The One CA Podcast

173: Achieving post conflict stabilization with Prof. Beatrice Heuser (Pt.2)

Recently, I partnered with SMA's Mariah Yager to talk with Professor Beatrice Houser about post-conflict stabilization. 

“In Kuwait, preparing for the Iraq invasion, I asked the leadership, ‘Could you give us a little more detail about after we get to Baghdad and topple the regime? ' [The answer] was more than inadequate.’” -David Petraeus, speaking at Carnegie.

The U.S. and the West recently suffered monumental failures in planning and implementing post-conflict stabilization, resulting in massive corruption, instability and loss of foreign policy goals.

[Charley Wilson’s War]. “These things happened. They were glorious, and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the endgame.” -Charley Wilson’s end-of-film quote.

In this session, we turn the corner from commiserating on past failures to discussing solutions to planning and implementing the transition from conflict to post-conflict stabilization. To help partner nations regain their stability, security and partnership in the international community.  

To help, we have brought in Professor Beatrice Heuser, renowned Chair in International Relations at the University of Glasgow and second to the General Staff Academy of the Bundeswehr, as Head of Strategy.

Dr. Heuser recently published a paper on post-conflict Gaza stabilization and reconstruction and wanted to discuss strategies for building an effective post-conflict strategy and operation.  

Jack Gaines, showrunner and host of the One CA Podcast, is joining SMA to co-host the discussion.

In this session, Dr. Heuser, Jack Gaines, Mariah Yager and the audience will try to address three themes:
1. Planning the transition from conflict to post-conflict. How should the military shape the end of an active conflict to help the transition to post-conflict stabilization?

2. How to support the post-conflict stabilization. Typically, during stabilization, insurgencies rise, popular movements grow, and extremist groups attempt to usurp the transition for their political ambitions; how does conflict stabilization work with the military to minimize usurping groups while spotting and enabling popular movements?

3. Spotting and supporting the post-conflict transition and transitioning a post-conflict state that depends on aid and support to become independent. How can the military, diplomacy, and development workers manage the process to ensure a successful transition to becoming an independent partner in the international community?

 

Thank you FeedSpot for ranking One CA Podcast as one of their top 10 foreign policy podcasts. Check it out at: https://podcasts.feedspot.com/foreign_policy_podcasts/

One CA is a product of the civil affairs association 

and brings in people who are current or former military, diplomats, development officers, and field agents to discuss their experiences on the ground with a partner nation's people and leadership.

We aim to inspire anyone interested in working in the "last three feet" of U.S. foreign relations. 

To contact the show, email us at CApodcasting@gmail dot com

or look us up on the Civil Affairs Association website at www civilaffairsassoc.org

Special thanks for SensualMusic4You producing "Hip Hop Jazz & Hip Hop Jazz Instrumental: 10 Hours of Hip Hop Jazz." Sample found at https://youtu.be/XEa0Xn9XAzk?si=eeWyVqE3c1uL6d2Q

---

00:00:03    Introduction
Welcome to the 1CA Podcast. This is your host, Jack Gaines. 1CA is a product of the Civil Affairs Association and brings in people who are current or former military, diplomats, development officers, and field agents to discuss their experiences on ground with the partner nation's people and leadership. Our goal is to inspire anyone interested in working the last three feet of foreign relations. To contact the show, email us at capodcasting at gmail dot com. Or look us up on the Civil Affairs Association website at www .civilaffairsassos .org. I'll have those in the show notes.

00:00:39    MARIAH YAGER
Hello, everyone. I'm Mariah Yeager, and welcome to today's SMA speaker session entitled Building Solutions to Post -Conflict Stabilization. I'd like to thank Professor Beatrice Huser for taking the time to speak with us today. And I'd also like to welcome back Major Jack Gaines of the 1CA podcast as our guest host.

00:00:57    JACK GAINES
I partnered with SMA to talk with Professor Beatrice Hauser on post -conflict stabilization. What you will hear on this show is the edited version. If you wish to listen to the full uncut version, I will have a link to it in the show notes. This is part one of two. The second half comes out next week. So enjoy.

00:01:17    MARIAH YAGER
So with that, please keep your video and audio off for the duration of the event so we have a nice clear line for our presentation today. All right, let me introduce Professor Beatrice Huser. She holds the Chair in International Relations at the University of Glasgow. She has degrees from the Universities of London and Oxford and a habilitation from the Phillips University of Marburg. She has taught at King's College London and at universities in France and Germany. Previously, she has worked on the international staff at NATO headquarters in Brussels as well. She has numerous publications. from nuclear strategy, history of strategy, insurgencies, and counterinsurgency. But today we're talking about post -conflict stabilization. And with that, I'm going to turn the floor over to Leijer.

00:01:59    JACK GAINES
Thank you, Mariah. And thank you, Professor Huser. Personally, I see a market gap in post -conflict stabilization. And to describe that gap, I forwarded Professor Huser three challenge questions to help her shape her presentation and the discussion. Those questions were, the military drives conflict to an end state. what conditions do we need to achieve to successfully transition a conflict into post -conflict stabilization? Second, during post -conflict conditions, how does the military and lead agencies spot and support legitimate efforts while also spotting and filtering out groups trying to derail recovery for their own benefit or spoilers or those who use instability for personal gain? And third, How do we work to transition a nation from post -conflict dependencies to becoming a self -sufficient member of the international community? These came to me after listening to retired General David Petraeus speak at Carnegie. He talked about when he was a division commander preparing to go into Baghdad and asking leadership about the plan after toppling the regime. The response was, leave that to us, which he states was inadequate. General Petraeus described the market gap. We needed to know the instate to achieve post -conflict conditions and then how to deter instability to support stabilization and transition. So that is the challenge for Professor Huser to answer. But I also wanted to use this talk as a call to action. We should take chalk to the State Department CSO strategy to either update our current plans and operations so they achieve the conditions for post -conflict stabilization and transition or Build operational templates that staff can plug into the back of any strategy or operation so planners can sketch out the steps to drive a conflict into a successful post -conflict environment with stabilization and transition. So with that, Professor Huser, good morning.

00:04:00    BEATRICE HEUSER
Thank you very much indeed. I'm very honored to be with you. If you can stop sharing your screen, I will flash mine up straight away and start. with a disclaimer that I am a very small and modern armchair strategist, and I'm standing on the shoulders of lots and lots of giants, which means that I'm going to introduce you in the first part of this whole talk to the ideas and the thinking of some very interesting and very important people of the past who've had plenty of experience. But at the same time, what is driving my interest is, of course, the present. And you will see all along, I think, like me, how these ideas that were developed by people a long time ago impact on the present. More still, there's a big debate about how much war changes and how much technology impacts war. I think particularly when it comes to insurgencies, peacemaking, counterinsurgency, intervention in foreign wars, there is a particularly strong continuity. even with allowances made for some of the modern technology. All the themes I'm going to be running past you today very quickly, I have got a very important role to play still in the present. So without further ado, let me plunge into the subject and I promise to you that I'll become more modern as at the very end during questions and answers. But I don't think it would make much sense if I simply ran you through. the NATO AGP 3 .28 contribution to stabilisation, let me take you back instead to a lot of ideas that have been around for a long time, some of which have found their way into this new NATO document. So these are the points that I'm going to be addressing. What happens when we're still at war affects everything else, then the difficulties of the transition to peace, post -conflict stabilisation, and how then to wean a polity from this foreign intervention. And then I have a big philosophical question at the end, which you will have to bear with me for, because it is very, very difficult and very morally problematic in every way. And I hope that I will not be misread when coming to this last point. So very briefly, let us look at what happens while we're still at war and how that influences the outcome and the intervention and the outcome of a stabilisation. process afterwards. One of the things that I've discovered trying to look into the subject of how to end wars is that causes of wars and war aims could be the same really, but they're not. Simply because during a war, particularly if it's more than seven days, more things can appear that will change the aims of the war. In theory, the causes of the war are grievance that you want to address. So if you've addressed the grievance, the war's over. But in fact, during the development of the war, things change. Existing causes and war aims can wax and wane in that context. The question is, in trying to make peace, what is at stake? Is it something like secession of a state or a part of a state? Is it to have better rights? Or is it something much bigger? Is it in fact something like... a world order that lurks behind that particular conflict. Is the war about ethnic tensions with interstate, as it was in Bosnia, Herzegovina and Kosovo? Is it about picking out a foreign occupation power, a colonial power, as in Indochina and Algeria on Indonesia? Is it about religion, as it was for the Iranian Revolution Phase II, the Arab Spring Phase II, Afghanistan in its last phase? Is it about kicking out, overthrowing a government that is non -democratic and corrupt and is trying to perpetuate its power as South Vietnam in Iran, the Shah and phase one in Iraq, in Niger? And one of the important things there was a realization by one of my heroes about you, whom you're going to hear more, a Spaniard called the Third Marquis of Santa Cruz de Mascinado, who lived in the early 18th century. and who even then said that a state rarely rises up without the fault of its governors. And a Welshman who was Catholic and therefore escaped Protestant England and Britain in the 18th century, the first cause and object of a revolt is to repel injuries, real or supposed. The second is to provide for future security, which can never be effectually done other than by destroying the sovereign authority. There is no alternative. Freedom or slavery is the result of it. Very interestingly enough, during the first phase of the American War of Independence, but this stark way he put it is very modern. Therefore, the sovereign in conducting such a war should, by a moderate conduct, diminish the idea of danger and leave room to a solid and hearty reconciliation. So reconciliation is already a very important idea to take away from the idea of how to... end the war and stabilize that result of war. The effects of the conduct of war will polarize warring parties even more, particularly if the war is conducted in a way perceived as being exceptionally cruel. Ukrainians cared little about Russians before 2014. By now, it is pretty unlikely that there are a lot of Ukrainians still around who have positive feelings about Russians and the many things we hear about Ukraine, about how they suddenly... ban Russian books from bookshelves and from the school curricula seem to suggest that. Equally, the feelings of people in Gaza, I imagine, are much worse now towards Israel than even when the war started in October last year. Christina Pizal, who is the only woman strategist I've ever come across in the early 15th century, wrote that cruelty increases and multiplies the number of enemies by making many people die. for their children are kin succeed them in hate. That is to say, for one enemy slain, several others spring up. This has got a path to reconciliation when, for every enemy slain, several others spring up. A very brief note about bombing. The idea in the immediate post -World War I period that you could end wars faster by bombing civilian populations. Pressing them to put pressure in turn on their governments to surrender has been proved to be quite unworkable. So in the Second World War, as a number of authors have shown, this was quite counterproductive because it created more solidarity, both in Ukraine and in Gaza. It has not turned the population against its own government. I think in both cases, the bombing from the air has had very adverse effects on the chances of making a good peace. making it soon and then stabilizing the situation. Let me touch briefly on the question of which external actors might be the best to intervene in something that is a civil war of a country, a non -international armed conflict. There are configurations in which somebody very, very external to the conflict might have been a good side to intervene. For example, I used to go around in the 1990s before the Easter agreements and the Good Friday agreements were signed in 1998, saying that in fact it would have been a good idea to bring in German forces because they weren't sympathising with either side and they weren't seen as enemies by either side. In the Yugoslav wars it was clearly an external multinational force that was the best. In African conflicts what seems not to be a good idea is to bring in previous colonial powers. There's a lot of atheistic reaction to say, ah, they're just neo -colonialists now, they're just trying to get back to their colonial rights. In the Gaza conflict, Israel conflict, I think it would be best to have other Muslim countries coming in. I don't think it would be very good to have lots of European countries coming in and doing anything there. But having a Muslim coalition intervene would, I think, be a very interesting avenue to explore. One of the things that is incredibly difficult or can be a great obstacle to making peace is if the conflicting parties have something very different in mind for that peace, for that peace order. And if you look at past peace settlements going through history, the ones which were particularly difficult to arrive at were ones where the different parties to the conflict not only quarrel over particular rights within their country, a particular piece of land or anything like that, in between countries, but about a larger order after the peace. And that was true before the Westphalian peace negotiations. It was true for the end of the Napoleonic Wars, the peace negotiations in Vienna. It was true for the Paris Peace Conference after the end of the First World War. And after the Second World War, it was so tricky and so difficult because particularly the Soviet Union and then the Western powers had such diametrically opposed ideas of what the world order should be like that you didn't really have a peace settlement before you had the Helsinki Final Act of 1975. So this is part of the problem, I think, for Ukraine today. And it is part of the problem for Israel -Palestine. In the case of Ukraine, there's the question of the world system as we have it at the moment, the world order, which bans war as the instrument of state power. If Russia gets away with doing this, the world order is seriously undermined. For Israel -Palestine, it is the Middle Eastern order that is seriously undermined or can be changed in some way or is something that is seen very, very differently by both sides. both denying each other's existence, definitely on the case of Hamas vis -à -vis Israel, and bringing in all the other great powers indirectly or directly into this conflict. So the greater peace afterwards also plays an enormous role in making peace settlements very difficult. The transition to peace has already, in the past, been very slow and difficult in some cases. We've heard an awful lot recently about how neither the First World War nor the Second World War really ends with the date that we always celebrate. Both in the First World War 1918 and the Second World War 1945, in fact, were followed by long -drawn -out conflicts, particularly in Eastern Europe and partly also in the Middle East. in what Timothy Snyder has called the bloodlands, where simply all sorts of vendettas continued. And when, of course, with the Russian Revolution, then the Russian war against Poland and the Baltic states, etc., war simply carried on. It wasn't a simple, neat transition to peace. In those regions, there seems to be something more at stake other than the Christian of how to settle it legally that we have more in Western Europe and some other parts of the world. The same is true for Yugoslavia. Libya, as we know, was not simply ended by our Western military intervention. And if you look at Sudan and South Sudan, another very volatile area which hasn't settled down and where peacemaking hasn't really worked particularly well. One of the things that seems to have been very important in the past has been planning for the transition. This is where the UK Coast Hostilities Planning Committee of the Second World War was exceptional and had an enormous role in determining what Coast Conflict Europe was going to look like. It started in 1943 and by 1944 was signalling very heavily that there was a great danger that the Soviet Union would turn from ally into the new confederator. So this is then in stark contrast. through Iraq 2003 and the total absence of planning there. The question Major Gaines put to me was, how should the military shape the end of an active conflict to help transition to post -conflict stabilisation? I think some of the answers there are that it is very, very important that you get the indigenous powers and the local powers on board so that they can control all armed forces and police forces within the country. and that if a foreign power intervenes, it really must be in sufficient numbers. Those, I think, are two points to keep in mind that you find from a number of previous examples that might be cited to show where something went a little bit better than Iran 2003.

00:17:04    BEATRICE HEUSER
Here's a number of points that I'd just like to raise with regard to interventions that aim at ending the fighting phase of a conflict, when you intervene specifically to stop the fighting. Again, we're talking about the recommendations to the military on shaping the end of an active conflict to help the transition to post -conflict stabilizations. What are the lessons here from two cases that worked particularly well, which in many ways are exceptional? These two cases of Germany and Japan in the Second World War. What worked well there was that there was one government among the Allies that was firmly in command and coordinated all the others. which was the United States after the Second World War. So have one lead power and all the others really orient themselves towards this lead power. And then really have an overall plan for how to proceed and implement it with every tentacle of the great octopus of governance and not have different tentacles do their own things, being stuck in little silos of their own and doing different things. One of the reports coming out is a Bundestag on why Germany failed so badly also in Afghanistan. There were many, many, many reasons, but one of them was that different allies in the intervention in Afghanistan really had different priorities and were fully coordinated. Have the same rules of engagement. I think that's a lesson to be taken away from Bosnia -Herzegovina. That would really, really help. Arrest the leaders, give them a fair trial and do not make them martyrs. And then to see if there is a government in exile that is seen as legitimate. This can be very helpful if it can be seen as legitimate, if it has been there all along, and not necessarily simply as a puppet of the intervention forces that are then appointed by their might rather than by any older legitimacy. This was so helpful in the case of France that there was this government in exile. Turning to post -conflict stabilisation. This is where I want to introduce you again to Santamu, who is not only a soldier but also a diplomat, and had a whole series of ideas that he developed on how to prevent insurgencies and how to quell them once they have broken out, and how to pacify an area that has been at war in some way, mainly as an insurgency, but as in civil war, anything like that. One of the things that he put forward, which is, I think, much in keeping with our own fashion at the moment, is to say that one should stick to the rules of law and the customs of the particular country concerned. One should preserve for the whole state and each individual citizen the unhampered enjoyment of their commodities, laws, freedoms and the religion, not to try to change the customs and religions. The false charges swell the ranks of the malcontents. Often a man becomes a rebel just because he has been falsely suspected. Make sure the criminals are kept in prison and not freed by the rebels. Ensure that the unemployed are employed so that they don't become insurgents. Have proper tribunals and let the culprits be judged there. Keep your own troops very disciplined. Do not use excessive force and do not seek to change the religion and customs of the country. He went on to say that inflation's food scarcity are to be avoided if at all possible. Very important. Create prosperity, markets, trade. This is already for the stabilization post -conflict. Disarm the population and outlaw military exercises. And then one which I think is so sweet. He was all for educating the population and even creating universities. And then all disputes and core rules have to be settled and eradicated by the roots. Only among the rebels should one foster disagreements, but one should suppress them among one's subjects. So this is an amazing piece, and he had a whole series of other pieces of advice. I once asked General Petraeus whether he actually knew of Santa Cruz's writings, and he said never heard of him. I thought it was quite interesting how much that has come to the fore again. I'll run quickly through some more historical examples I had. The French General Dichemin had a whole spiel about how rebels will only prosper if the situation is really poor. And you have to approach the evil plants of piracy, as he called it, rebellion, by ensuring that they can't take root in an environment and the soil that is favorable to them. Establish a military belt. and then reconstitute the society within that area of surrounded by your own soldiers. The French Marsal and Joté was another one who wrote very strongly about the need for a combined application of force and politics. We must always treat the country and its inhabitants with consideration since the former is destined to receive our future colonial enterprises, and the latter will be our main agents and carburetors in the development of our enterprises. This was still from a colonial point of view. The importance that Lyoté saw in political action being more important than military action. There's a whole series of American field manuals that are very, very good. The motive in small wars is not material destruction. You could see that equally for wars of intervention. They're usually projected dealing with the social, economic and political development of the people. It implies a serious study of the people and their culture. Sir Joel Templer talked about really the hearts and minds of people. There were many other American feed manuals that had lots of wisdom on the subject. Let me turn to the question of weaning the polity from external stabilization measures and return again to the examples of why things worked in Germany after 1945. And I said earlier that this was an exceptional case because Germany had been a democracy before, very much unlike many of the other countries that have had Western interventions in. They had no further interest in fighting. They were exhausted, and they did see themselves as quite, quite defeated. Unlike after the First World War, in which there hadn't been an occupation before Germany, Germany in the Second World War hadn't been occupied, and everybody saw that Germany was defeated. There could be no stab -in -the -back legend about how Germany had in fact been undefeated. Hitler was dead. National Socialism was discredited. There was a pretty high rate of occupying forces in relation to the population, far more than in Afghanistan. Among the occupants, there were many people who were German speakers, or at least units had German speakers with them. It was quite different from that point culturally from intervening in a country where there are very few people in our own countries who have those languages and use them.

00:23:56    JACK GAINES
This is part one of two. The second half comes out next week. Thanks for listening. If you get a chance, please like and subscribe and rate the show on your favorite podcast platform. Also, if you're interested in coming on the show or hosting an episode, email us at capodcasting at gmail .com. And now, most importantly, to those currently out in the field working with a partner nation's people or leadership to forward U .S. relations, thank you all for what you're doing. This is Jack, your host. Stay tuned for more great episodes. One CA Podcast.

