ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﺣﺎﻛﻲ از ﻋﺪم اﻣﻜﺎن ﻣﺬا ﻛﺮه در ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﻓﻌﻠﻲ ﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ، اﻣﺎ وﺿﻌﻴﺖ ﻣﺜﺒﺘﻲ را ﺑﺮاي ﻃﺮف اﻳﺮاﻧﻲ در آﻳﻨﺪه ﭘﻴﺶ ﺑﻴﻨﻲ ﻛﺮده اﺳﺖ. Downloaded from mri.modares.ac.ir at 23:12 IRST on Saturday September 25th 2021 اﻳﻦ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﻳﻚ اﺳﺘﺮاﺗﮋي ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻧﻴﺰ ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎد ﻣﻲ ﻛﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻋﻼوه ﺑﺮ ﻣﺮﺗﻔﻊ ﻛﺮدن ﺗﻌﺎرض ﺑﻴﻦ اﻳﺮان و ﻗﻄﺮ، ﺗﺴﻬﻴﻞ اﻳﺠﺎد ﻳﻚ ﻫﻤﻜﺎري ﺛﻤﺮﺑﺨﺶ ﺑﻴﻦ دو ﻃﺮف را ﻧﻴﺰ در ﭘﻲ دارد.
    [Show full text]
  • King's Research Portal
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by King's Research Portal King’s Research Portal DOI: 10.1177/1046878117690947 Document Version Peer reviewed version Link to publication record in King's Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Curry, J., Ruggiero, D., Sabin, P. A. G., & Young, M. (2017). Modelling the Outcomes of International Crises Using Confrontation Analysis. Simulation & Gaming, 48(3), 314-328. DOI: 10.1177/1046878117690947 Citing this paper Please note that where the full-text provided on King's Research Portal is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Post-Print version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. •Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research. •You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain •You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the Research Portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
    [Show full text]
  • A National Protocol for Sexual Abuse Medical Forensic Examinations Pediatric
    April 2016 A National Protocol for Sexual Abuse Medical Forensic Examinations Pediatric A National Protocol for Sexual Abuse Medical Forensic Examinations Pediatric U.S. Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women April 2016 NCJ # 249871 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Forward ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5 A. Foundation for Response During the Exam Process ............................................................................... 21 A1. Principles of Care .............................................................................................................................. 23 A2. Adapting Care for Each Child ............................................................................................................ 31 A3. Coordinated Team Approach ............................................................................................................ 43 A4. Health Care Infrastructure ................................................................................................................ 55 A4a. Pediatric Examiners ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Interrelationships Among Attitude-Based and Conventional Stability Concepts Within the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution
    Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics San Antonio, TX, USA - October 2009 Interrelationships among Attitude-Based and Conventional Stability Concepts within the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution Takehiro Inohara Keith W. Hipel Department of Value and Decision Science Department of Systems Design Engineering Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—Propositions are presented on interrelationships in [18]. The concept of policies, which is similar to that of among attitude-based and conventional stability concepts within strategies in game theory [28], is introduced to the graph the paradigm of Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. In fact, model framework in [36], [37]. Research on the topic of the authors verify the following properties: if decision makers’ attitudes are discrete and decision makers’ preferences are incomplete preference information is also carried out [25], complete and anti-symmetric, then i) relational Nash stability is [29]. Cooperative decision situations are also analyzed within equivalent to Nash stability, ii) relational general metarationality GMCR [34]. is equivalent to general metarationality, iii) relational symmetric In a conflict, the attitudes of the various DMs can signifi- metarationality is equivalent to symmetric metarationality, and iv) relational sequential stability is equivalent to sequential cantly influence the outcome of the conflict. Thus, analyzing stability; under totally neutral attitudes of decision makers, i) the conflict as well as the accompanying attitudes is useful for relational Nash stability is equivalent to relational symmetric better understanding a given conflict. Attitude-based analysis metarationality, and ii) relational general metarationality is allows decision analysts to examine a lot of potential conflicts equivalent to relational sequential stability.
    [Show full text]
  • Confrontation Analysis: Prediction, Interpretation Or Diagnosis?
    Confrontation Analysis: Prediction, Interpretation or Diagnosis? Dr Peter Bennett Operational Research (EOR) Dept of Health Skipton House 80 London Road LONDON SE1 6LH UK∗ Abstract This paper considers whether theories that focus on actors' choices (like both Game Theory and Confrontation Analysis) can successfully provide predictions. Various types of prediction are considered - for example, of individuals versus some wider system; and of actors' behaviour versus the outcome reached. A theory without great predictive power may still have some attractions as a framework for interpreting events. However if it is not predictive in any sense, the danger is that of providing only post hoc comfort, allowing any sequence of events to be "explained" in ways that defy genuine test. We suggest that Confrontation Analysis does have some predictive power, though this generally stops short of predicting the eventual outcome of a conflict. In particular, it may be helpful as a diagnostic tool, helping one to test alternative explanations for actors' behaviour and hence going some way toward prognosis. Diagnostic use is illustrated by an attempt to apply Confrontation Analysis during the build-up to the recent war with Iraq. 1. Background The question of whether any theory of human choice can claim to be predictive is an old one, traditionally linked to fundamental philosophical debates. For example, should the human sciences aspire to resemble the natural sciences? If free will has any meaning, is it compatible with predictability? The present discussion has several roots, the most obvious being Kesten Green’s study of prediction (Green, 2002 and this volume). There are also three longer-term influences.
