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

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

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

4. Agenda Problem Conceptual Model Data

5. 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

6. 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

7. InsurgentPro- Insurgent ApatheticAnti- Insurgent Counter- Insurgent Civilian Population Insurgency Behavior Sectors Civilian Population Segments

8. Insurgency Behavior Model Insurgents Counterinsurgents

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

10. Population segments & sectors Population segment demographics Scenario event list Behavioral Data Data

11. Population segments & sectors Population segment demographics Scenario event list Behavioral Data Data

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

13. 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

14. 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 Psychological Operations Doctrine

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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) Human Behavioral Data

18. 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) Akela Province Scenario

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

20. 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

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

22. Buenaventura Urban Poor

29. 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

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

31. Action/ EmotionEPA Abandon-2.28-0.48-0.84 Applaud2.151.631.62 Condemn-1.861.12-0.17 Denigrate-1.73-0.13-0.08 Embrace2.81.560.36 Action/ EmotionSalience Abandon-7.00 Applaud10.45 Condemn-7.25 Denigrate-5.98 Embrace11.85 Effect of Other Population Segments

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

33. Effect of Other Population Segments