 

00:00:39    BEATRICE HEUSER
The only area of Germany where there was a lot of continued hostility towards British and Americans because of their bombing was in fact East Germany, which had not been occupied by Americans and Britons, but by the Soviets.

00:01:11    BEATRICE HEUSER
So it's interesting that the fact that people then got to know real Americans and real British people on the ground meant that they dissociated the bombing with the people that occupied them. The occupation forces were pretty harsh in many areas. They kept discipline among the population, etc., but also could be seen to be quite fair. There was little inter -societal hatred in Germany. The occupation forces had the strength that they could distribute the food. Of course, very soon after that came martial aid. And very quickly, Germans felt more prosperous. They felt they were getting out of the misery of the war itself. And by 1948, when you had the Berlin brocade, so very soon after the war, everybody moved their attention from Germany as the old enemy, the enemy that might stand up again, to a new enemy, and the public was much more focused on the Soviet Union, and Germany turned, in a very short period of time, into a potential future ally. It was a very particular situation, and it's important to keep in mind that there's no universal recipe that can be deduced from any of these, particularly not when you want to transfer them to countries without democratic experience, countries that don't see themselves as entirely defeated, countries where there are leaders in exile that will go against the occupation forces' policies, particularly when you have very small occupation forces that can't really relate culturally with the language, etc. When there is no new enemy that can just attract the attention and when there is no economic foundations for quick turnaround into a prosperous country.

00:02:54    BEATRICE HEUSER
And now comes a really, really difficult issue. It's enormously difficult, but I think central to what we're seeing, not so much in Ukraine, but very, very much in Gaza. And that is the question of innocent civilians. As you know, the Israelis have a different perception of what an innocent civilian is. And for the Israelis, even those who are just hiding arms or carrying a missile from A to B, something like that, are seen not as innocent civilians. It would remind you that the innocent meaning wonders who does not harm. To what extent do all those who protect Hamas, to what extent are they not doing harm? through Israel, and the Israelis see them as also contributing to the harm. And this question of how innocent civilians are goes back again to Nazi Germany when the majority of people voted for Hitler, even in the last three elections. To what extent can you say that people who voted for Hitler therefore had absolutely nothing to do with what then happened? There are different categories, I would put it to you. There are those who really cannot do any harm. There are the citizens of a totalitarian system who might be willy -nilly contributing to a war effort simply because they might be afraid that they'd be put behind bars if they don't do a minimum of contributing. Then there are those who are somehow voluntarily enhancing the war effort. Those who are actually the combatants. So for the present discussion, leave aside the question of whether it is physically possible if in war, to differentiate between the four categories. And nevertheless, because one could take from that that there are degrees of responsibility. Those who voted for a party that had already proclaimed war to be its aim, are they really innocent of what that political party does once in government? Those who do not protest against the government as it embarks on a war during its tenure of office, to what extent are they innocent? Those who morally support such a government's war surely are not entirely innocent. And then there are those who are actively supporting this government's work by working in the economy and the defence sector itself. And I'd just like to confront you with two different views on this, both curiously by women, one of them being this early 15th century person I've mentioned to you before, Christine de Pizan. It is in the context of the Hundred Years' War between the King of France and the King of England, both wanting to be King of France. And she somehow assumed that the populations affected by the war had some sort of choice of either supporting the King of France or supporting the King of England. She was on the side of France. And so she said, if the subjects of the King of England do nothing to support the King of England, we shall not harm them. But if they support their own king... then we can pillage their houses, we can take the prisoner, we can seize whatever we can find. And this curiously supposes that in the early 15th century, people had the choice of whether to support their local king or the king of the area in which they lived, or to come over to the other side. So this idea of a democratic choice is quite surprising. To the contrary, there was a Catholic philosopher at Oxford University, G .M. Anscombe, thought that you could differentiate in war between those who are not fighting, not engaged in supplying those who are with a means of fighting. A farmer growing wheat, which may be eaten by the troops, is not supplying them with means of fighting. So she thought you could really differentiate between those who are fighting and those who are not. And anybody contributing to the war effort should be seen as civilian and innocent, therefore. And she was very strongly against the bombing. to which she owed her town Oxford because people admired so much that she went against the entire mood of the time. Interestingly, in the Potsdam conference, and I'm already coming towards the end of my talk, when this is about settlement of Germany after the Second World War, the Allied countries came together and talked about what they wanted to do with Germany. They wanted to punish the Germans. And they came up with the idea that the German people have begun to atone for the terrible crimes committed under the leadership of the Nazis, to whom they gave open approval and blind obedience in the hour of their success. Yet it was not in the intention of the Allies to destroy or enslave the German people, it was their intention to give the German people the opportunity to prepare themselves to rebuild their lives later on, on a democratic and peaceful basis. But as I've already said, this was possible in Germany because the way of life were already there. But you see how that people were thinking about that nexus between how they had approved of and in blind obedience obeyed the Nazi regime. And I'll just point out without condoning it, that this is also the argument made by Islamist terrorists inciting Muslims the world over to kill Americans and their allies because they had supported governments. who in turn had been slaughtering Palestinian people or slaughtered the children of Iraq. This is why the American people are not innocent. The American people are active members in all these crimes, said Osama bin Laden in inciting people to use violence for them. We've also found a British IR theorist, Barry Buzan, in the context of the Kosovo War and the bombing of Serbia. The problem is in the democracies, electors get the government that they deserve. The Serbians turned themselves into human civilian shields by occupying key bridges in order to prevent NATO from blowing them up. He thought they were legitimate targets. And another philosopher, David Luban, brought up this idea of war as a punishment. Democratic states may be even more collectively guilty of international crimes than undemocratic ones precisely because their regimes rely more heavily on popular support. But we, he thought, should reject the conception of collective guilt that can lead to the death of maiming or loss of possession of anyone in a guilty population. Nevertheless, injustice arises from the fact that the disasters of war are distributed among the enemy population without regard to their individual guilt. So this throws up really, really difficult questions about the... guilt and the innocence of civilians. Has it ever worked to put pressure on civilians to overthrow their governments? And so in what circumstances? I'm not sure it has. Will we consider Russian citizens innocent of Putin's war? What non -violent means could one use to increase numbers of Russians opposing Putin? Would limited violence be warranted? And finally, What other legitimate ways could be found to exert pressure on civilian populations with a political result we want, namely a rebellion against the government? But that really goes beyond the question of the post -conflict stabilization that I've been given. Thank you very much for your attention.

00:09:58    JACK GAINES
Thank you. That was excellent. And I appreciate that you brought up the three questions that I had sent you as a preamble, because that's three questions I don't have to ask directly in the Q &A session. So it'll make it a lot easier. Mariah, are you unmuted?

00:10:13    MARIAH YAGER
Yes, I'm standing by. All right,

00:10:15    JACK GAINES
right, great. So I come from a civil affairs community. Our job and goal is to take people who don't want to be in a conflict out of the battle space. But with issues like Hamas and Palestine, to pull everyone out of Gaza so that they can figure out a solution is tough.

00:10:33    BEATRICE HEUSER
That gets us back to this question that David Luban put up, which is, you know, if it were possible to differentiate, that would be nice. But if you can't, the wrong people are suffering.

00:10:41    JACK GAINES
Right.

00:10:42    BEATRICE HEUSER
And this is the conundrum that you can't distinguish, particularly not in bombing, not with the technology we have today, between the people who are really guilty. We have horrible examples of the Second World War, of course, you know, people hiding Jews being killed in the Hamburg firestorm, or American prisoners of war being killed in Nagasaki. The wrong people are then... suffering from what you're trying to do. So we don't have the means of discrimination at the moment. And at the same time, it's quite likely that people who feel neutral and are innocent at that stage are going to feel more strongly moved to the other side when they feel that they have been wronged and they have been bombed and they've been treated very badly in that war. So this is why I was emphasizing the importance of their treatment even while the war is still on.

00:11:26    JACK GAINES
Right. And I can only imagine... Hamas's reaction if we pulled up with four cruise ships to take the population out of there. They would probably fire on the cruise ships and the public who was trying to cross because they want everyone in the fight. So to address what I feel is a market gap in post -conflict stabilization for the military, and we discussed this earlier in the warm -up,

00:11:41    JACK GAINES
what I feel is a market gap in post -conflict stabilization for the military, and we discussed this earlier in the warm -up, and that is General Petraeus went to... And he talked about when he was a division commander in Kuwait and his preparation for going into Iraq to overthrow the government, that when he asked, what is the goals of post -conflict? And they said, leave that to us. We'll take care of it, which is wholly inadequate. And that's what he said as well. And the reason is we need to know the post -conflict strategy and the end states, the goals that we want to achieve in order to drive the conflict to those goals, as well as as we achieve post -conflict standards. to manage that post -conflict environment so that they can be successful. As you were saying with dealing with people who are populists that want to rise up and build that government versus those who are opportunists that want to derail it for their own good and others, people who are criminals that want to take advantage of the chaos in between to further their personal gains. Have you seen any... clear indications of how a force that's working either with a country to build stability or manage conflict, or like in Afghanistan and Iraq, have actually flipped a government and they're trying to build stability. Do you see any ways in which they can manage the population in a way to spot the people who are trying to actually do the right thing versus those who are not?

00:13:09    BEATRICE HEUSER
So one of the things that comes up at the time and again, is in the writings on counterinsurgency. Counterinsurgency in particular are in the intervention in such wars in particular when you're dealing with a criminal regime and the population going along with that regime. And the criminal regime we see as criminal, the population may not yet at that stage see it as criminal. One of them is really, really important. It comes back again and again. It comes to the idea of the trial of the leaders. Make sure that the population themselves understand fully that by the laws, ideally of their own society, their regime was criminal. That's a very, very good first step. And this is why there's been all this criticism of the Nuremberg and the Tokyo trials that they said, well, this is victor's justice. People could have been tried by some of the crimes of their own legislation. So make sure that the leaders are seen as criminals by these trials. Don't make them martyrs. That's actually a very nice one. I don't know to what extent people listening here have ever heard about Beethoven's Egmont Overture. Egmont was a leader of the Dutch Rebellion against the Spanish, and he was executed in Brussels Square, the main big square that every NATO person knows that is the big, beautiful square in Brussels. Egmont became martyrs because they were executed but not tried properly, and the population didn't see them as criminals. They were seen as martyrs. And this is something that Santa Cruz de Macinado had in mind when he said, do not make enemy rebel leaders martyrs. Make sure that they're seen as criminals. Treat them fairly and justly. Give them a trial. So that's one. The other one is, and this has worked for a number of different cultures, it's the amnesty for the many. Quotation goes all the way back to Livy, which says you can either kill the entire population, which is not very realistic, or you must pardon them. So this difference between the big population other than the mass of the population and the criminal leaders, harden the rest, bring them over to their side by clemency and forgiving. And then make it quite clear that you're doing this because you need them, you're being benign and you showing yourself in a benign role. Footnote to that, one of the things that I've been regretting all along as we're talking about very concrete cases here, particularly with regard to the Israeli responses to the 7th of October tragedy. is that they haven't made much more of a show of doing something positive for the population of Gaza. The point is, we're living in a world of media presence and spin doctors, etc. But I see no effort of this, no effort at all of, say, rescue people in hospitals. Only very lately have we seen any aid given to hospitals and the very recent food aid that ended in disasters that we had last week. It seems to be very exceptional. So for months and months, they could have been doing this, even if it was just done in very small amounts. You could have made so much more out of it if that had happened. So do something and we cannot have publicity over it. The martial aid was an enormous success, not only because it happened in very large quantity, but because every single pack of flowers said, this is where martial aid helps, martial aid for you. It was a huge propaganda thing. And propaganda, I think, is very important in this context.

00:16:20    JACK GAINES
I think propaganda gets undersold on these type of issues, especially with the aid delivery. It seemed like it was almost staged to look bad, depending on which camera angle you came from. But most of what I see coming out of areas like Gaza is that people are trying to create the visibility to support the operation versus what you're talking about, shifting populations. from being in total support to either being neutral or even those in the neutral getting out of the way. So Maria, I saw you unmuted. You got something?

00:16:54    MARIAH YAGER
Yeah, a couple of things came up in this idea of talking about the idea of biases and the narratives. We all have biases in our reporting to support our own narratives. How do we rely on these different kind of reports, whether it's from the hospitals or do we have UN observers from NGOs? How does this play into the overall narrative and how we look at these? A problem that has clearly become worse with modern technology,

00:17:18    BEATRICE HEUSER
that has clearly become worse with modern technology, but one which is not altogether new. Rumors have been the enemy of every army that was trying to pacify an area since time immemorial. There's been rumors of a massacre about to happen when the occupation of power was simply benign. So it's not an altogether new thing, but how to verify and to be sure that information you get is actually accurate is, I think, one that you have to leave to technologists that are much more knowledgeable about this than I am. But it's clearly a huge problem.

00:17:50    JACK GAINES
We got Mariah.

00:17:51    MARIAH YAGER
First, I want to throw out a question from Dr. Todd Beesey. So he said, the 1945 conditions and context is important. And as you said, exceptional. Many inside the U .S. and abroad continue to hold firmly the notion of hyper power, perhaps greatly exaggerating its ability to succeed. So this very principle is weighing heavily in our presidential election, as many citizens hold the U .S. president can drive the course of wars in Ukraine and Gaza. Do we need to reframe our understanding about the deprivation and application of power to match the reality of increasing power diffusion in this century?

00:18:28    BEATRICE HEUSER
Thank you very, very much for that very, very incisive question. It's happening. First of all, if you look at all the national security strategies that has come out over the last couple of years, all of them seem to have taken a step back from the idea that was there so strongly after 1945. that we can change the world in our image and ultimately everybody will be democracies, an idea that, of course, had a big surge after the Soviet Union collapse at the beginning of the 1990s. I think there was a lot of optimism, even so far that you had this extraordinary text that was adopted by NATO when ISAF took charge of Afghanistan in 2003, which was to say that they were trying to make Afghanistan a democratic and self -sustaining government. There is no trace of this any longer. in more recent documents. And I was interested to see that, for example, this Allied Joint Doctrine for the military contribution to stabilisation, the word elections or the word democracies are not mentioned. So I think we've taken a step back from that. And I think that ambition, that was probably always over -ambitious. And how to reframe is the question. And the reframing is in part already in that document, I think, accurately to say, one tries to have something that is seen as legitimate by the population there. a government that is legitimate in the eyes of its own population. And as long as you can do that, you're already a lot better off than in a war with people tearing each other apart.

00:19:52    JACK GAINES
This is Jack. You know, that reminds me of Korea, Singapore, and in some parts, Colombia, which were successful in transitioning from conflict to post -conflict. And Singapore and Korea, they had dictators for a while that actually released power into a more democratic state. Rwanda is very similar to that, too. Even though it's a one -party system, they do have some openings for opposition.

00:20:16    MARIAH YAGER
So I was also intrigued by talking about this idea of self -determination, but then also getting into what is innocence. We only have a few minutes left, so I don't know how far we're going to get into it. But how important is self -determination? And I bring up the idea of these different... levels, if you will, of innocence or how you determine that. Because I've heard people say they voted in Hamas. And I'm not an expert, but if I remember correctly, there was either them or someone who was even more hated at the time. And also there was very low turnout. So what is this idea?

00:20:52    BEATRICE HEUSER
You can take it a step further and you can say that this was 2007. In 2007, to what extent could people in Gaza, what the Hamas was going to become like? I think a lot of people would tell you that they could have known, one could have known, but then take aside the 2007, a lot of the younger people around were either not born or definitely couldn't vote. So there's a lot of people who literally weren't responsible for this respect. And then you get to the next point, would you expect them now to turn over their neighbor's son, who they know is from the Hamas? To what extent do you expect them to do this? Could they get away with it? Would the Hamas themselves punish them? Are they still in a situation to punish them? I mean, this was one of the things that was always said for Germany in the Third Reich. Lots of people who didn't do anything because they were so afraid for themselves. And again, this can be looked at very differently. And there's just so much research has been done on particularly the German society then. One of the things that research has shown is that very few Aryans were ever really killed and punished unless they were seen as communists. So there was a perception that they would be punished, that dreadful things would happen to them or their family, but it didn't necessarily happen. So does that mean that the perception was wrong, but still people acted under the fear that something would happen to them? To what extent can you work against that fear? So a horribly difficult area, but at the moment, very concrete terms, we're not sure that there are many people anywhere in Gaza who would be happy to cooperate with anybody bringing in food in a peaceful way.

00:22:21    MARIAH YAGER
So we are actually getting to the top of the hour. I want to turn the floor over to Jack, if you have any final questions and then offer any last few minutes to Professor Huser.

00:22:30    JACK GAINES
I just want to thank you again, Professor, for coming on. I think that DOD has an opportunity through your talk to further its planning on conflict to post -conflict and transition. We need to get on it because the world needs it. The international community, the plan you had are a great start, but we have to do our homework on it and get prepared.

00:22:50    BEATRICE HEUSER
Yeah, I would say thank you very, very much for having had me. But I think this idea of the post -hostilities planning while hostilities is still being carried on is absolutely vital. And we've learned at the expense of lots and lots of lives and great disaster that we should have done so much more for Iraq, but also for Afghanistan. So I'm all with you there. Thank you very much again for having invited me.

00:23:09    MARIAH YAGER
me.

00:23:11    JACK GAINES
Thank you.

00:23:12    MARIAH YAGER
All right. And thank you both. And everyone, thank you for joining us today. Enjoy the rest of your day.

00:23:17    Close
Thanks for listening. If you get a chance, please like and subscribe and rate the show on your favorite podcast platform. Also, if you're interested in coming on the show or hosting an episode, email us at capodcasting at gmail .com. And now, most importantly, to those currently out in the field working with a partner nation's people or leadership to forward U .S. relations, thank you all for what you're doing. This is Jack, your host. Stay tuned for more great episodes. 1CA Podcast.

 

172: Achieving post conflict stabilization with Prof. Beatrice Heuser (Pt.1)

Recently, I partnered with SMA's Mariah Yager to talk with Professor Beatrice Houser about post-conflict stabilization. 

“In Kuwait, preparing for the Iraq invasion, I asked the leadership, ‘Could you give us a little more detail about after we get to Baghdad and topple the regime? ' [The answer] was more than inadequate.’” -David Petraeus, speaking at Carnegie.

The U.S. and the West recently suffered monumental failures in planning and implementing post-conflict stabilization, resulting in massive corruption, instability and loss of foreign policy goals.

[Charley Wilson’s War]. “These things happened. They were glorious, and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the endgame.” -Charley Wilson’s end-of-film quote.

In this session, we turn the corner from commiserating on past failures to discussing solutions to planning and implementing the transition from conflict to post-conflict stabilization. To help partner nations regain their stability, security and partnership in the international community.  

To help, we have brought in Professor Beatrice Heuser, renowned Chair in International Relations at the University of Glasgow and second to the General Staff Academy of the Bundeswehr, as Head of Strategy.

Dr. Heuser recently published a paper on post-conflict Gaza stabilization and reconstruction and wanted to discuss strategies for building an effective post-conflict strategy and operation.  

Jack Gaines, showrunner and host of the One CA Podcast, is joining SMA to co-host the discussion.

In this session, Dr. Heuser, Jack Gaines, Mariah Yager and the audience will try to address three themes:
1. Planning the transition from conflict to post-conflict. How should the military shape the end of an active conflict to help the transition to post-conflict stabilization?

2. How to support the post-conflict stabilization. Typically, during stabilization, insurgencies rise, popular movements grow, and extremist groups attempt to usurp the transition for their political ambitions; how does conflict stabilization work with the military to minimize usurping groups while spotting and enabling popular movements?

3. Spotting and supporting the post-conflict transition and transitioning a post-conflict state that depends on aid and support to become independent. How can the military, diplomacy, and development workers manage the process to ensure a successful transition to becoming an independent partner in the international community?