    [Show full text]
  • In-Stride Adjudication
    Working Group Connections US Wargaming Conference 2018 National Defense University Washington DC In-Stride Adjudication Working Group Chairs Merle Robinson Stephen Downes-Martin Working Group Gordon Bliss, Rex Brynen, Deon Canyon, Stephen Downes-Martin, Arius Kaufmann, William Lademan, Jason Li, Ed McGrady, Robert Mosher, Peter Pellegrino, Peter Perla, Merle Robinson, Chris Weuve The content of this document represents the opinion solely of the contributors and does not represent the policy of any organization. Working Group members maintain full and exclusive intellectual property rights over their contributions. Any errors, misrepresentation or misinterpretation in this document are the sole responsibility of Stephen Downes-Martin. Contents 1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Mission .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Process .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Emergent Perspectives ................................................................................................. 2 2 Working Group Papers ........................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Introduction to Working Group Papers ....................................................................... 3 2.2 Review of Working Group Papers
    [Show full text]
  • State-Of-The-Art Report on Systems Analysis Methods for Resolution of Conflicts in Water Resources Management
    STATE-OF-THE-ART REPORT ON SYSTEMS ANALYSIS METHODS FOR RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTS IN WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT A Report Prepared for Division of Water Sciences UNESCO Edited by K. D. W. Nandalal University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka Slobodan P. Simonovic University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada SC-2003/WS/60 Contributors Dr M. Bender with Prof. S. P. Simonovic, authors of Sections 3.5.5, 3.5.6, 4.1 and 5.6 Prof. V. Dukhovny Prof. K. W. Hipel with Prof. D. M. Kilgour, Prof. F. Liping and Mr. K. W. Li, authors of Section 4.3 Dr T. Le-Huu Prof. D. P. Loucks Prof. S. P. Simonovic, author of Sections 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 Dr S. N. Sreenath, with Dr A. M. Vali and Dr G. Susiarjo, authors of Section 4.4.5 The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The authors are responsible for the choice and the presentation of the facts contained in this book and for the opinions expressed therein, which are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report is a contribution from UNESCO’s International Hydrological Programme to the World Water Assessment Programme. It was prepared within the framework of the joint UNESCO–Green Cross International project entitled “From Potential Conflict to Cooperation Potential (PCCP): Water for Peace,” and was made possible by the generous financial assistance of the Japanese government.
    [Show full text]
  • Co-Ordinated Positions in a Drama-Theoretic Confrontation: Mathematical Foundations for a PO Decision Support System
    Co-ordinated Positions in a Drama-theoretic Confrontation: Mathematical Foundations for a PO Decision Support System Peter Murray-Jones (DERA) Nigel Howard (dramatec) 12 Chesham Road, Brighton BN2 1NB, UK Tel.: +44 1273 67 45 86 e-mail: [email protected]) British Crown Copyright, 2001. Published with the permission of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency on behalf of the Controller of HMSO. This report has been funded under the Corporate Research Programme, TG11, of the Ministry of Defence, UK Abstract Confrontation Analysis (CA) has an essential mathematical foundation. It is based on Drama Theory, a development of Game Theory. Instead of analysing a game-type model for ‘solutions’, CA analyses it for ‘dilemmas’. These show where and how the model is likely to prove inadequate as players re-define their situation in order to eliminate their dilemmas. Fundamental theorems proved about dilemma-elimination have assumed that each player’s ‘position’ (the solution it advocates) is a single outcome. A typical confrontation in Bosnia illustrates the fact that a player’s position may offer others a number of outcomes. Research reported in this paper has generalised the fundamental theorems to the case of ‘general’ positions that may contain more than one outcome. We argue that general positions may be assumed to be ‘co-ordinated’; this concept is defined and discussed. Finally, we show how our results are used in designing a C2 system for confronting Non-Compliant Parties in a Peace Operation. Introduction Confrontation Analysis is an approach to modelling situations involving multiple parties with conflicting objectives. The technique can be used to: • Assist a particular party in negotiating a desirable resolution to a confrontation; or • Support a third party attempting to mediate between warring factions.
    [Show full text]