 

Thank you FeedSpot for ranking One CA Podcast as one of their top 10 foreign policy podcasts. Check it out at: https://podcasts.feedspot.com/foreign_policy_podcasts/

One CA is a product of the civil affairs association 

and brings in people who are current or former military, diplomats, development officers, and field agents to discuss their experiences on the ground with a partner nation's people and leadership.

We aim to inspire anyone interested in working in the "last three feet" of U.S. foreign relations. 

To contact the show, email us at CApodcasting@gmail dot com

or look us up on the Civil Affairs Association website at www civilaffairsassoc.org

Special thanks for SensualMusic4You producing "Hip Hop Jazz & Hip Hop Jazz Instrumental: 10 Hours of Hip Hop Jazz." Sample found at https://youtu.be/XEa0Xn9XAzk?si=eeWyVqE3c1uL6d2Q

---

00:00:03    Introduction
Welcome to the 1CA Podcast. This is your host, Jack Gaines. 1CA is a product of the Civil Affairs Association and brings in people who are current or former military, diplomats, development officers, and field agents to discuss their experiences on ground with the partner nation's people and leadership. Our goal is to inspire anyone interested in working the last three feet of foreign relations. To contact the show, email us at capodcasting at gmail dot com. Or look us up on the Civil Affairs Association website at www .civilaffairsassos .org. I'll have those in the show notes.

00:00:39    MARIAH YAGER
Hello, everyone. I'm Mariah Yeager, and welcome to today's SMA speaker session entitled Building Solutions to Post -Conflict Stabilization. I'd like to thank Professor Beatrice Huser for taking the time to speak with us today. And I'd also like to welcome back Major Jack Gaines of the 1CA podcast as our guest host.

00:00:57    JACK GAINES
I partnered with SMA to talk with Professor Beatrice Hauser on post -conflict stabilization. What you will hear on this show is the edited version. If you wish to listen to the full uncut version, I will have a link to it in the show notes. This is part one of two. The second half comes out next week. So enjoy.

00:01:17    MARIAH YAGER
So with that, please keep your video and audio off for the duration of the event so we have a nice clear line for our presentation today. All right, let me introduce Professor Beatrice Huser. She holds the Chair in International Relations at the University of Glasgow. She has degrees from the Universities of London and Oxford and a habilitation from the Phillips University of Marburg. She has taught at King's College London and at universities in France and Germany. Previously, she has worked on the international staff at NATO headquarters in Brussels as well. She has numerous publications. from nuclear strategy, history of strategy, insurgencies, and counterinsurgency. But today we're talking about post -conflict stabilization. And with that, I'm going to turn the floor over to Leijer.

00:01:59    JACK GAINES
Thank you, Mariah. And thank you, Professor Huser. Personally, I see a market gap in post -conflict stabilization. And to describe that gap, I forwarded Professor Huser three challenge questions to help her shape her presentation and the discussion. Those questions were, the military drives conflict to an end state. what conditions do we need to achieve to successfully transition a conflict into post -conflict stabilization? Second, during post -conflict conditions, how does the military and lead agencies spot and support legitimate efforts while also spotting and filtering out groups trying to derail recovery for their own benefit or spoilers or those who use instability for personal gain? And third, How do we work to transition a nation from post -conflict dependencies to becoming a self -sufficient member of the international community? These came to me after listening to retired General David Petraeus speak at Carnegie. He talked about when he was a division commander preparing to go into Baghdad and asking leadership about the plan after toppling the regime. The response was, leave that to us, which he states was inadequate. General Petraeus described the market gap. We needed to know the instate to achieve post -conflict conditions and then how to deter instability to support stabilization and transition. So that is the challenge for Professor Huser to answer. But I also wanted to use this talk as a call to action. We should take chalk to the State Department CSO strategy to either update our current plans and operations so they achieve the conditions for post -conflict stabilization and transition or Build operational templates that staff can plug into the back of any strategy or operation so planners can sketch out the steps to drive a conflict into a successful post -conflict environment with stabilization and transition. So with that, Professor Huser, good morning.

00:04:00    BEATRICE HEUSER
Thank you very much indeed. I'm very honored to be with you. If you can stop sharing your screen, I will flash mine up straight away and start. with a disclaimer that I am a very small and modern armchair strategist, and I'm standing on the shoulders of lots and lots of giants, which means that I'm going to introduce you in the first part of this whole talk to the ideas and the thinking of some very interesting and very important people of the past who've had plenty of experience. But at the same time, what is driving my interest is, of course, the present. And you will see all along, I think, like me, how these ideas that were developed by people a long time ago impact on the present. More still, there's a big debate about how much war changes and how much technology impacts war. I think particularly when it comes to insurgencies, peacemaking, counterinsurgency, intervention in foreign wars, there is a particularly strong continuity. even with allowances made for some of the modern technology. All the themes I'm going to be running past you today very quickly, I have got a very important role to play still in the present. So without further ado, let me plunge into the subject and I promise to you that I'll become more modern as at the very end during questions and answers. But I don't think it would make much sense if I simply ran you through. the NATO AGP 3 .28 contribution to stabilisation, let me take you back instead to a lot of ideas that have been around for a long time, some of which have found their way into this new NATO document. So these are the points that I'm going to be addressing. What happens when we're still at war affects everything else, then the difficulties of the transition to peace, post -conflict stabilisation, and how then to wean a polity from this foreign intervention. And then I have a big philosophical question at the end, which you will have to bear with me for, because it is very, very difficult and very morally problematic in every way. And I hope that I will not be misread when coming to this last point. So very briefly, let us look at what happens while we're still at war and how that influences the outcome and the intervention and the outcome of a stabilisation. process afterwards. One of the things that I've discovered trying to look into the subject of how to end wars is that causes of wars and war aims could be the same really, but they're not. Simply because during a war, particularly if it's more than seven days, more things can appear that will change the aims of the war. In theory, the causes of the war are grievance that you want to address. So if you've addressed the grievance, the war's over. But in fact, during the development of the war, things change. Existing causes and war aims can wax and wane in that context. The question is, in trying to make peace, what is at stake? Is it something like secession of a state or a part of a state? Is it to have better rights? Or is it something much bigger? Is it in fact something like... a world order that lurks behind that particular conflict. Is the war about ethnic tensions with interstate, as it was in Bosnia, Herzegovina and Kosovo? Is it about picking out a foreign occupation power, a colonial power, as in Indochina and Algeria on Indonesia? Is it about religion, as it was for the Iranian Revolution Phase II, the Arab Spring Phase II, Afghanistan in its last phase? Is it about kicking out, overthrowing a government that is non -democratic and corrupt and is trying to perpetuate its power as South Vietnam in Iran, the Shah and phase one in Iraq, in Niger? And one of the important things there was a realization by one of my heroes about you, whom you're going to hear more, a Spaniard called the Third Marquis of Santa Cruz de Mascinado, who lived in the early 18th century. and who even then said that a state rarely rises up without the fault of its governors. And a Welshman who was Catholic and therefore escaped Protestant England and Britain in the 18th century, the first cause and object of a revolt is to repel injuries, real or supposed. The second is to provide for future security, which can never be effectually done other than by destroying the sovereign authority. There is no alternative. Freedom or slavery is the result of it. Very interestingly enough, during the first phase of the American War of Independence, but this stark way he put it is very modern. Therefore, the sovereign in conducting such a war should, by a moderate conduct, diminish the idea of danger and leave room to a solid and hearty reconciliation. So reconciliation is already a very important idea to take away from the idea of how to... end the war and stabilize that result of war. The effects of the conduct of war will polarize warring parties even more, particularly if the war is conducted in a way perceived as being exceptionally cruel. Ukrainians cared little about Russians before 2014. By now, it is pretty unlikely that there are a lot of Ukrainians still around who have positive feelings about Russians and the many things we hear about Ukraine, about how they suddenly... ban Russian books from bookshelves and from the school curricula seem to suggest that. Equally, the feelings of people in Gaza, I imagine, are much worse now towards Israel than even when the war started in October last year. Christina Pizal, who is the only woman strategist I've ever come across in the early 15th century, wrote that cruelty increases and multiplies the number of enemies by making many people die. for their children are kin succeed them in hate. That is to say, for one enemy slain, several others spring up. This has got a path to reconciliation when, for every enemy slain, several others spring up. A very brief note about bombing. The idea in the immediate post -World War I period that you could end wars faster by bombing civilian populations. Pressing them to put pressure in turn on their governments to surrender has been proved to be quite unworkable. So in the Second World War, as a number of authors have shown, this was quite counterproductive because it created more solidarity, both in Ukraine and in Gaza. It has not turned the population against its own government. I think in both cases, the bombing from the air has had very adverse effects on the chances of making a good peace. making it soon and then stabilizing the situation. Let me touch briefly on the question of which external actors might be the best to intervene in something that is a civil war of a country, a non -international armed conflict. There are configurations in which somebody very, very external to the conflict might have been a good side to intervene. For example, I used to go around in the 1990s before the Easter agreements and the Good Friday agreements were signed in 1998, saying that in fact it would have been a good idea to bring in German forces because they weren't sympathising with either side and they weren't seen as enemies by either side. In the Yugoslav wars it was clearly an external multinational force that was the best. In African conflicts what seems not to be a good idea is to bring in previous colonial powers. There's a lot of atheistic reaction to say, ah, they're just neo -colonialists now, they're just trying to get back to their colonial rights. In the Gaza conflict, Israel conflict, I think it would be best to have other Muslim countries coming in. I don't think it would be very good to have lots of European countries coming in and doing anything there. But having a Muslim coalition intervene would, I think, be a very interesting avenue to explore. One of the things that is incredibly difficult or can be a great obstacle to making peace is if the conflicting parties have something very different in mind for that peace, for that peace order. And if you look at past peace settlements going through history, the ones which were particularly difficult to arrive at were ones where the different parties to the conflict not only quarrel over particular rights within their country, a particular piece of land or anything like that, in between countries, but about a larger order after the peace. And that was true before the Westphalian peace negotiations. It was true for the end of the Napoleonic Wars, the peace negotiations in Vienna. It was true for the Paris Peace Conference after the end of the First World War. And after the Second World War, it was so tricky and so difficult because particularly the Soviet Union and then the Western powers had such diametrically opposed ideas of what the world order should be like that you didn't really have a peace settlement before you had the Helsinki Final Act of 1975. So this is part of the problem, I think, for Ukraine today. And it is part of the problem for Israel -Palestine. In the case of Ukraine, there's the question of the world system as we have it at the moment, the world order, which bans war as the instrument of state power. If Russia gets away with doing this, the world order is seriously undermined. For Israel -Palestine, it is the Middle Eastern order that is seriously undermined or can be changed in some way or is something that is seen very, very differently by both sides. both denying each other's existence, definitely on the case of Hamas vis -à -vis Israel, and bringing in all the other great powers indirectly or directly into this conflict. So the greater peace afterwards also plays an enormous role in making peace settlements very difficult. The transition to peace has already, in the past, been very slow and difficult in some cases. We've heard an awful lot recently about how neither the First World War nor the Second World War really ends with the date that we always celebrate. Both in the First World War 1918 and the Second World War 1945, in fact, were followed by long -drawn -out conflicts, particularly in Eastern Europe and partly also in the Middle East. in what Timothy Snyder has called the bloodlands, where simply all sorts of vendettas continued. And when, of course, with the Russian Revolution, then the Russian war against Poland and the Baltic states, etc., war simply carried on. It wasn't a simple, neat transition to peace. In those regions, there seems to be something more at stake other than the Christian of how to settle it legally that we have more in Western Europe and some other parts of the world. The same is true for Yugoslavia. Libya, as we know, was not simply ended by our Western military intervention. And if you look at Sudan and South Sudan, another very volatile area which hasn't settled down and where peacemaking hasn't really worked particularly well. One of the things that seems to have been very important in the past has been planning for the transition. This is where the UK Coast Hostilities Planning Committee of the Second World War was exceptional and had an enormous role in determining what Coast Conflict Europe was going to look like. It started in 1943 and by 1944 was signalling very heavily that there was a great danger that the Soviet Union would turn from ally into the new confederator. So this is then in stark contrast. through Iraq 2003 and the total absence of planning there. The question Major Gaines put to me was, how should the military shape the end of an active conflict to help transition to post -conflict stabilisation? I think some of the answers there are that it is very, very important that you get the indigenous powers and the local powers on board so that they can control all armed forces and police forces within the country. and that if a foreign power intervenes, it really must be in sufficient numbers. Those, I think, are two points to keep in mind that you find from a number of previous examples that might be cited to show where something went a little bit better than Iran 2003.

00:17:04    BEATRICE HEUSER
Here's a number of points that I'd just like to raise with regard to interventions that aim at ending the fighting phase of a conflict, when you intervene specifically to stop the fighting. Again, we're talking about the recommendations to the military on shaping the end of an active conflict to help the transition to post -conflict stabilizations. What are the lessons here from two cases that worked particularly well, which in many ways are exceptional? These two cases of Germany and Japan in the Second World War. What worked well there was that there was one government among the Allies that was firmly in command and coordinated all the others. which was the United States after the Second World War. So have one lead power and all the others really orient themselves towards this lead power. And then really have an overall plan for how to proceed and implement it with every tentacle of the great octopus of governance and not have different tentacles do their own things, being stuck in little silos of their own and doing different things. One of the reports coming out is a Bundestag on why Germany failed so badly also in Afghanistan. There were many, many, many reasons, but one of them was that different allies in the intervention in Afghanistan really had different priorities and were fully coordinated. Have the same rules of engagement. I think that's a lesson to be taken away from Bosnia -Herzegovina. That would really, really help. Arrest the leaders, give them a fair trial and do not make them martyrs. And then to see if there is a government in exile that is seen as legitimate. This can be very helpful if it can be seen as legitimate, if it has been there all along, and not necessarily simply as a puppet of the intervention forces that are then appointed by their might rather than by any older legitimacy. This was so helpful in the case of France that there was this government in exile. Turning to post -conflict stabilisation. This is where I want to introduce you again to Santamu, who is not only a soldier but also a diplomat, and had a whole series of ideas that he developed on how to prevent insurgencies and how to quell them once they have broken out, and how to pacify an area that has been at war in some way, mainly as an insurgency, but as in civil war, anything like that. One of the things that he put forward, which is, I think, much in keeping with our own fashion at the moment, is to say that one should stick to the rules of law and the customs of the particular country concerned. One should preserve for the whole state and each individual citizen the unhampered enjoyment of their commodities, laws, freedoms and the religion, not to try to change the customs and religions. The false charges swell the ranks of the malcontents. Often a man becomes a rebel just because he has been falsely suspected. Make sure the criminals are kept in prison and not freed by the rebels. Ensure that the unemployed are employed so that they don't become insurgents. Have proper tribunals and let the culprits be judged there. Keep your own troops very disciplined. Do not use excessive force and do not seek to change the religion and customs of the country. He went on to say that inflation's food scarcity are to be avoided if at all possible. Very important. Create prosperity, markets, trade. This is already for the stabilization post -conflict. Disarm the population and outlaw military exercises. And then one which I think is so sweet. He was all for educating the population and even creating universities. And then all disputes and core rules have to be settled and eradicated by the roots. Only among the rebels should one foster disagreements, but one should suppress them among one's subjects. So this is an amazing piece, and he had a whole series of other pieces of advice. I once asked General Petraeus whether he actually knew of Santa Cruz's writings, and he said never heard of him. I thought it was quite interesting how much that has come to the fore again. I'll run quickly through some more historical examples I had. The French General Dichemin had a whole spiel about how rebels will only prosper if the situation is really poor. And you have to approach the evil plants of piracy, as he called it, rebellion, by ensuring that they can't take root in an environment and the soil that is favorable to them. Establish a military belt. and then reconstitute the society within that area of surrounded by your own soldiers. The French Marsal and Joté was another one who wrote very strongly about the need for a combined application of force and politics. We must always treat the country and its inhabitants with consideration since the former is destined to receive our future colonial enterprises, and the latter will be our main agents and carburetors in the development of our enterprises. This was still from a colonial point of view. The importance that Lyoté saw in political action being more important than military action. There's a whole series of American field manuals that are very, very good. The motive in small wars is not material destruction. You could see that equally for wars of intervention. They're usually projected dealing with the social, economic and political development of the people. It implies a serious study of the people and their culture. Sir Joel Templer talked about really the hearts and minds of people. There were many other American feed manuals that had lots of wisdom on the subject. Let me turn to the question of weaning the polity from external stabilization measures and return again to the examples of why things worked in Germany after 1945. And I said earlier that this was an exceptional case because Germany had been a democracy before, very much unlike many of the other countries that have had Western interventions in. They had no further interest in fighting. They were exhausted, and they did see themselves as quite, quite defeated. Unlike after the First World War, in which there hadn't been an occupation before Germany, Germany in the Second World War hadn't been occupied, and everybody saw that Germany was defeated. There could be no stab -in -the -back legend about how Germany had in fact been undefeated. Hitler was dead. National Socialism was discredited. There was a pretty high rate of occupying forces in relation to the population, far more than in Afghanistan. Among the occupants, there were many people who were German speakers, or at least units had German speakers with them. It was quite different from that point culturally from intervening in a country where there are very few people in our own countries who have those languages and use them.

00:23:56    JACK GAINES
This is part one of two. The second half comes out next week. Thanks for listening. If you get a chance, please like and subscribe and rate the show on your favorite podcast platform. Also, if you're interested in coming on the show or hosting an episode, email us at capodcasting at gmail .com. And now, most importantly, to those currently out in the field working with a partner nation's people or leadership to forward U .S. relations, thank you all for what you're doing. This is Jack, your host. Stay tuned for more great episodes. One CA Podcast.

 

00:00:39    BEATRICE HEUSER
The only area of Germany where there was a lot of continued hostility towards British and Americans because of their bombing was in fact East Germany, which had not been occupied by Americans and Britons, but by the Soviets.

00:01:11    BEATRICE HEUSER
So it's interesting that the fact that people then got to know real Americans and real British people on the ground meant that they dissociated the bombing with the people that occupied them. The occupation forces were pretty harsh in many areas. They kept discipline among the population, etc., but also could be seen to be quite fair. There was little inter -societal hatred in Germany. The occupation forces had the strength that they could distribute the food. Of course, very soon after that came martial aid. And very quickly, Germans felt more prosperous. They felt they were getting out of the misery of the war itself. And by 1948, when you had the Berlin brocade, so very soon after the war, everybody moved their attention from Germany as the old enemy, the enemy that might stand up again, to a new enemy, and the public was much more focused on the Soviet Union, and Germany turned, in a very short period of time, into a potential future ally. It was a very particular situation, and it's important to keep in mind that there's no universal recipe that can be deduced from any of these, particularly not when you want to transfer them to countries without democratic experience, countries that don't see themselves as entirely defeated, countries where there are leaders in exile that will go against the occupation forces' policies, particularly when you have very small occupation forces that can't really relate culturally with the language, etc. When there is no new enemy that can just attract the attention and when there is no economic foundations for quick turnaround into a prosperous country.

00:02:54    BEATRICE HEUSER
And now comes a really, really difficult issue. It's enormously difficult, but I think central to what we're seeing, not so much in Ukraine, but very, very much in Gaza. And that is the question of innocent civilians. As you know, the Israelis have a different perception of what an innocent civilian is. And for the Israelis, even those who are just hiding arms or carrying a missile from A to B, something like that, are seen not as innocent civilians. It would remind you that the innocent meaning wonders who does not harm. To what extent do all those who protect Hamas, to what extent are they not doing harm? through Israel, and the Israelis see them as also contributing to the harm. And this question of how innocent civilians are goes back again to Nazi Germany when the majority of people voted for Hitler, even in the last three elections. To what extent can you say that people who voted for Hitler therefore had absolutely nothing to do with what then happened? There are different categories, I would put it to you. There are those who really cannot do any harm. There are the citizens of a totalitarian system who might be willy -nilly contributing to a war effort simply because they might be afraid that they'd be put behind bars if they don't do a minimum of contributing. Then there are those who are somehow voluntarily enhancing the war effort. Those who are actually the combatants. So for the present discussion, leave aside the question of whether it is physically possible if in war, to differentiate between the four categories. And nevertheless, because one could take from that that there are degrees of responsibility. Those who voted for a party that had already proclaimed war to be its aim, are they really innocent of what that political party does once in government? Those who do not protest against the government as it embarks on a war during its tenure of office, to what extent are they innocent? Those who morally support such a government's war surely are not entirely innocent. And then there are those who are actively supporting this government's work by working in the economy and the defence sector itself. And I'd just like to confront you with two different views on this, both curiously by women, one of them being this early 15th century person I've mentioned to you before, Christine de Pizan. It is in the context of the Hundred Years' War between the King of France and the King of England, both wanting to be King of France. And she somehow assumed that the populations affected by the war had some sort of choice of either supporting the King of France or supporting the King of England. She was on the side of France. And so she said, if the subjects of the King of England do nothing to support the King of England, we shall not harm them. But if they support their own king... then we can pillage their houses, we can take the prisoner, we can seize whatever we can find. And this curiously supposes that in the early 15th century, people had the choice of whether to support their local king or the king of the area in which they lived, or to come over to the other side. So this idea of a democratic choice is quite surprising. To the contrary, there was a Catholic philosopher at Oxford University, G .M. Anscombe, thought that you could differentiate in war between those who are not fighting, not engaged in supplying those who are with a means of fighting. A farmer growing wheat, which may be eaten by the troops, is not supplying them with means of fighting. So she thought you could really differentiate between those who are fighting and those who are not. And anybody contributing to the war effort should be seen as civilian and innocent, therefore. And she was very strongly against the bombing. to which she owed her town Oxford because people admired so much that she went against the entire mood of the time. Interestingly, in the Potsdam conference, and I'm already coming towards the end of my talk, when this is about settlement of Germany after the Second World War, the Allied countries came together and talked about what they wanted to do with Germany. They wanted to punish the Germans. And they came up with the idea that the German people have begun to atone for the terrible crimes committed under the leadership of the Nazis, to whom they gave open approval and blind obedience in the hour of their success. Yet it was not in the intention of the Allies to destroy or enslave the German people, it was their intention to give the German people the opportunity to prepare themselves to rebuild their lives later on, on a democratic and peaceful basis. But as I've already said, this was possible in Germany because the way of life were already there. But you see how that people were thinking about that nexus between how they had approved of and in blind obedience obeyed the Nazi regime. And I'll just point out without condoning it, that this is also the argument made by Islamist terrorists inciting Muslims the world over to kill Americans and their allies because they had supported governments. who in turn had been slaughtering Palestinian people or slaughtered the children of Iraq. This is why the American people are not innocent. The American people are active members in all these crimes, said Osama bin Laden in inciting people to use violence for them. We've also found a British IR theorist, Barry Buzan, in the context of the Kosovo War and the bombing of Serbia. The problem is in the democracies, electors get the government that they deserve. The Serbians turned themselves into human civilian shields by occupying key bridges in order to prevent NATO from blowing them up. He thought they were legitimate targets. And another philosopher, David Luban, brought up this idea of war as a punishment. Democratic states may be even more collectively guilty of international crimes than undemocratic ones precisely because their regimes rely more heavily on popular support. But we, he thought, should reject the conception of collective guilt that can lead to the death of maiming or loss of possession of anyone in a guilty population. Nevertheless, injustice arises from the fact that the disasters of war are distributed among the enemy population without regard to their individual guilt. So this throws up really, really difficult questions about the... guilt and the innocence of civilians. Has it ever worked to put pressure on civilians to overthrow their governments? And so in what circumstances? I'm not sure it has. Will we consider Russian citizens innocent of Putin's war? What non -violent means could one use to increase numbers of Russians opposing Putin? Would limited violence be warranted? And finally, What other legitimate ways could be found to exert pressure on civilian populations with a political result we want, namely a rebellion against the government? But that really goes beyond the question of the post -conflict stabilization that I've been given. Thank you very much for your attention.

00:09:58    JACK GAINES
Thank you. That was excellent. And I appreciate that you brought up the three questions that I had sent you as a preamble, because that's three questions I don't have to ask directly in the Q &A session. So it'll make it a lot easier. Mariah, are you unmuted?

00:10:13    MARIAH YAGER
Yes, I'm standing by. All right,

00:10:15    JACK GAINES
right, great. So I come from a civil affairs community. Our job and goal is to take people who don't want to be in a conflict out of the battle space. But with issues like Hamas and Palestine, to pull everyone out of Gaza so that they can figure out a solution is tough.

00:10:33    BEATRICE HEUSER
That gets us back to this question that David Luban put up, which is, you know, if it were possible to differentiate, that would be nice. But if you can't, the wrong people are suffering.

00:10:41    JACK GAINES
Right.

00:10:42    BEATRICE HEUSER
And this is the conundrum that you can't distinguish, particularly not in bombing, not with the technology we have today, between the people who are really guilty. We have horrible examples of the Second World War, of course, you know, people hiding Jews being killed in the Hamburg firestorm, or American prisoners of war being killed in Nagasaki. The wrong people are then... suffering from what you're trying to do. So we don't have the means of discrimination at the moment. And at the same time, it's quite likely that people who feel neutral and are innocent at that stage are going to feel more strongly moved to the other side when they feel that they have been wronged and they have been bombed and they've been treated very badly in that war. So this is why I was emphasizing the importance of their treatment even while the war is still on.

00:11:26    JACK GAINES
Right. And I can only imagine... Hamas's reaction if we pulled up with four cruise ships to take the population out of there. They would probably fire on the cruise ships and the public who was trying to cross because they want everyone in the fight. So to address what I feel is a market gap in post -conflict stabilization for the military, and we discussed this earlier in the warm -up,

00:11:41    JACK GAINES
what I feel is a market gap in post -conflict stabilization for the military, and we discussed this earlier in the warm -up, and that is General Petraeus went to... And he talked about when he was a division commander in Kuwait and his preparation for going into Iraq to overthrow the government, that when he asked, what is the goals of post -conflict? And they said, leave that to us. We'll take care of it, which is wholly inadequate. And that's what he said as well. And the reason is we need to know the post -conflict strategy and the end states, the goals that we want to achieve in order to drive the conflict to those goals, as well as as we achieve post -conflict standards. to manage that post -conflict environment so that they can be successful. As you were saying with dealing with people who are populists that want to rise up and build that government versus those who are opportunists that want to derail it for their own good and others, people who are criminals that want to take advantage of the chaos in between to further their personal gains. Have you seen any... clear indications of how a force that's working either with a country to build stability or manage conflict, or like in Afghanistan and Iraq, have actually flipped a government and they're trying to build stability. Do you see any ways in which they can manage the population in a way to spot the people who are trying to actually do the right thing versus those who are not?

00:13:09    BEATRICE HEUSER
So one of the things that comes up at the time and again, is in the writings on counterinsurgency. Counterinsurgency in particular are in the intervention in such wars in particular when you're dealing with a criminal regime and the population going along with that regime. And the criminal regime we see as criminal, the population may not yet at that stage see it as criminal. One of them is really, really important. It comes back again and again. It comes to the idea of the trial of the leaders. Make sure that the population themselves understand fully that by the laws, ideally of their own society, their regime was criminal. That's a very, very good first step. And this is why there's been all this criticism of the Nuremberg and the Tokyo trials that they said, well, this is victor's justice. People could have been tried by some of the crimes of their own legislation. So make sure that the leaders are seen as criminals by these trials. Don't make them martyrs. That's actually a very nice one. I don't know to what extent people listening here have ever heard about Beethoven's Egmont Overture. Egmont was a leader of the Dutch Rebellion against the Spanish, and he was executed in Brussels Square, the main big square that every NATO person knows that is the big, beautiful square in Brussels. Egmont became martyrs because they were executed but not tried properly, and the population didn't see them as criminals. They were seen as martyrs. And this is something that Santa Cruz de Macinado had in mind when he said, do not make enemy rebel leaders martyrs. Make sure that they're seen as criminals. Treat them fairly and justly. Give them a trial. So that's one. The other one is, and this has worked for a number of different cultures, it's the amnesty for the many. Quotation goes all the way back to Livy, which says you can either kill the entire population, which is not very realistic, or you must pardon them. So this difference between the big population other than the mass of the population and the criminal leaders, harden the rest, bring them over to their side by clemency and forgiving. And then make it quite clear that you're doing this because you need them, you're being benign and you showing yourself in a benign role. Footnote to that, one of the things that I've been regretting all along as we're talking about very concrete cases here, particularly with regard to the Israeli responses to the 7th of October tragedy. is that they haven't made much more of a show of doing something positive for the population of Gaza. The point is, we're living in a world of media presence and spin doctors, etc. But I see no effort of this, no effort at all of, say, rescue people in hospitals. Only very lately have we seen any aid given to hospitals and the very recent food aid that ended in disasters that we had last week. It seems to be very exceptional. So for months and months, they could have been doing this, even if it was just done in very small amounts. You could have made so much more out of it if that had happened. So do something and we cannot have publicity over it. The martial aid was an enormous success, not only because it happened in very large quantity, but because every single pack of flowers said, this is where martial aid helps, martial aid for you. It was a huge propaganda thing. And propaganda, I think, is very important in this context.

00:16:20    JACK GAINES
I think propaganda gets undersold on these type of issues, especially with the aid delivery. It seemed like it was almost staged to look bad, depending on which camera angle you came from. But most of what I see coming out of areas like Gaza is that people are trying to create the visibility to support the operation versus what you're talking about, shifting populations. from being in total support to either being neutral or even those in the neutral getting out of the way. So Maria, I saw you unmuted. You got something?

00:16:54    MARIAH YAGER
Yeah, a couple of things came up in this idea of talking about the idea of biases and the narratives. We all have biases in our reporting to support our own narratives. How do we rely on these different kind of reports, whether it's from the hospitals or do we have UN observers from NGOs? How does this play into the overall narrative and how we look at these? A problem that has clearly become worse with modern technology,

00:17:18    BEATRICE HEUSER
that has clearly become worse with modern technology, but one which is not altogether new. Rumors have been the enemy of every army that was trying to pacify an area since time immemorial. There's been rumors of a massacre about to happen when the occupation of power was simply benign. So it's not an altogether new thing, but how to verify and to be sure that information you get is actually accurate is, I think, one that you have to leave to technologists that are much more knowledgeable about this than I am. But it's clearly a huge problem.

00:17:50    JACK GAINES
We got Mariah.

00:17:51    MARIAH YAGER
First, I want to throw out a question from Dr. Todd Beesey. So he said, the 1945 conditions and context is important. And as you said, exceptional. Many inside the U .S. and abroad continue to hold firmly the notion of hyper power, perhaps greatly exaggerating its ability to succeed. So this very principle is weighing heavily in our presidential election, as many citizens hold the U .S. president can drive the course of wars in Ukraine and Gaza. Do we need to reframe our understanding about the deprivation and application of power to match the reality of increasing power diffusion in this century?

00:18:28    BEATRICE HEUSER
Thank you very, very much for that very, very incisive question. It's happening. First of all, if you look at all the national security strategies that has come out over the last couple of years, all of them seem to have taken a step back from the idea that was there so strongly after 1945. that we can change the world in our image and ultimately everybody will be democracies, an idea that, of course, had a big surge after the Soviet Union collapse at the beginning of the 1990s. I think there was a lot of optimism, even so far that you had this extraordinary text that was adopted by NATO when ISAF took charge of Afghanistan in 2003, which was to say that they were trying to make Afghanistan a democratic and self -sustaining government. There is no trace of this any longer. in more recent documents. And I was interested to see that, for example, this Allied Joint Doctrine for the military contribution to stabilisation, the word elections or the word democracies are not mentioned. So I think we've taken a step back from that. And I think that ambition, that was probably always over -ambitious. And how to reframe is the question. And the reframing is in part already in that document, I think, accurately to say, one tries to have something that is seen as legitimate by the population there. a government that is legitimate in the eyes of its own population. And as long as you can do that, you're already a lot better off than in a war with people tearing each other apart.

00:19:52    JACK GAINES
This is Jack. You know, that reminds me of Korea, Singapore, and in some parts, Colombia, which were successful in transitioning from conflict to post -conflict. And Singapore and Korea, they had dictators for a while that actually released power into a more democratic state. Rwanda is very similar to that, too. Even though it's a one -party system, they do have some openings for opposition.

00:20:16    MARIAH YAGER
So I was also intrigued by talking about this idea of self -determination, but then also getting into what is innocence. We only have a few minutes left, so I don't know how far we're going to get into it. But how important is self -determination? And I bring up the idea of these different... levels, if you will, of innocence or how you determine that. Because I've heard people say they voted in Hamas. And I'm not an expert, but if I remember correctly, there was either them or someone who was even more hated at the time. And also there was very low turnout. So what is this idea?

00:20:52    BEATRICE HEUSER
You can take it a step further and you can say that this was 2007. In 2007, to what extent could people in Gaza, what the Hamas was going to become like? I think a lot of people would tell you that they could have known, one could have known, but then take aside the 2007, a lot of the younger people around were either not born or definitely couldn't vote. So there's a lot of people who literally weren't responsible for this respect. And then you get to the next point, would you expect them now to turn over their neighbor's son, who they know is from the Hamas? To what extent do you expect them to do this? Could they get away with it? Would the Hamas themselves punish them? Are they still in a situation to punish them? I mean, this was one of the things that was always said for Germany in the Third Reich. Lots of people who didn't do anything because they were so afraid for themselves. And again, this can be looked at very differently. And there's just so much research has been done on particularly the German society then. One of the things that research has shown is that very few Aryans were ever really killed and punished unless they were seen as communists. So there was a perception that they would be punished, that dreadful things would happen to them or their family, but it didn't necessarily happen. So does that mean that the perception was wrong, but still people acted under the fear that something would happen to them? To what extent can you work against that fear? So a horribly difficult area, but at the moment, very concrete terms, we're not sure that there are many people anywhere in Gaza who would be happy to cooperate with anybody bringing in food in a peaceful way.

00:22:21    MARIAH YAGER
So we are actually getting to the top of the hour. I want to turn the floor over to Jack, if you have any final questions and then offer any last few minutes to Professor Huser.

00:22:30    JACK GAINES
I just want to thank you again, Professor, for coming on. I think that DOD has an opportunity through your talk to further its planning on conflict to post -conflict and transition. We need to get on it because the world needs it. The international community, the plan you had are a great start, but we have to do our homework on it and get prepared.

00:22:50    BEATRICE HEUSER
Yeah, I would say thank you very, very much for having had me. But I think this idea of the post -hostilities planning while hostilities is still being carried on is absolutely vital. And we've learned at the expense of lots and lots of lives and great disaster that we should have done so much more for Iraq, but also for Afghanistan. So I'm all with you there. Thank you very much again for having invited me.

00:23:09    MARIAH YAGER
me.

00:23:11    JACK GAINES
Thank you.

00:23:12    MARIAH YAGER
All right. And thank you both. And everyone, thank you for joining us today. Enjoy the rest of your day.

00:23:17    Close
Thanks for listening. If you get a chance, please like and subscribe and rate the show on your favorite podcast platform. Also, if you're interested in coming on the show or hosting an episode, email us at capodcasting at gmail .com. And now, most importantly, to those currently out in the field working with a partner nation's people or leadership to forward U .S. relations, thank you all for what you're doing. This is Jack, your host. Stay tuned for more great episodes. 1CA Podcast.

 

170: Combat First Aid in Ukraine by Michael Baker

Today, we have a special guest episode.

Dana Lombardy of Lombardy Studios hosts talks on military history and current events. To find out more about Dana's work, check out LombardyStudios.com.

For this episode, he brings in retired Rear Admiral Michael Baker, a general surgeon who travels to Ukraine to teach combat first aid. 

It's a great story about volunteering and working in a war zone to help Ukrainians save soldiers' lives. 

Great news: FeedSpot ranked One CA Podcast as one of their top 10 foreign policy podcasts. Check it out at: https://podcasts.feedspot.com/foreign_policy_podcasts/

One CA is a product of the civil affairs association 

and brings in people who are current or former military, diplomats, development officers, and field agents to discuss their experiences on the ground with a partner nation's people and leadership.

We aim to inspire anyone interested in working in the "last three feet" of U.S. foreign relations. 

To contact the show, email us at CApodcasting@gmail dot com

or look us up on the Civil Affairs Association website at www civilaffairsassoc.org

Special thanks to Max Jansson for posting the
Mark Knopfler and Chet Atkins instrumental "I'll see you in my dreams," performed live at Secret Policeman's Third Ball 1987. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wTVLIZaxMk

---

00:00:05    Introduction
Welcome to the 1CA podcast. This is your host, Jack Gaines. 1CA is a product of the Civil Affairs Association and brings in people who are current or former military, diplomats, development officers, and field agents to discuss their experiences on ground with a partner nation's people and leadership. Our goal is to inspire anyone interested in working the last three feet of foreign relations. To contact the show, email us at capodcasting at gmail .com or look us up on the Civil Affairs Association website at www .civilaffairsassos .org. I'll have those in the show notes.

00:00:41    DANA LOMBARDI
Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the War College. My name is Dana Lombardi, and I've been using the facilities here for about 10 years to do War College presentations. They've been mostly historical. In the past couple of years have been trying to look at more contemporary things that are going on in the world. This morning we're going to talk about the events in Ukraine and also how this impacts ourselves and our allies. We have really good speakers who have personal experience with this. And they have a lot of things to tell us about what is happening there and also what they have done and some of their personal experiences. The gentleman to my immediate right is retired Admiral Michael Baker, a surgeon.

00:01:26    Jack Gaines
Today, we have a guest episode. Dana Lombardi of Lombardi Studios hosts talks on military history and current events. To find out more about Dana's work, check it out on LombardiStudios .com. For this episode... He brings in retired Rear Admiral Michael Baker, a general surgeon who travels to Ukraine to teach combat first aid. It's a great story about volunteering and working in a war zone to help Ukrainians save soldiers' lives. So let's get started.

00:01:55    MICHAEL BAKER
Thank you for that kind introduction. So I got to tell you this story about how I got involved. Why is a general surgeon going to Ukraine in the middle of a war? In fact, a retired general surgeon. I mean, what am I doing? I decided after all my surgery training and medical school and everything, I felt grateful to grow up in this country, believe it or not. And I decided I would join the military. The military at that time was scaling down, but very short of specialists. So they said, well, we're going to put you in the reserves for now in case we ever need you and we'll find something for you to do. And I said, okay, I can do a couple of years in the reserves and then that won't interfere with my career and I'll go back to civilian life. So I signed up. Little did I know that they would hook me into doing more than those two or three years in the reserves, and I wound up spending quite a long time retiring as a rear admiral with a warfare pin of river and coastal patrol, which at the time was extremely unusual. I had all kinds of odd assignments, most of which had nothing to do with surgery. It was very strange. So Europe's been at peace for 75 years since World War II. How did this happen? If you believe Mark Twain, he says God created war so that Americans would learn geography. And normally I start this talk with some history and geography. We won't dwell on that today because of our time constraints. Normally this is like a 90 -minute talk. So Ukraine's been part of many countries. Borders changed all the time, but Ukrainians are not Russians. That's the key thing here. They never have been. There's a lot of reasons that Putin listed for attacking Ukraine. One of the big ones that's outlandish is NATO's getting too close. So I have to show you that one real quick on the map. And you can come up with some arrows. But if you look at the dark blue, dark purplish color, those are the original NATO countries sort of pre -1991. You know, England and France and Germany. And the purple ones... adjacent to Ukraine, those are all former Russian Soviet republics. So, you know, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, what did they do after the collapse of the Soviet Union? Well, they all rushed to join NATO because they're afraid of the Russians. What a surprise. Where is the border close? Well, they already share a common border. So how do you get any closer to NATO than sharing a common border? They also are pretty close to Turkey. Anybody know what that is? Hunt for Red October? It's Kaliningrad, Sean Connery's port of embarkation with a nuclear sub. There's a Russian naval base with nuclear weapons in the middle of NATO countries. Now, I'm a surgeon, so we would call this a metastasis. I don't know what to call it geopolitically, but it's right between Lithuania and Poland, and my prediction would be that the next place that the Russians would go if they triumphed in Ukraine would be to open that corridor. So the Russian effort backfires so extravagantly that previously neutral Finland and Sweden decide to join NATO. You know, it's kind of interesting. So now there's more NATO countries. It really did backfire because everybody fears the Russian bear, as you'll see. And I put that on there just to remind everybody that the bear is coming. There's really reason here why the Ukrainians stood to fight. Everybody thought it would collapse in two weeks, including all the NATO countries and the Western powers. They did stand. And I think it's well exemplified by the response. There's 18 guys on a place called Snake Island. And the garrison on Snake Island became famous because they were approached by a battle cruiser, the Moskva. And the 18 guys gave a response that became symbolic to the rest of the war with the Russian military. And it actually have we have postage stamps now that talk about it. Next slide.

00:05:46    MICHAEL BAKER
Just days after Russia invaded Ukraine, a Russian warship ordered Ukrainian soldiers manning a Black Sea outpost on Ukraine's Snake Island to surrender. What happened next made headlines around the world.

00:06:04    MICHAEL BAKER
It was the go F yourself heard round the world. And tonight we're learning the Russian warship that attacked Snake Island has been destroyed by Ukrainian forces. The Times of London reporting that the Vasily Bikov seen in this earlier video was hit during a firefight after the Ukrainians used a smaller vessel to lure the Russian ship closer to shore where a hidden missile battery could open fire.

00:06:25    MICHAEL BAKER
You know, I'm a sailor, but I would never say anything like that. So what it really amounts to is the fact that fighting for your home is a lot different than being an invader who fights to loot and to rob and to rape and to destroy. Napoleon stated historically that the moral is to the physical as three is to one. It's really true. It might even be higher. I'm going to show you a video of a 15 -year -old boy credited with about 100 kills of Russian armor using his drone to guide the artillery. That's pretty amazing for a 15 -year -old. So how did I get involved with this? To tell you the quick story, I have a friend and shipmate named Malcolm Nance. He was an MSNBC contributor. He's an author. First week of the war, he predicted that Ukraine would beat Russia. He was an outlier. And then he went and joined the International Legion and went to Ukraine. So there's volunteers from over 50 countries. They get background checks and psyche evals, unlike the Russians who take them out of jail and prison. He returned home in August to promote his book, and he was at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. And so I said, I'm going to come down there and let's go out and talk after the lecture. He gave a great discussion about Ukraine. Interesting guy. And he wrote a book called They Want to Kill Americans about militias and terrorists. Great read, actually, fairly interesting. And even though I don't really drink, I learned what certain drinks like a French 75 was. I didn't even know what that was, but now I know. So I want you to meet my friend Malcolm Nance. He's an author. He's an NBC commentator. He's an intelligence guy from the Navy background. And he's the only one who predicted Russia would lose. So here's a clip from the Commonwealth Club. I said this on MSNBC. I said,

00:08:02    MICHAEL BAKER
Club. I said this on MSNBC. I said, these guys are going to fight. I can tell by the look in this man's eye. He is ready to kick Russian ass and enjoy it. And, you know, he's a very short guy, he's a thick guy, you know. And the other commander, the commander of land warfare was General Serski. You know, guy's about five foot five. Five foot fives of five foot five inches of I cannot be defeated. No, really. And as I looked at them, I was like, whoa. I think there's something happening here in media that is not being factored. And I said this on one of the MSNBC shows about three or four days before the invasion. And they were like, well, you know, the invasion will be quick. Analysts were coming on. The invasion will be quick. They'll lose rather fast. And I said, hey. Let me tell you something. They were talking about the Ukrainians losing.

00:08:52    SPEAKER_01
were talking about the Ukrainians losing. He would be in there within two weeks. It would all be over. The entire war would be over.

00:08:54    MICHAEL BAKER
He would

00:08:58    MICHAEL BAKER
entire war would be over. Keefe would be taken in 72 hours. I kept thinking, this is why intelligence field collectors are the smart ones to listen to. We're on the ground. And I've been in the city of Keefe. It's the size of Chicago. It has a bigger population. It's five million people. And these 20 stories Soviet apartment blocks that are 20 buildings deep. And I'm like, no one's ever taking this city. All right. There's little old ladies right now who are woefully heartbroken. that they didn't get to throw their Molotov cocktails out the 18 -story window on top of Russian tanks. If you go to the checkpoints in Kiev right now, there are thousands upon thousands of Molotov cocktails in crates waiting for the reservists because they expected to be fighting hand and fist with the Russians. The Russians never got near going anywhere near taking. Kiev, except one ambush that the Ukrainians let them into the city and slaughtered them wholesale. And, you know, I said the same thing in the pre -war. I go, they're never going to, they're going to lose this war. They don't have enough men to win this war. The Russians. Yes.

00:10:12    MICHAEL BAKER
So he goes back to put on his uniform and roughly a week later, out of the blue, I get some contact saying, would you be willing to go teach combat casualty care in Ukraine? And in this case, it was the International Medical Corps reaching out in the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative. And it trains medical providers to deal with acute injuries on the highway, on the battlefield, wherever. But it's really very straightforward. It was introduced about 1980 because an orthopedic surgeon and his family went down in the airplane, and he felt that the family had been very badly handled and poorly treated. And he said, we've got to teach people how to do this right. There are ways to do it. So it's been taught to over a million doctors and other medical professionals. In the U .S. military, we teach it to physicians assistants and to dental officers because they got to know. You never know when combat will come their way. So here I am, retired guy, walks the dog, tells his kids, I'm going to go to Europe and teach ATLS. They're used to me going to South Korea and Germany, so they didn't think too much about it. And I come from a background where you don't really tell people where you're going anyway, because that's operational security. Some of you may know and nod your heads when I say that. It's 12 hours from San Francisco to Warsaw, but we had a layover, of course. It was 18 hours by the time I got there. Then it gets more interesting. I have to change planes, and I go to the desk, and I go, where's the gate for this city, and how do you pronounce it? And she smiles and tells me the gate and says it's pronounced Zhezhov just like it's spelled. And I go, okay, next slide, please. Yeah, I guess I won't be learning Polish any too quickly. So we fly into Zhezhov. And there we get a van to the border. And we actually get out and it's 90 minutes, but we meet a van on the other side. The reason is there's 10 miles of trucks backed up on the border and it would take us three days to get through. So we walk across, which is why they told us to only bring carry -ons, which was really good advice. But we didn't get to go straight because you don't want to travel with all those ammunition trucks and fuel trucks and stuff. So you get to take a few side roads. It takes a little longer. So we finally get there and Ukraine felt like a country that was at war, but it didn't really feel like war imminent. You know, there were checkpoints and fighting posts and armed guards and air raid sirens and bomb shelters everywhere. And going down the highway, you had these barricades with concrete blocks and sandbags. Those are called serpentines. You're met by the greeters, just like at Walmart. And the greeters sometimes will inspect your van or your truck to see what you're doing. And we got an app installed in our phone for the air raids, which was really cool. So Mark Hamill paid to develop the app and paid to distribute it in Ukraine so you could get an early warning to go to the bomb shelter. Very cool. I did a little sightseeing. We had a security brief like we always get. We were in the International Medical Corps as NGO volunteers, but my entire team was prior military, which made me a little suspect. how they reached out and found all of us. So everywhere you'd go, there's places you could run behind a blast wall if you had to hurry. There was displays of knocked out Russian equipment in lots of places, which was interesting. I also found that all the monuments and statues and things were sandbagged because they said, you know, if the Russians can't steal it, they try to destroy it, which is a technique. So let me tell you about ATLS real quick. It focuses on the first opportunity to take care of a casualty. We teach a common language. We all use the same terminology. We do a standard approach, literally ABCs, as I'll show you. And it used to be called care during the golden hour because in the U .S. it was mostly injuries on the highway where you had some time and had a golden hour. In Battlefield, your foot steps on a mine, you might have a golden four minutes. So we teach and always have an interpreter by my side who's fluent in English. We do didactic lecture. It always starts that way. followed by a demonstration. And then we do hands -on skill stations. If you're an educator, you know that each of these three things is very important for getting things into people's heads. And so everywhere I went, I always had an interpreter by my shoulder, which was very interesting, and they were very good. They went over our slides in the beginning because the slides had been done by Google Translate. And I guess there were some things in there that didn't come out the way that they wanted them to sound in Ukrainian. So they fixed all our slides. And we do an ATL's protocol language. It's literally ABCs, airway, breathing, it's circulation, it's disability, it's exposure. And then if you get through all those and you don't find anything bad, you do a secondary survey. But, you know, if you can't get past A and B, it's over in a couple of minutes and see if they're bleeding aggressively or the heart stopped. It's over real quick. So you go through this rotely, but if you find something, you intervene. So you have to do a life -saving intervention. This is what we teach them. If the airway is occluded, some of you may have taken those first aid courses where we teach you how to do a jaw thrust or a chin lift or whatever, turn the patient on his side, clear the airway. We teach them how to secure an airway, either intubating or doing a surgical tracheostomy. We make sure they're breathing. Maybe they've got a punctuating wound to the chest and a collapsed lung. We call it a pneumothorax. We put in a chest tube and they learn how to do it. We teach them how to deal with the circulation problems, the pressure dressings, the tourniquets. And then if you find something after you're done putting that tourniquet on, you go back and go do your ABCs again, make sure nothing went south. So we did our skill stations after the didactic lectures. And then after the skill stations, again, my interpreter's right there. We do a hands -on. This is a pediatrician learning how to do a surgical airway, a tracheostomy on a mannequin. I'm standing back because that's a pediatrician with a scalpel. And that's just like a non sequitur, as we say in Latin. But he learned. And so we taught Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday. And so they figured, well, you guys have Wednesday and Saturday off. Why don't you teach Stop the Bleed, which is another course related to the American College of Surgeons. So in between, we taught civilians how to stop the bleed, how to recognize life -threatening bleeding, what to do about it. And we taught pressure dressings, wound packing, tourniquets. And just to give you some flavor of the demonstration, remembering that it was translated into Ukrainian as we did it. There's a lot of reports of guys putting their own tourniquets on to save themselves. But you get the point. They're teaching themselves, and whoever raises their hand first and does it right, I guess, gets to go home early. I don't know. I'm just teasing. Altogether, it's about a four - or five -hour course. So this was to civilians. This was to school teachers and librarians and bus drivers to learn how to do this. But I thought I was done. When I finally went home and faced my kids, who were very irate that I went off to the battlefield to teach people casualty care, Of course, a couple of weeks later, I got asked to go back several more times. So I went back to Odessa in October. I went to Ismail, which I'd never heard of. And you find some interesting things when you go to these little places that you've never heard of. Who would have ever thought that I would find the Ukrainian Rotary Club in Ismail? So when I was in Kiev, I'd gone across this way. But now I'm down here in Odessa. And then you're going to see the next one at Ismail where this blue. Star is going to show up. So that's down near the Black Sea. It's where the Danube enters into the Black Sea. But when you look at this map where the conflict is right now, you know, these colors denote levels of conflict. We're right close, you know, as the rocket flies, we were in the neighborhood. So it was interesting. We got our windows rattled. A few people got their windows blown out and stuff. But I still think it's a lot more dangerous to go to certain cities around the U .S. and walk downtown. So what did we achieve by making these trips? Well, we had 569 doctors and other medical professionals pass the course, got certified in ATLS. We had over 2 ,000 people stop the bleed so far. In the last tours, we trained and certified Ukrainian instructors because if you ever did nation building stuff, you want them to be able to do it. We don't want to keep going there, although I am going to go there to certify them shortly. And everybody leaves with two things. They get a certificate of completion, which I can't tell you how important that is to them, and they get an IFAC. an individual first aid kit with all the stuff we taught them how to use. These are very important. So I was in Cambodia circa 1996 or so before it was really open to the world. When I came back 10 years later, my interpreter still had his certificate on the wall of his place of employment. That was like the best thing he had ever done. So just to segue into what to worry about if Putin's successful, I think the next stop is Kaliningrad. I'm going to put a couple arrows on this map. We showed you where that sub -base was. He's got to open that corridor. There's no question. That's a real choke point, a real problem. But I'm also worried that the next place might be Moldova. There's already Russian occupiers in Moldova. And of course, the place that I worry about the most, although he talked a lot about Poland in his interview with Tucker Carlson, very worried about Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, now Poland. He mentioned Poland 38 times in a two -hour interview. That's not an accident. Just to take you to a different place, remember, this is a 90 -minute lecture. You're getting the CliffsNotes. I believe the Hamas attack on Israel is related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. They are together. Ask yourself, who benefits? Who's benefiting? So if you pull back the curtain on this, on October 7th, we're now four months, the Hamas terrorists from Gaza launch an attack. They kill a lot of civilians. There's horrific scenes that are just out of horror movies, rapes, beheadings, all kinds of terrible stuff. So ask yourself, what's the connection? Who benefits? You always got to ask who benefits. Is Hamas benefiting? Well, they're losing a lot of soldiers. Palestinian people getting anything out of this other than death and destruction? I think the coalition of Russia, North Korea, Iran, and maybe China. They launched this assault on democracy for a couple reasons. They're using Hamas to assault Israel. And what does it do? What does it accomplish? They enable Russia to hammer Ukraine. You know, North Korea supplies the artillery. And it forces the U .S. and the allies to divert their attention and their support. So now instead of 100 % on Ukraine, it's 50%. So who actually benefits from this? Russia and Iran benefit big time. They've divided the U .S., the NATO allies. They've reduced the flow of weapons and aid to Ukraine. They've divided our surveillance and intelligence assets. We're now using them two theaters. And they're weakening the West. They're weakening democracies. Ukraine's off the news media, right? Because Gaza's on the shows Americans only can watch two minutes at a time. So they sunk the Israeli -Saudi rapprochement, which almost had them with diplomatic relations and travel. They've divided citizens of Western nations. Got the Oakland City Council voting. to condemn israel i mean what does oakland have to do with that but anyway they've reduced the military aid to ukraine and of course we have a congress that's a whole nother series of lectures and sailor swear words that i won't go into um so whose fingerprints are on it if you look at this real quick who benefits um these guys do this the foreign minister of iran there with vladimir putin his axis of terror he welcomes hamas a week after the attack the iranian foreign minister and hamas are welcome to Moscow for talks. What a coincidence. So what's the future? I'm going to show you what I think the future is, and then I'll be done. I'm optimistic that Ukraine will survive and they will thrive. This crisis created a very solid national identity. They already had a pretty good one with those demonstrations to get rid of their former president. It mobilized the people really in new ways, and they're going to continue to develop as a democracy and a market economy. They're looking to the EU. That's where they want to be next. So the future, I think Ukrainian democracy undermines Putin, makes him look bad. People will see freedom and prosperity in Ukraine like we saw, and they will want that. Some of you are my age, and you might remember that West Germany and West Berlin were a shining light compared to East Germany. You know, I'd get off that subway in East Berlin, and I go, I just went into a black and white movie from, you know, from a color movie. And, you know, they were dark gray. So this led to the Berlin Wall coming down. This could lead to Russia coming down if Ukraine stands fast. So I want to give everything that we can to the Ukrainians for this fight. We've got to ignore the Russian blackmail. We're giving them long -range attack -ups. We need to give them more. We need to give them cruise missiles and more. We need more Abrams tanks. I saw the first one on the battlefield recently. Need F -16s and helicopters. And history provides us with an interesting option. I've written a couple of editorials on this. I want to resurrect the Flying Tigers model of World War II, and I'll tell you why. Lockheed made over 3 ,000 F -16s. They're flown in over 27 countries, and they're all being retired. So how many pilots do you think there might be out there that could fly an F -16 and only need a six -week refresher? So I bet there's former F -16 pilots who would go fight for democracy, maybe for money or whatever, that would... Go to the fight and stand up. Just like Malcolm Nance went and fought with the International Brigade, maybe we could have an international volunteer squadron like the Flying Tigers. This is the F -16. It's a fabulous platform. So our world's really messed up. So how do I remain optimistic with all this crazy stuff going on in Ukraine and Gaza and everything? I think Ukraine really is fighting for all of us, you know, the NATO countries, all the democracies and the U .S. And I think we all need to be in this fight. So on that note, I'm positive with the kids, the future. I'm going to end with a slava Ukraine and turn it over to Jim. Back to Dana. Thank you.

00:24:01    Close
Thanks for listening. If you get a chance, please like and subscribe and rate the show on your favorite podcast platform. Also, if you're interested in coming on the show or hosting an episode. email us at capodcasting at gmail .com. And now, most importantly, to those currently out in the field, working with a partner nation's people or leadership to forward U .S. relations, thank you all for what you're doing. This is Jack, your host. Stay tuned for more great episodes, 1CA Podcast.

169: Part II, Bas Wouters on Influence and Persuasion

Please welcome Maria Yager and Bas Waters to One CA Podcast. 

Originally, I was cohosting the show with Mariah, but I got OBE'd (or overcome by events), so Maria covered until I arrived and helped with questions and answers. 

This is part two of a two-part episode on influence and persuasion.

FeedSpot ranked One CA Podcast as one of their top 20 foreign policy podcasts. Check it out at: https://podcasts.feedspot.com/foreign_policy_podcasts/

One CA is a product of the civil affairs association 

and brings in people who are current or former military, diplomats, development officers, and field agents to discuss their experiences on the ground with a partner nation's people and leadership.

We aim to inspire anyone interested in working in the "last three feet" of U.S. foreign relations. 

To contact the show, email us at CApodcasting@gmail dot com

or look us up on the Civil Affairs Association website at www civilaffairsassoc.org

Special thanks to Max Sedgley for remixing Sarah Vaughan's iconic signing of the theme to the show Max Gunn. Found at  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33GglmH6U1k

---

00:00:02 Introduction
Welcome to the 1CA podcast. This is your host, Jack Gaines. 1CA is a product of the Civil Affairs Association and brings in people who are current or former military, diplomats, development officers, and field agents to discuss their experiences on ground with the partner nation's people and leadership. Our goal is to inspire anyone interested in working the last three feet of foreign relations. To contact the show, email us at capodcasting at gmail .com or look us up on the Civil Affairs Association website at www .civilaffairsassos .org. I'll have those in the show notes.

00:00:37 Mariah Yager
Hi, everyone. I'm Mariah Yeager, your host for today's SMA speaker session titled On Persuasion. We have Bass Waters, who is co -founder and CEO of the Cialdini Institute. He's the author of Online Influence, which is combining Dr. Cialdini's work with insights from other behavioral experts, creating a highly practical framework to boost online results.

00:00:57 Jack Gaines
Please welcome Mariah Yeager and Bass Waters to 1CA Podcast. Originally, I was co -hosting the show with Mariah, but I got OBE'd, or overcome by events, so Mariah covered until I arrived to help with questions and answers. This is part one of a two -part episode on influence and persuasion, so enjoy.

00:01:14 Mariah Yager
So after establishing the Cialdini Institute, companies like Disney, Bookings .com reached out to our speaker today. So he has extensive experience. We're happy to have him today. So with that, I'm going to turn the floor over to Mr. Waters.

00:01:28 Bas Wouters
Thank you, Mariah, for this great introduction. Thank you all for joining and to dive deeper into the practical application of the science of persuasion. I'm representing the Cialdini Institute. I'm aware that a lot of you know the great work of Dr. Robert Cialdini, and he is my business partner in the Cialdini Institute. I'd like to start with some things you may not know about Robert Cialdini, and one of the things that we are very proud of is this research in 2022. They established a jury of the top entrepreneurs in the world, which included Warren Buffett, Mark Cuban, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos. And they voted for the best business book of all time. And as you probably can guess, the winner was Influence from Dr. Robert Cialdini. And actually, they repeated this study with those top entrepreneurs. And in 2023, again, the winner was Influence from Dr. Cialdini. I understood from Jack and Mariah that most of you read his book, published in 1984. And Dr. Cialdini became a professor at the University of Arizona State. He started lecturing, PhD students, but he also started to do research. And one thing that fascinated Dr. Cialdini is why people can influence so easily. I'll give you an example. One day at home, somebody rings the doorbell. He opens. He makes a nice chat. Goes back inside and then he realized, why do I suddenly have a new energy supplier? I didn't need that. I didn't ask for it. I said yes to the request. So that fascinated him. So he started looking into the research that was already done for influence, the science of persuasion. But he found actually the first influence research of psychologists who were wondering in the 1930s. When Hitler came to power, how can a man who is an advocate for such a totalitarian regime, how can he move complete societies in his direction? So Dr. Cialdini was looking at approximately 40 to 50 years of data on influence research. And then he realized something important. These are lab studies. But influence is done in the real world. So I need to go out there where it actually happens. So Dr. Cialdini went undercover and he infiltrated a lot of training programs. So training programs on sales, marketing, VR. But he also infiltrated army recruitment and even calls. And after three years, he collected his findings and connected that to the 50 years of research that already was out there. And then he wrote his book, Influence. And in that book, first he wrote the six principles of persuasion. And later, in this new and expanded edition in 2021, he added a seventh principle. These seven principles of persuasion, these are the universal principles of persuasion. Sayers shows us these principles work in every culture, in every language, in every country. There's also research on what is the most powerful principle per culture, but they all work in every culture. The thing is what Dr. Cialdini wondered during his research is something different because everybody told him, well, we are from marketing. That's completely different than PR. Well, I'm from PR. That's different than sales. Sales is different from advertising. So everybody told him. how different everybody was. What he was looking for, what is the same? Which principles motivates in every case to move more people in your direction? Like I said, in 1984, he found six. Based on research, he added a seven principle. So these principles are reciprocity. If I invite you to my birthday party, you feel a pressure. To invite me back at your party. Liking. We like to say yes to our friends. To give you an example. If I walk here on the street. And a complete stranger is moving houses. And they say to me. Well boss. Do you want to help me? Most likely I would tell that stranger. I don't have time. Or no I don't want to help you. But if my best friend would ask me that same question. Probably I say yes. The fourth principle is social proof. There's something interesting with social proof. In its first edition, it was referred to as consensus. Dr. Cialdini created the term social proof. What it states is, when we are uncertain, we look to other people to decide what we should do. Think, for example, about booking .com. Which hotel should we pick to stay? A thousand people tell me this is a great hotel, so I booked that hotel. The fifth principle is authority. We follow the advice of the experts. This is an interesting one because how we base in our decision making if somebody is an expert is very interesting. To give you an example, if I go to my general doctor. I just ask him questions about whatever health condition I have. But who ever checked the diplomas of that general doctor? Probably nobody did that. But based on his title, I already trust him that he has expertise about whatever complaint I will bring to him in my health situation. Then consistency. It's about if we made a small commitment previously, we feel an internal pressure to act consistent with what we previously have said or done. Consistency is the most powerful internal driver to motivate into action. And that leads me to the second principle, and that's scarcity. Scarcity is the most powerful external driver that motivates us into action. And you can think, for example, about Black Friday. It started in the US, but now it's spread all over the world. And on Black Friday, everybody is moving into directions just because they assume they can get great deals. Then unity. This is the seventh principle that Dr. Cialdini introduced in his new and expanded edition of Influence. And it's about... Do we belong to the same group? We are all football fans. We are all Americans. So the fact that you belong to the same group may increase the motivation to say yes to a certain request if that is raised to awareness. Those are the seven principles. What's important, these principles are based on science. Everything we do in the Cialdini research has three core values. One is science. The other one is application. So you cannot change your outcome just with theory. You have to be able to translate the theoretical research into practical application. But that's another very important component of us, which we will discuss into a systematic way of applying today. And the third is ethics. And ethics, it's about these powerful principles. You have to use them in an ethical way because we talk not about manipulation. Influence is not manipulation. Ethical influence is not manipulation because it's raising to awareness parts of information that are also helpful for people to make a decision. And therefore, you create win -win outcomes. Because things are based on science, it can be taught. And if something can be taught, it can be learned. There are a lot of people out there who have a natural gift to be persuasive. They often end up in marketing, sales, or leadership positions because they have this natural ability to persuade. We know one thing for sure. People who master the science that don't have the natural ability to persuade are more powerful persuaders than people who have the natural ability to persuade. Can you imagine if you have both? One, you have a natural skill to be persuasive, plus you master the science. And why this is also important, I train a lot of people all over the world. And especially in sales and marketing, after a training, people told me, now I can actually explain what I was doing. They were successful, but they could not teach it. It's just what comes up to me natural. That is not transferable. So because it's science, it can be taught, and therefore it can be learned by everybody. And today we want to dive into the application. Dr. Neidert has been a right -hand man to Dr. Cialdini for the last 25 years. He is also a professor at ASU University, and he consulted the Fortune 100 companies, but also a lot of government agencies, including intelligence. And every time when he did such a consulting, he selected a principal that was most suitable for that case. And people asked him, of course, Dr. Neidert, why you've chosen reciprocity or why you've chosen scarcity to overcome our influence challenges? And this answer could not be, that's just because I do. Everything is science and research -based. So he developed the core motives model so we can teach you how to select the best principle in every given situation. Let me start by introducing the first core motives model. In an influence challenge, the relationship we have with a person is very important. To give you an example, let's imagine I'm in a very important meeting and my phone rings and I look at my phone and I see somebody that I don't speak so often. What would I probably do? I wouldn't pick up my phone. But imagine the same situation. I'm in that very important meeting and my spouse or your partner or friend that knows you are in that important meeting calls you. Now probably what will happen is you will excuse yourself and try to pick up the phone to at least know why they are calling you because you assume there's something urgent. You do this based on the relationship. you have with that person. And if you go back to the 50s, one of the communication models that was introduced was the sender -receiver model, which says, when you send out a message with words and images, then you have the receiver. That receiver processes the information they get and make it a message. Then you have the channel. Those channels are now extended in the online world. First, you had face -to -face. Then we had... face -to -face and phone calls. And now you have face -to -face, video calls, phone calls, text messages, emails. Also, the channel is very interesting to look at and which one is most persuasive in influence. Then back to the first core modus model. So as I shared with you in the situation, do I pick up my phone during that important meeting? Yes or no? So in any given influence situation, we have to establish a relationship. Some questions that you can ask yourself, well, how can you recognize a signal that you have to work on your relationship? Do people pick up the phone, for example? Do they answer my text messages because you see those blue check marks in WhatsApp, for example, but they don't reply? You saw that they got it, they read it, but they don't reply. People don't pay attention when you are in a meeting. They are distracted. Look at their phone. These are all signals where you should recognize in the future, I need to work on my relation. And the three principles that most likely will do the job to cultivate a relationship or repair an existing relationship are reciprocity, liking, and unity. So what you see... Pulling here is now we can recognize a signal. Why we might not reach our goals, why we get a no instead of a yes, can only be one core motive and the whole machine is start pinning again. So relationship can be one of those gears we have to work on. It's not a one, two, three step model. It could be in a new influence challenge, but it could also be just fix the relationship. So influence is start to move in your direction. So the second core motive that I like to introduce is uncertainty. In every decision -making process, we get uncertain most of the time. To give you an example, let's assume you want to buy a new kitchen. You go into Google and you type in buy a new kitchen. And then bang, you right away have like a million hits. Unconscious, we get uncertain. Where do I click? What are signals? What could you recognize when other ways that people are uncertain? Well, if you communicate with them, they might just say it. I don't know what to do. Or I doubt that this is the best decision for me. These kinds of expressions will help you recognize that people are still uncertain. Here's another thing people do. They start improving your offer. One of times we think, oh, but I am the expert. Why they don't listen to me? It's because they are uncertain. Those people don't want to act annoying. They know what to bother you, but they express uncertainty. And you should think I should move into the principles of social proof and authority. Social proof and authority are the most likely principles. that will overcome uncertainty. If a person is uncertain, you raise to awareness what other people did in that same situation or what an expert says to do in that given situation. And then we reach the last gear or modus model, and that's motivation. You've probably all been there. You are influencing or persuading somebody, move them in your direction. You know you have a good relationship. That person says, yes, your offer is the right one for me. But they don't act. So we have to motivate them into action. These people are probably wondering two things. Why should I act now? Or what did I previously said or done that I will act on this request now? So consistency and scarcity are most likely to do the job. to motivate people into action. What the Night of Port Motives model does and why it's a crucial foundation for me to become an expert in the science of influence is now we are able to analyze a situation, recognize certain signals, we can select the best principle to overcome that challenge, and we can generate ideas which... most likely will have the most persuasive outcome. That leads me to another interesting model which I like to introduce, how to generate those ideas. Most often when we want to generate ideas, we go into brainstorm sessions. And those brainstorm sessions, if you rationalize what actually happens, most of the time, especially in business organizations, people go into a room, they start, talking to each other. Often they don't walk away with a solid action plan. They just talked a lot. But that isn't very productive. So to generate the best possible ideas, we developed the influence process. And actually, you can apply this process to any brainstorm question. There are four steps. One person does the initiation and just... Briefly say we have this challenge and we need a solution. For that person who initiated the session, it's pretty clear what needs to happen. But by briefly addressing it, just with a few words or maybe two sentences, it's most of the time for 70, 80 or 90 % clear for the other participants, which is we start generating ideas, people move into different directions. So what we recommend to do, one person explains what you're going to think about. What is the current situation? What do you hope to achieve? What is a good outcome? What did you already tried? And what are your next ideas? So then you set the stage into a direction that everybody more clearly understands what I am going to talk about. And then something fun happens. When we start talking in these kinds of sessions, it's often a competition who has the loudest voice. We are all together in a room and you've all been there and only two or three people are continuously talking and the rest is pretty silent. That's not very productive because you don't get the best ideas in the room. You get the ideas from people with the loudest voice. You first need to do something else. You need to think. We often act on a question right away. Pretty impulsive. But that doesn't mean that's the best idea you can come up with. We say, think five to seven minutes. Really crack your brain. That's not 30 seconds thinking and four and a half minutes staring out the window. Really think. And after people did that, again, we don't want to have the competition who has the loudest voice. We want to hear everybody's ideas. So you want to have all ideas on the table. That's why we recommend give people two to three minutes max per person so they share not all their ideas, but the best ideas to overcome the challenge.

00:01:16 Bas Wouters
And then something fun happens. When we start talking in these kinds of sessions, it's often a competition. Who has the loudest voice? We are all together in a room and you've all been there and only two or two people are continuously talking and the rest is pretty silent. That's not very productive because you don't get the best ideas in the room. You get the ideas from people with the loudest voice. You first need to do something else. You need to think. We often act on a question right away. Pretty impulsive. But that doesn't mean that's the best idea you can come up with. We say, think five to seven minutes. Really crack your brain. That's not 30 seconds thinking and four and a half minutes staring out the window. Really think. And after people did that, again, we don't want to have the competition who has the loudest voice. We want to hear. everybody's ideas. So you want to have all ideas on the table. That's why we recommend give people two to three minutes max per person so they share not all their ideas, but the best ideas to overcome the challenge. Therefore, you're only collecting what people themselves support as their best ideas. And now, based on that, step one, one person is talking. Step two, everybody is silent in the room. Thinking is an individual process. Then step three, solicit input. Again, one person is talking. Don't react on the ideas of the other person. Don't say, that's a great idea or yes, but I think this is better. Wait till step four and then create an action plan. You do this process with three to six people. So in a time framing here, you have five minutes for step back. Let's say seven minutes to think, that's 12 minutes. If you have three people, give them three minutes. Nine minutes in total plus 12 is 21 minutes. Then you have nine minutes to create an action plan. And then you do this entire process in only 30 minutes. How many brainstorm sessions we have for an hour and not walk away with an action plan. Applying this to influence will create you a solid action plan. Only what do we say, what kind of action plan we suggest is a list of bullet points. Prioritize your ideas that you're going to implement and make them from low -hanging fruit to the more complicated ideas to implement and start doing that. Don't write full reports because two things can happen. One, the person who's writing these reports anchors their brain. Oh, this is the full truth now, and we cannot diverse anymore. An influence process needs to be flexible. And second, often in organizations, what research also tells us, people don't read these reports. So create an action plan, a list of bullet points, prioritize them in the order you're going to execute them. And then in 30 minutes, applying the influence process, you can get... more effective outcomes in a more efficient timeframe. Thank you all for your attention. And of course, we're going to answer questions.

00:04:46 Mariah Yager
All right. Thank you so much, Bas. That was great. Welcome. So the Chris Voss book, Never Split the Difference, Negotiating as if Your Life Dependent on It. You know, it's like, hey, there seems to be a lot of similarities between negotiating and persuasion. So I want to ask if you expand a little bit on the semantics and also include the word influence. In your title, you say you looked into the science of influence and persuasion. Can you talk about what's the difference between influence, negotiating, persuasion?

00:05:17 Bas Wouters
Oh, I like that. So influence, there are many forms on how to influence another human being. Let's say money is a tool to influence people. If I have a request and I walk into the room with a suitcase with a million dollars in it, and I say, well, if you say yes to my request now, you get these million dollars. Probably I increased my chances to hear a yes. Problem with money is if I want to influence that person again, what will they ask? At least for a million dollars or probably more. So money isn't. a resource in influence that has ongoing power. Second, violence, force is a way to influence people. Entire regimes build on that principle. What happens if people are under pressure? You force them, they push them, people start pushing back. So again, we don't see that it has a great long -term effect. Works on the short run, but not on the long run. And then we have persuasion. Persuasion, how we perceive it. It's influencing people with images and words so you can have a short -term win, but also on a long -term. That's how we see influence versus persuasion. So persuasion is a form of influence. By connected to negotiation, persuasion is used during negotiations. So you use persuasion to negotiate more effectively.

00:06:52 Mariah Yager
All right. Thank you for that.

00:06:53 Jack Gaines
Hi, Mariah. This is Jack Gaines.

00:06:56 Mariah Yager
Oh, hey, Jack. Sorry for being late.

00:06:56 Jack Gaines
Sorry for being late. I did want to thank Boss for coming in and covering for me. But also I wanted to address this question because in Chris's book, he talks about tactical empathy.

00:06:57 SPEAKER_00
being late.

00:06:58 SPEAKER_02
I did want to

00:06:59 SPEAKER_00
thank Boss

00:07:00 SPEAKER_01
in and covering for me.

00:07:01 SPEAKER_02
also I

00:07:01 SPEAKER_00
wanted to address this

00:07:07 SPEAKER_03
And what that is is the ability to, as you're engaging in persuasion, reaching into your audience's mindset and understanding their motivations.

00:07:08 SPEAKER_00
that is is the ability to, as you're engaging in persuasion,

00:07:16 SPEAKER_03
their practices and culture, what their projected behaviors will be, and then applying your negotiations towards that so that you're signaling to them that you hear them and you understand them.

00:07:23 SPEAKER_00
that you're signaling to them that you

00:07:26 SPEAKER_03
You don't have to empathize with them, but you have to signal that you understand where they're coming from in order to then bring them to the table and negotiate a settlement. And so I just wanted to bring that up because I think that's a key part of the persuasion process.

00:07:26 SPEAKER_00
don't have to empathize with them, but you have to signal that you understand where they're coming from in order to then bring them to the

00:07:40 SPEAKER_00
That makes total sense. And that also has to do with that. Early model that I introduced, the sender -receiver model, of course, you have to know who is your audience. And that's what I connected with the core motive. What kind of signals do you get? Why people don't move in your direction? So I see there also the connection with the work of Chris Voss, which is brilliant, by the way. I agree. I'm going to go back to you. Please continue, Mariah. No,

00:08:07 Mariah Yager
no. Hey, Jack, glad you were able to join us. For the audience, Jack Gaines was going to help with the session. Unfortunately, he was called away, but no, Jack, glad to have you and jump in if you'd like. With that, I'm going to go to our next question. What SMA speaker series would we have if we didn't bring in some kind of philosopher? So Aristotle, three pillars of persuasion, ethos, pathos, logos, formulated over 2 ,400 years ago, and it's largely been validated through scientific studies in the 20th century. So how do the seven principles you laid out compare to Aristotle's? I'm thinking out loud how we compare.

00:08:39 SPEAKER_00
thinking out loud how we compare. Well, what my answer would be is, and it's interesting that somebody brings it up, that it works throughout time.

00:08:49 SPEAKER_00
works throughout time. Yes, there is comparison with Aristotle's and the seven principles. What you see actually, and what's for me the biggest takeaway, is that It is tested by the power of time. Human behavior and decision -making, and therefore how to be more influential, doesn't change. From Daniel Kahneman, who called it System 1, System 2, how do we make decisions, that's deeply rooted in our system. So I would answer that question, how is it connected? It's connecting about persuasion doesn't change a lot. This material was powerful 2 ,000 years ago. It still is today.

00:09:37 SPEAKER_01
No, absolutely. All right. Thank you. How do we take these principles and the process from the one -to -one to the one -to -many or the company -to -company or government -to -government?

00:09:47 SPEAKER_00
Ah, like that. So one -to -many, that's, of course, a form of communication that came up with the internet. So there's definitely a difference. in persuasion going on with online persuasion, because nonverbal communication is very powerful in influence situation. But if you communicate to a mass email or to a website or a web page, you don't have the luxury of using nonverbal cues. You don't have the luxury of anticipating on your audience. So there's already a difference. which you have to realize. So you have to design more in a way how those elements communicate nowadays. Then the question, how do you do this more from organization to organization? A lot of time I get the question, is this applicable for B2B? Yes, it is. Because there are human beings in those organizations still making decisions. At the moment. AI bots or robots will take over the decision making, then we have a different world. But at this moment, yes, human beings make decisions. So yes, it's applicable in those situations. And even there's multiple research studies that shows that reciprocity, for example, is not only applicable to individuals, it's also applicable to organizations and even in entire countries. To give you an example, which is Dutch and American, so maybe I'll briefly introduce that. When Hurricane Katrina hit the U .S., of course, there was a lot of damage. Very early on, there was a politician that took the stage and said, well, we are so happy that we already sent a lot of help to New Orleans to help all these people. didn't receive help yet. So why is this politician claiming that he's so proud? It was actually a Dutch politician that made that claim. And the Dutch government actually acted almost quicker than the US government to support. Why? In 1953, we had a water flood disaster and 50 % of our nation was entirely underwater. Who helped us? The Americans from New Orleans. That happened in 1953. If I'm not mistaken, Hurricane Katrina was in 2007. So the people who made the decision in the Netherlands to right away help people, were those the people that actually had the help in 1953? No, they were children if they were even born. But still, there was a pressure to pay back. the people of New Orleans, because the pressure of acting reciprocal was not even on the individuals. It was on an entire society. So yes, so these principles will transit that it's just based on individuals.

00:13:03 SPEAKER_01
Thank you for that. So what are some examples of the methods that you have used to assess the effects of influence when it's not sales focused? And is there a challenge when it takes time to assess the effects?

00:13:17 SPEAKER_00
Yes. In early assessment or in research, there's always a challenge to get significant data so you can make a certain claim. Scientific approved research, of course. How do you assess this based on outcomes? I just heard the word negotiation. In this case, there was negotiation about... One fortune homeless company want to buy other companies. What has been assessed, changing a few small elements in the approach of the negotiation, led that an average merchant acquisition process went down from nine months to six months. How could they do it? By not measuring one merchant acquisition process, but multiple, and still only change that small item. So that's one. Another thing. What Dr. Cialdini, for example, and Dr. Neidert advised is how to gain information. There's an example in the book Persuasion from Dr. Cialdini, so I can talk about that. He refers to a behavioral scientist who helped in negotiating terrorists to get information. And he didn't give any information at all. They found out he was a diabetic. And they gave him sugar -free cookies and tea instead of having all these other approaches that were common. And within a very short amount of time, he opened up and started talking. Of course, that's based on the principle of reciprocity. So how do you measure it? It's about setting your goal and reaching that goal is achieved more often. That's the key focus. And then add percentages. So as you also understand, we have also a lot of real life challenges where we consult. It's not the scientific research that we apply. It's applying the research to real life cases. And then it's very easy. Did we get an increase in the current result or did we realize the goal in general? So, for example, in the last case, it was the goal. Does this person start stalking? Yes, he did. the influence strategy worked. I hope that's helpful.

00:15:40 SPEAKER_01
Yeah, it was. And actually, it's got me thinking more about measurement effects. So in your experience, what about success measured in a behavior not happening or decision not happening? What examples or lessons have you learned in your experiences there? In a way of measuring it or changing it?

00:15:56 SPEAKER_00
a way of measuring it or changing it?

00:16:01 SPEAKER_01
To be honest, both. Specifically, I was asking about the measurement of it, because there's a lot of people in our audience that that's going to be part of their job is like, how do we know that we were successful and be able to show that? Yeah.

00:16:16 SPEAKER_00
I came up with one, but please feel free to add an example. OK, this is Jack. Back when I was at UCOM,

00:16:23 SPEAKER_03
when I was at UCOM, we were working with the Ukraine Air Force on air for security.

00:16:23 SPEAKER_00
when I was at UCOM,

00:16:28 SPEAKER_00
air for security.

00:16:30 SPEAKER_03
And one of the problems at that time, back in 2011, 2012, was that the Russians were having fits over the European ballistic missile defense program, troops going into Poland and setting up a preliminary base.

00:16:30 SPEAKER_00
one of the problems at that time, back in 2011, 2012, was that the Russians were having fits over the European ballistic missile

00:16:41 SPEAKER_00
into Poland and setting up a preliminary base.

00:16:44 SPEAKER_03
And so we were trying to figure out how do we run these air corridor exercises without building more rancor with the Russians.

00:16:45 SPEAKER_00
so we were trying to figure out how do we run these air corridor exercises without building

00:16:59 SPEAKER_03
six to eight months, and so we tied the air security corridor to helping protect the European soccer championships from another 9 -11 -style attack. And then we also brought in that Sochi was coming up, and that this is typical for major sporting events,

00:17:10 SPEAKER_00
we also brought in that Sochi

00:17:15 SPEAKER_03
sporting events, so that it then forced Russia to accept that this was not an attack on them, but helping to support a larger event. And so with that mindset,

00:17:16 SPEAKER_00
events, so that it then forced Russia to accept that this was not an attack on them, but helping to support a larger event. And so with that mindset,

00:17:29 SPEAKER_03
They just did not message.

00:17:30 SPEAKER_00
did not message.

00:17:31 SPEAKER_03
They were all over ballistic missile defense. They're all over the troops from Poland, but they withdrew from messaging on Ukraine. It created a positive environment where they had no place to message without looking bad.

00:17:38 SPEAKER_00
created a positive environment where they had no place to message without looking bad. I love this example. That leads also to what I want to introduce as a word. It's also be creative in these situations like you currently have. Look at the whole picture. Where can you connect certain things or how can you work around things when you aren't able to get the information? An example I wanted to introduce is research done by Dr. Cialdini based on can you predict the outcome of an election even more closely than the polls are doing? And in fact, that was the case. He did that in multiple states. And what he did was when people voted, he put flyers. on their bicycles, their cars, whatever they came with. And of course, there were flyers from the two candidates. And they calculated. So you just voted for a certain person. You don't put the flyer on the ground. That was the assumption, the hypothesis. If you just not voted for that person, but his competitor, you probably would put that flyer on the ground. But by counting the flyers, he could predict the outcome in that certain state more closely than even the exit polls were doing it. So it's about also being creative. And what I said about Dr. Cialdini, he is known to be a great observer and known to set up these work around with what you can have and come up with those solutions.

00:19:17 SPEAKER_01
So influence and persuasion are mentioned a lot as we look at competition. and the South China Sea between the U .S. and China. And I think this could be applied to not only this example, but other examples. So how can or should the U .S. government use these principles of persuasion and the influence process in competition?

00:19:40 SPEAKER_00
I like to answer questions based on case study, of course. So you are in coalition with China to reach a certain goal. So again, Where do you have the leverage of these principles? What is going on? By knowing these activators and amplifiers of these principles, knowing a case, then you can win the competition. I think in every influence challenge, you are in a certain competition. It's about being the detective using these principles in the most efficient and effective way. To look through these principles, what is your most persuasive approach? So to answer that question, I'm happy to give a more detailed answer because I understand this is pretty vague. But I like to get some more in -depth question about a certain case where I can say, well, in this case, this principle would be great. America is still perceived as the world economy. So there's an expert level. There's authority in certain cases. You have the expert on that certain matter. Again, I need to know who are you persuading? What are you trying to achieve? What is China trying to achieve to give you a good, informative answer on this challenge? Do you want me to jump in? Yeah, for sure.

00:21:01 SPEAKER_03
want me to jump in?

00:21:04 SPEAKER_00
Okay. One issue that's a great example is Cleo Pascal, who covers the PRC's influence on Palau and the Marshall Islands.

00:21:05 SPEAKER_03
issue that's a great example is Cleo Pascal, who covers the PRC's influence on Palau and the Marshall Islands. Her concern is that PRC comes into a nation like Blau or the Marshalls,

00:21:12 SPEAKER_00
concern is that PRC comes into a nation like Blau or the Marshalls,

00:21:17 SPEAKER_03
and they use criminality or direct influence to buy elections and then use those elections to change how the policy in that nation is towards PRC or removing recognition of Taiwan and other things.

00:21:18 SPEAKER_00
use criminality

00:21:21 SPEAKER_03
elections and then use those elections to change how the policy in that nation is towards PRC or removing recognition of Taiwan and

00:21:28 SPEAKER_00
or removing recognition of

00:21:32 SPEAKER_03
other things. And usually the way... That she spots it is that the PRC either tries to pre -trade them within Palau in order to run a casino, run drugs, run money into the nation and then start buying influence in the political realm to get their foreign policy goals.

00:21:37 SPEAKER_00
either tries to pre -trade them within Palau in order to run

00:21:46 SPEAKER_03
the nation and then start buying influence in the political realm to get their foreign policy goals. This is also very similar to what Sam Cooper talked about. He just recently went to the Canadian Foreign Influence Commission and spoke about how China is using drugs and casinos to run drugs in and spread throughout the population, gain money, launder it back through the casinos, but also then buy properties in Canada as long -term holds for their financial assets.

00:22:06 SPEAKER_00
drugs in and spread throughout the population, gain money, launder it back through the casinos, but also then buy properties in Canada as long -term holds for their financial assets.

00:22:17 SPEAKER_03
But then they use that money in position to influence politicians.

00:22:18 SPEAKER_00
they use that money in position to influence politicians.

00:22:22 SPEAKER_03
to get either reduced political scrutiny on their actions or they do direct buys to bring influence on that country to support more PRC foreign policy goals.

00:22:29 SPEAKER_00
influence on that country to

00:22:34 SPEAKER_03
And so by knowing their behaviors and actions, then you can start to expose certain aspects of it.

00:22:35 SPEAKER_00
so by knowing

00:22:40 SPEAKER_03
aspects of it. And that's what Cleo did in Plow. She exposed the free trade zone, some of the rules that are being applied. But by exposing it, it forced the politicians then

00:22:47 SPEAKER_00
that are being applied. But by exposing it, it forced

00:22:52 SPEAKER_03
to acquiesce that it was a bad deal,

00:22:52 SPEAKER_00
acquiesce that it was a bad deal,

00:22:54 SPEAKER_03
and then they shut it down. And so they did build a casino in the country. They still continue influence,

00:22:55 SPEAKER_00
they shut it down.

00:22:57 SPEAKER_03
did build a casino in the country. They still continue influence, but she continues to dog them on what they're doing as they try to persuade that country to remove their ties with Taiwan and build more ties with PRC.

00:22:57 SPEAKER_00
did build a casino in the country. They still continue influence, but she continues to dog them on what they're doing as

00:23:04 SPEAKER_03
they try to persuade that country to remove their ties with Taiwan and build more ties with PRC.

00:23:04 SPEAKER_00
they try to persuade that country to remove their ties with Taiwan

00:23:10 SPEAKER_03
And so exposure and countering with better options as well as showing the criminal intent that's going on.

00:23:14 SPEAKER_00
with better options as

00:23:17 SPEAKER_03
the criminal intent that's going on. All the negative things that a competitor is doing, you expose.

00:23:18 SPEAKER_02
criminal intent that's going on. All the negative things that a competitor is doing, you expose.

00:23:23 SPEAKER_03
The good things they're doing, you can steal.

00:23:24 SPEAKER_02
things they're doing, you can steal.

00:23:26 SPEAKER_03
And then you also then build your counter brand to compete with them. So you offer better trade and security deals. Like I said, you steal their good things and use them for yours as well. So you got competing in that space.

00:23:27 SPEAKER_02
also then build your

00:23:28 SPEAKER_00
counter brand to compete with them. So you offer better trade and security deals. Like I said, you steal their good things and

00:23:36 SPEAKER_03
And then you try to build a whole brand on top of that where you're offering things that the PRC just cannot do because of the structure of their government.

00:23:39 SPEAKER_00
on top of that where you're offering things that the PRC just cannot do because

00:23:45 SPEAKER_03
So there's my example in plowing the marshals of what's going on that support this.

00:23:45 SPEAKER_00
my example in plowing the marshals of what's going on that support this. Hopefully that helps. Thanks. That helps a lot, Jack.

00:23:50 SPEAKER_03
helps.

00:23:53 SPEAKER_00
For me, two things of the influence process. You see the long -term influence action plan there. A lot of people associate influence with a quick interference, but it's often built on multiple mini -influence challenge to reach the next step in your end goal. There are multiple micro challenges, so to say, to reach your end goal. So I think that's very important to realize. It's not one intervention often and have these huge influence challenges solved. You have to break it down into a step -by -step action plan. The second thing,

00:23:53 SPEAKER_03
For me,

00:24:28 SPEAKER_00
second thing, what I hear, by exposing them, they lose their credibility. If you lose your credibility, you lose your ability to use the principle of authority. So this is indeed a counterattack where the principles are actually used against the other person in order to make you more credible. And again, you're talking about one of the seven principles.

00:24:52 SPEAKER_01
Misinformation and disinformation, this would be the goodest problem. So based on your experience, principles, your influence process, specifically, how can the U .S. best counter misinfo and disinformation?

00:25:05 SPEAKER_00
A very interesting challenge we are dealing with. You have a lot of trolls, especially social media. If you watch, for example, the Great Hack documentary, you see the huge impact of this misinformation can lead to complete genocides in some African countries who were triggered just by messaging on Facebook. So, yeah, it's something very important we have to deal with. What the initial advice here is... It's often built on social proof. A lot of these trolls claiming something. So the best counterattack on those messages is the authority message. Show the experts are not agreeing with the majority here. So that's the best. You have to counter those messages with a more credible message. So that's the 32nd answer. And of course, there's a lot going on. But this is definitely make sure you are perceived. as the expert, as the trustworthy, credible sender. So your message will override the message of those many fake information that is out there.

00:26:12 SPEAKER_01
No, absolutely. Honestly, another thing that was talking about, a new challenge is AI, you know, machine learning and what that's changing the landscape.

00:26:21 SPEAKER_00
Especially in influence, I like to say quickly a word. The danger there is that people perceive what let's say chat gbt an ai bot tells them as 100 truth nowadays with social media posts from others we are still slightly skeptical when we see it a lot of course there's social proof and it moves us more into that message but ai if you control what is the outcome of ai people perceive it almost without thinking as the truth so there's again indeed interesting challenges coming up that needs to be addressed as well. You're mute, Mariah.

00:27:03 SPEAKER_01
This is not my first day, guys. All right. I was just saying with that, we're a little bit over the hour. I want to thank our audience for joining us today and sending us questions. Bas, thank you so much for your time and presenting all this information. It was great for me. I was telling you earlier, I'm a communication grad. And one of the reasons I added on communication as the second major is because I could walk out of the classroom and apply it. And you said that right at the top and see that to this day. So I really appreciate your time today. Thank you for having me.

00:27:35 SPEAKER_00
Thank you for having me. I really enjoyed the conversation.

00:27:38 SPEAKER_01
Absolutely. No, thank you so much. Enjoy the rest of your day.

00:27:39 SPEAKER_00
No, thank you so much. Enjoy the rest of your day.

00:27:43 SPEAKER_01
Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you.

00:27:45 Close
you. Thanks for listening. If you get a chance, please like and subscribe and rate the show on your favorite podcast platform. Also, if you're interested in coming on the show or hosting an episode, email us at capodcasting at gmail .com. I'll have the email and CA Association website in the show notes. And now, most importantly, to those currently out in the field working with a partner nation's people or leadership to forward US relations, thank you all for what you're doing. This is Jack. your host. Stay tuned for more great episodes. One CA podcast.

168: Part I, Bas Wouters on Influence and Persuasion

Please welcome Maria Yager and Bas Waters to One CA Podcast. 

Originally, I was cohosting the show with Mariah, but I got OBE'd (or overcome by events), so Maria covered until I arrived and helped with questions and answers. 

This is part one of a two-part episode on influence and persuasion.

FeedSpot ranked One CA Podcast as one of their top 20 foreign policy podcasts. Check it out at: https://podcasts.feedspot.com/foreign_policy_podcasts/

One CA is a product of the civil affairs association 

and brings in people who are current or former military, diplomats, development officers, and field agents to discuss their experiences on the ground with a partner nation's people and leadership.

We aim to inspire anyone interested in working in the "last three feet" of U.S. foreign relations. 

To contact the show, email us at CApodcasting@gmail dot com

or look us up on the Civil Affairs Association website at www civilaffairsassoc.org

Special thanks to Max Sedgley for remixing Sarah Vaughan's iconic signing of the theme to the show Max Gunn. Found at  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33GglmH6U1k

---

00:00:02 Introduction
Welcome to the 1CA podcast. This is your host, Jack Gaines. 1CA is a product of the Civil Affairs Association and brings in people who are current or former military, diplomats, development officers, and field agents to discuss their experiences on ground with the partner nation's people and leadership. Our goal is to inspire anyone interested in working the last three feet of foreign relations. To contact the show, email us at capodcasting at gmail .com or look us up on the Civil Affairs Association website at www .civilaffairsassos .org. I'll have those in the show notes.

00:00:37 Mariah Yager
Hi, everyone. I'm Mariah Yeager, your host for today's SMA speaker session titled On Persuasion. We have Bass Waters, who is co -founder and CEO of the Cialdini Institute. He's the author of Online Influence, which is combining Dr. Cialdini's work with insights from other behavioral experts, creating a highly practical framework to boost online results.

00:00:57 Jack Gaines
Please welcome Mariah Yeager and Bass Waters to 1CA Podcast. Originally, I was co -hosting the show with Mariah, but I got OBE'd, or overcome by events, so Mariah covered until I arrived to help with questions and answers. This is part one of a two -part episode on influence and persuasion, so enjoy.

00:01:14 Mariah Yager
So after establishing the Cialdini Institute, companies like Disney, Bookings .com reached out to our speaker today. So he has extensive experience. We're happy to have him today. So with that, I'm going to turn the floor over to Mr. Waters.

00:01:28 Bas Wouters
Thank you, Mariah, for this great introduction. Thank you all for joining and to dive deeper into the practical application of the science of persuasion. I'm representing the Cialdini Institute. I'm aware that a lot of you know the great work of Dr. Robert Cialdini, and he is my business partner in the Cialdini Institute. I'd like to start with some things you may not know about Robert Cialdini, and one of the things that we are very proud of is this research in 2022. They established a jury of the top entrepreneurs in the world, which included Warren Buffett, Mark Cuban, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos. And they voted for the best business book of all time. And as you probably can guess, the winner was Influence from Dr. Robert Cialdini. And actually, they repeated this study with those top entrepreneurs. And in 2023, again, the winner was Influence from Dr. Cialdini. I understood from Jack and Mariah that most of you read his book, published in 1984. And Dr. Cialdini became a professor at the University of Arizona State. He started lecturing, PhD students, but he also started to do research. And one thing that fascinated Dr. Cialdini is why people can influence so easily. I'll give you an example. One day at home, somebody rings the doorbell. He opens. He makes a nice chat. Goes back inside and then he realized, why do I suddenly have a new energy supplier? I didn't need that. I didn't ask for it. I said yes to the request. So that fascinated him. So he started looking into the research that was already done for influence, the science of persuasion. But he found actually the first influence research of psychologists who were wondering in the 1930s. When Hitler came to power, how can a man who is an advocate for such a totalitarian regime, how can he move complete societies in his direction? So Dr. Cialdini was looking at approximately 40 to 50 years of data on influence research. And then he realized something important. These are lab studies. But influence is done in the real world. So I need to go out there where it actually happens. So Dr. Cialdini went undercover and he infiltrated a lot of training programs. So training programs on sales, marketing, VR. But he also infiltrated army recruitment and even calls. And after three years, he collected his findings and connected that to the 50 years of research that already was out there. And then he wrote his book, Influence. And in that book, first he wrote the six principles of persuasion. And later, in this new and expanded edition in 2021, he added a seventh principle. These seven principles of persuasion, these are the universal principles of persuasion. Sayers shows us these principles work in every culture, in every language, in every country. There's also research on what is the most powerful principle per culture, but they all work in every culture. The thing is what Dr. Cialdini wondered during his research is something different because everybody told him, well, we are from marketing. That's completely different than PR. Well, I'm from PR. That's different than sales. Sales is different from advertising. So everybody told him. how different everybody was. What he was looking for, what is the same? Which principles motivates in every case to move more people in your direction? Like I said, in 1984, he found six. Based on research, he added a seven principle. So these principles are reciprocity. If I invite you to my birthday party, you feel a pressure. To invite me back at your party. Liking. We like to say yes to our friends. To give you an example. If I walk here on the street. And a complete stranger is moving houses. And they say to me. Well boss. Do you want to help me? Most likely I would tell that stranger. I don't have time. Or no I don't want to help you. But if my best friend would ask me that same question. Probably I say yes. The fourth principle is social proof. There's something interesting with social proof. In its first edition, it was referred to as consensus. Dr. Cialdini created the term social proof. What it states is, when we are uncertain, we look to other people to decide what we should do. Think, for example, about booking .com. Which hotel should we pick to stay? A thousand people tell me this is a great hotel, so I booked that hotel. The fifth principle is authority. We follow the advice of the experts. This is an interesting one because how we base in our decision making if somebody is an expert is very interesting. To give you an example, if I go to my general doctor. I just ask him questions about whatever health condition I have. But who ever checked the diplomas of that general doctor? Probably nobody did that. But based on his title, I already trust him that he has expertise about whatever complaint I will bring to him in my health situation. Then consistency. It's about if we made a small commitment previously, we feel an internal pressure to act consistent with what we previously have said or done. Consistency is the most powerful internal driver to motivate into action. And that leads me to the second principle, and that's scarcity. Scarcity is the most powerful external driver that motivates us into action. And you can think, for example, about Black Friday. It started in the US, but now it's spread all over the world. And on Black Friday, everybody is moving into directions just because they assume they can get great deals. Then unity. This is the seventh principle that Dr. Cialdini introduced in his new and expanded edition of Influence. And it's about... Do we belong to the same group? We are all football fans. We are all Americans. So the fact that you belong to the same group may increase the motivation to say yes to a certain request if that is raised to awareness. Those are the seven principles. What's important, these principles are based on science. Everything we do in the Cialdini research has three core values. One is science. The other one is application. So you cannot change your outcome just with theory. You have to be able to translate the theoretical research into practical application. But that's another very important component of us, which we will discuss into a systematic way of applying today. And the third is ethics. And ethics, it's about these powerful principles. You have to use them in an ethical way because we talk not about manipulation. Influence is not manipulation. Ethical influence is not manipulation because it's raising to awareness parts of information that are also helpful for people to make a decision. And therefore, you create win -win outcomes. Because things are based on science, it can be taught. And if something can be taught, it can be learned. There are a lot of people out there who have a natural gift to be persuasive. They often end up in marketing, sales, or leadership positions because they have this natural ability to persuade. We know one thing for sure. People who master the science that don't have the natural ability to persuade are more powerful persuaders than people who have the natural ability to persuade. Can you imagine if you have both? One, you have a natural skill to be persuasive, plus you master the science. And why this is also important, I train a lot of people all over the world. And especially in sales and marketing, after a training, people told me, now I can actually explain what I was doing. They were successful, but they could not teach it. It's just what comes up to me natural. That is not transferable. So because it's science, it can be taught, and therefore it can be learned by everybody. And today we want to dive into the application. Dr. Neidert has been a right -hand man to Dr. Cialdini for the last 25 years. He is also a professor at ASU University, and he consulted the Fortune 100 companies, but also a lot of government agencies, including intelligence. And every time when he did such a consulting, he selected a principal that was most suitable for that case. And people asked him, of course, Dr. Neidert, why you've chosen reciprocity or why you've chosen scarcity to overcome our influence challenges? And this answer could not be, that's just because I do. Everything is science and research -based. So he developed the core motives model so we can teach you how to select the best principle in every given situation. Let me start by introducing the first core motives model. In an influence challenge, the relationship we have with a person is very important. To give you an example, let's imagine I'm in a very important meeting and my phone rings and I look at my phone and I see somebody that I don't speak so often. What would I probably do? I wouldn't pick up my phone. But imagine the same situation. I'm in that very important meeting and my spouse or your partner or friend that knows you are in that important meeting calls you. Now probably what will happen is you will excuse yourself and try to pick up the phone to at least know why they are calling you because you assume there's something urgent. You do this based on the relationship. you have with that person. And if you go back to the 50s, one of the communication models that was introduced was the sender -receiver model, which says, when you send out a message with words and images, then you have the receiver. That receiver processes the information they get and make it a message. Then you have the channel. Those channels are now extended in the online world. First, you had face -to -face. Then we had... face -to -face and phone calls. And now you have face -to -face, video calls, phone calls, text messages, emails. Also, the channel is very interesting to look at and which one is most persuasive in influence. Then back to the first core modus model. So as I shared with you in the situation, do I pick up my phone during that important meeting? Yes or no? So in any given influence situation, we have to establish a relationship. Some questions that you can ask yourself, well, how can you recognize a signal that you have to work on your relationship? Do people pick up the phone, for example? Do they answer my text messages because you see those blue check marks in WhatsApp, for example, but they don't reply? You saw that they got it, they read it, but they don't reply. People don't pay attention when you are in a meeting. They are distracted. Look at their phone. These are all signals where you should recognize in the future, I need to work on my relation. And the three principles that most likely will do the job to cultivate a relationship or repair an existing relationship are reciprocity, liking, and unity. So what you see... Pulling here is now we can recognize a signal. Why we might not reach our goals, why we get a no instead of a yes, can only be one core motive and the whole machine is start pinning again. So relationship can be one of those gears we have to work on. It's not a one, two, three step model. It could be in a new influence challenge, but it could also be just fix the relationship. So influence is start to move in your direction. So the second core motive that I like to introduce is uncertainty. In every decision -making process, we get uncertain most of the time. To give you an example, let's assume you want to buy a new kitchen. You go into Google and you type in buy a new kitchen. And then bang, you right away have like a million hits. Unconscious, we get uncertain. Where do I click? What are signals? What could you recognize when other ways that people are uncertain? Well, if you communicate with them, they might just say it. I don't know what to do. Or I doubt that this is the best decision for me. These kinds of expressions will help you recognize that people are still uncertain. Here's another thing people do. They start improving your offer. One of times we think, oh, but I am the expert. Why they don't listen to me? It's because they are uncertain. Those people don't want to act annoying. They know what to bother you, but they express uncertainty. And you should think I should move into the principles of social proof and authority. Social proof and authority are the most likely principles. that will overcome uncertainty. If a person is uncertain, you raise to awareness what other people did in that same situation or what an expert says to do in that given situation. And then we reach the last gear or modus model, and that's motivation. You've probably all been there. You are influencing or persuading somebody, move them in your direction. You know you have a good relationship. That person says, yes, your offer is the right one for me. But they don't act. So we have to motivate them into action. These people are probably wondering two things. Why should I act now? Or what did I previously said or done that I will act on this request now? So consistency and scarcity are most likely to do the job. to motivate people into action. What the Night of Port Motives model does and why it's a crucial foundation for me to become an expert in the science of influence is now we are able to analyze a situation, recognize certain signals, we can select the best principle to overcome that challenge, and we can generate ideas which... most likely will have the most persuasive outcome. That leads me to another interesting model which I like to introduce, how to generate those ideas. Most often when we want to generate ideas, we go into brainstorm sessions. And those brainstorm sessions, if you rationalize what actually happens, most of the time, especially in business organizations, people go into a room, they start, talking to each other. Often they don't walk away with a solid action plan. They just talked a lot. But that isn't very productive. So to generate the best possible ideas, we developed the influence process. And actually, you can apply this process to any brainstorm question. There are four steps. One person does the initiation and just... Briefly say we have this challenge and we need a solution. For that person who initiated the session, it's pretty clear what needs to happen. But by briefly addressing it, just with a few words or maybe two sentences, it's most of the time for 70, 80 or 90 % clear for the other participants, which is we start generating ideas, people move into different directions. So what we recommend to do, one person explains what you're going to think about. What is the current situation? What do you hope to achieve? What is a good outcome? What did you already tried? And what are your next ideas? So then you set the stage into a direction that everybody more clearly understands what I am going to talk about. And then something fun happens. When we start talking in these kinds of sessions, it's often a competition who has the loudest voice. We are all together in a room and you've all been there and only two or three people are continuously talking and the rest is pretty silent. That's not very productive because you don't get the best ideas in the room. You get the ideas from people with the loudest voice. You first need to do something else. You need to think. We often act on a question right away. Pretty impulsive. But that doesn't mean that's the best idea you can come up with. We say, think five to seven minutes. Really crack your brain. That's not 30 seconds thinking and four and a half minutes staring out the window. Really think. And after people did that, again, we don't want to have the competition who has the loudest voice. We want to hear everybody's ideas. So you want to have all ideas on the table. That's why we recommend give people two to three minutes max per person so they share not all their ideas, but the best ideas to overcome the challenge.

00:01:16 Bas Wouters
And then something fun happens. When we start talking in these kinds of sessions, it's often a competition. Who has the loudest voice? We are all together in a room and you've all been there and only two or two people are continuously talking and the rest is pretty silent. That's not very productive because you don't get the best ideas in the room. You get the ideas from people with the loudest voice. You first need to do something else. You need to think. We often act on a question right away. Pretty impulsive. But that doesn't mean that's the best idea you can come up with. We say, think five to seven minutes. Really crack your brain. That's not 30 seconds thinking and four and a half minutes staring out the window. Really think. And after people did that, again, we don't want to have the competition who has the loudest voice. We want to hear. everybody's ideas. So you want to have all ideas on the table. That's why we recommend give people two to three minutes max per person so they share not all their ideas, but the best ideas to overcome the challenge. Therefore, you're only collecting what people themselves support as their best ideas. And now, based on that, step one, one person is talking. Step two, everybody is silent in the room. Thinking is an individual process. Then step three, solicit input. Again, one person is talking. Don't react on the ideas of the other person. Don't say, that's a great idea or yes, but I think this is better. Wait till step four and then create an action plan. You do this process with three to six people. So in a time framing here, you have five minutes for step back. Let's say seven minutes to think, that's 12 minutes. If you have three people, give them three minutes. Nine minutes in total plus 12 is 21 minutes. Then you have nine minutes to create an action plan. And then you do this entire process in only 30 minutes. How many brainstorm sessions we have for an hour and not walk away with an action plan. Applying this to influence will create you a solid action plan. Only what do we say, what kind of action plan we suggest is a list of bullet points. Prioritize your ideas that you're going to implement and make them from low -hanging fruit to the more complicated ideas to implement and start doing that. Don't write full reports because two things can happen. One, the person who's writing these reports anchors their brain. Oh, this is the full truth now, and we cannot diverse anymore. An influence process needs to be flexible. And second, often in organizations, what research also tells us, people don't read these reports. So create an action plan, a list of bullet points, prioritize them in the order you're going to execute them. And then in 30 minutes, applying the influence process, you can get... more effective outcomes in a more efficient timeframe. Thank you all for your attention. And of course, we're going to answer questions.

00:04:46 Mariah Yager
All right. Thank you so much, Bas. That was great. Welcome. So the Chris Voss book, Never Split the Difference, Negotiating as if Your Life Dependent on It. You know, it's like, hey, there seems to be a lot of similarities between negotiating and persuasion. So I want to ask if you expand a little bit on the semantics and also include the word influence. In your title, you say you looked into the science of influence and persuasion. Can you talk about what's the difference between influence, negotiating, persuasion?

00:05:17 Bas Wouters
Oh, I like that. So influence, there are many forms on how to influence another human being. Let's say money is a tool to influence people. If I have a request and I walk into the room with a suitcase with a million dollars in it, and I say, well, if you say yes to my request now, you get these million dollars. Probably I increased my chances to hear a yes. Problem with money is if I want to influence that person again, what will they ask? At least for a million dollars or probably more. So money isn't. a resource in influence that has ongoing power. Second, violence, force is a way to influence people. Entire regimes build on that principle. What happens if people are under pressure? You force them, they push them, people start pushing back. So again, we don't see that it has a great long -term effect. Works on the short run, but not on the long run. And then we have persuasion. Persuasion, how we perceive it. It's influencing people with images and words so you can have a short -term win, but also on a long -term. That's how we see influence versus persuasion. So persuasion is a form of influence. By connected to negotiation, persuasion is used during negotiations. So you use persuasion to negotiate more effectively.

00:06:52 Mariah Yager
All right. Thank you for that.

00:06:53 Jack Gaines
Hi, Mariah. This is Jack Gaines.

00:06:56 Mariah Yager
Oh, hey, Jack. Sorry for being late.

00:06:56 Jack Gaines
Sorry for being late. I did want to thank Boss for coming in and covering for me. But also I wanted to address this question because in Chris's book, he talks about tactical empathy.

00:06:57 SPEAKER_00
being late.

00:06:58 SPEAKER_02
I did want to

00:06:59 SPEAKER_00
thank Boss

00:07:00 SPEAKER_01
in and covering for me.

00:07:01 SPEAKER_02
also I

00:07:01 SPEAKER_00
wanted to address this

00:07:07 SPEAKER_03
And what that is is the ability to, as you're engaging in persuasion, reaching into your audience's mindset and understanding their motivations.

00:07:08 SPEAKER_00
that is is the ability to, as you're engaging in persuasion,

00:07:16 SPEAKER_03
their practices and culture, what their projected behaviors will be, and then applying your negotiations towards that so that you're signaling to them that you hear them and you understand them.

00:07:23 SPEAKER_00
that you're signaling to them that you

00:07:26 SPEAKER_03
You don't have to empathize with them, but you have to signal that you understand where they're coming from in order to then bring them to the table and negotiate a settlement. And so I just wanted to bring that up because I think that's a key part of the persuasion process.

00:07:26 SPEAKER_00
don't have to empathize with them, but you have to signal that you understand where they're coming from in order to then bring them to the

00:07:40 SPEAKER_00
That makes total sense. And that also has to do with that. Early model that I introduced, the sender -receiver model, of course, you have to know who is your audience. And that's what I connected with the core motive. What kind of signals do you get? Why people don't move in your direction? So I see there also the connection with the work of Chris Voss, which is brilliant, by the way. I agree. I'm going to go back to you. Please continue, Mariah. No,

00:08:07 Mariah Yager
no. Hey, Jack, glad you were able to join us. For the audience, Jack Gaines was going to help with the session. Unfortunately, he was called away, but no, Jack, glad to have you and jump in if you'd like. With that, I'm going to go to our next question. What SMA speaker series would we have if we didn't bring in some kind of philosopher? So Aristotle, three pillars of persuasion, ethos, pathos, logos, formulated over 2 ,400 years ago, and it's largely been validated through scientific studies in the 20th century. So how do the seven principles you laid out compare to Aristotle's? I'm thinking out loud how we compare.

00:08:39 SPEAKER_00
thinking out loud how we compare. Well, what my answer would be is, and it's interesting that somebody brings it up, that it works throughout time.

00:08:49 SPEAKER_00
works throughout time. Yes, there is comparison with Aristotle's and the seven principles. What you see actually, and what's for me the biggest takeaway, is that It is tested by the power of time. Human behavior and decision -making, and therefore how to be more influential, doesn't change. From Daniel Kahneman, who called it System 1, System 2, how do we make decisions, that's deeply rooted in our system. So I would answer that question, how is it connected? It's connecting about persuasion doesn't change a lot. This material was powerful 2 ,000 years ago. It still is today.

00:09:37 SPEAKER_01
No, absolutely. All right. Thank you. How do we take these principles and the process from the one -to -one to the one -to -many or the company -to -company or government -to -government?

00:09:47 SPEAKER_00
Ah, like that. So one -to -many, that's, of course, a form of communication that came up with the internet. So there's definitely a difference. in persuasion going on with online persuasion, because nonverbal communication is very powerful in influence situation. But if you communicate to a mass email or to a website or a web page, you don't have the luxury of using nonverbal cues. You don't have the luxury of anticipating on your audience. So there's already a difference. which you have to realize. So you have to design more in a way how those elements communicate nowadays. Then the question, how do you do this more from organization to organization? A lot of time I get the question, is this applicable for B2B? Yes, it is. Because there are human beings in those organizations still making decisions. At the moment. AI bots or robots will take over the decision making, then we have a different world. But at this moment, yes, human beings make decisions. So yes, it's applicable in those situations. And even there's multiple research studies that shows that reciprocity, for example, is not only applicable to individuals, it's also applicable to organizations and even in entire countries. To give you an example, which is Dutch and American, so maybe I'll briefly introduce that. When Hurricane Katrina hit the U .S., of course, there was a lot of damage. Very early on, there was a politician that took the stage and said, well, we are so happy that we already sent a lot of help to New Orleans to help all these people. didn't receive help yet. So why is this politician claiming that he's so proud? It was actually a Dutch politician that made that claim. And the Dutch government actually acted almost quicker than the US government to support. Why? In 1953, we had a water flood disaster and 50 % of our nation was entirely underwater. Who helped us? The Americans from New Orleans. That happened in 1953. If I'm not mistaken, Hurricane Katrina was in 2007. So the people who made the decision in the Netherlands to right away help people, were those the people that actually had the help in 1953? No, they were children if they were even born. But still, there was a pressure to pay back. the people of New Orleans, because the pressure of acting reciprocal was not even on the individuals. It was on an entire society. So yes, so these principles will transit that it's just based on individuals.

00:13:03 SPEAKER_01
Thank you for that. So what are some examples of the methods that you have used to assess the effects of influence when it's not sales focused? And is there a challenge when it takes time to assess the effects?

00:13:17 SPEAKER_00
Yes. In early assessment or in research, there's always a challenge to get significant data so you can make a certain claim. Scientific approved research, of course. How do you assess this based on outcomes? I just heard the word negotiation. In this case, there was negotiation about... One fortune homeless company want to buy other companies. What has been assessed, changing a few small elements in the approach of the negotiation, led that an average merchant acquisition process went down from nine months to six months. How could they do it? By not measuring one merchant acquisition process, but multiple, and still only change that small item. So that's one. Another thing. What Dr. Cialdini, for example, and Dr. Neidert advised is how to gain information. There's an example in the book Persuasion from Dr. Cialdini, so I can talk about that. He refers to a behavioral scientist who helped in negotiating terrorists to get information. And he didn't give any information at all. They found out he was a diabetic. And they gave him sugar -free cookies and tea instead of having all these other approaches that were common. And within a very short amount of time, he opened up and started talking. Of course, that's based on the principle of reciprocity. So how do you measure it? It's about setting your goal and reaching that goal is achieved more often. That's the key focus. And then add percentages. So as you also understand, we have also a lot of real life challenges where we consult. It's not the scientific research that we apply. It's applying the research to real life cases. And then it's very easy. Did we get an increase in the current result or did we realize the goal in general? So, for example, in the last case, it was the goal. Does this person start stalking? Yes, he did. the influence strategy worked. I hope that's helpful.

00:15:40 SPEAKER_01
Yeah, it was. And actually, it's got me thinking more about measurement effects. So in your experience, what about success measured in a behavior not happening or decision not happening? What examples or lessons have you learned in your experiences there? In a way of measuring it or changing it?

00:15:56 SPEAKER_00
a way of measuring it or changing it?

00:16:01 SPEAKER_01
To be honest, both. Specifically, I was asking about the measurement of it, because there's a lot of people in our audience that that's going to be part of their job is like, how do we know that we were successful and be able to show that? Yeah.

00:16:16 SPEAKER_00
I came up with one, but please feel free to add an example. OK, this is Jack. Back when I was at UCOM,

00:16:23 SPEAKER_03
when I was at UCOM, we were working with the Ukraine Air Force on air for security.

00:16:23 SPEAKER_00
when I was at UCOM,

00:16:28 SPEAKER_00
air for security.

00:16:30 SPEAKER_03
And one of the problems at that time, back in 2011, 2012, was that the Russians were having fits over the European ballistic missile defense program, troops going into Poland and setting up a preliminary base.

00:16:30 SPEAKER_00
one of the problems at that time, back in 2011, 2012, was that the Russians were having fits over the European ballistic missile

00:16:41 SPEAKER_00
into Poland and setting up a preliminary base.

00:16:44 SPEAKER_03
And so we were trying to figure out how do we run these air corridor exercises without building more rancor with the Russians.

00:16:45 SPEAKER_00
so we were trying to figure out how do we run these air corridor exercises without building

00:16:59 SPEAKER_03
six to eight months, and so we tied the air security corridor to helping protect the European soccer championships from another 9 -11 -style attack. And then we also brought in that Sochi was coming up, and that this is typical for major sporting events,

00:17:10 SPEAKER_00
we also brought in that Sochi

00:17:15 SPEAKER_03
sporting events, so that it then forced Russia to accept that this was not an attack on them, but helping to support a larger event. And so with that mindset,

00:17:16 SPEAKER_00
events, so that it then forced Russia to accept that this was not an attack on them, but helping to support a larger event. And so with that mindset,

00:17:29 SPEAKER_03
They just did not message.

00:17:30 SPEAKER_00
did not message.

00:17:31 SPEAKER_03
They were all over ballistic missile defense. They're all over the troops from Poland, but they withdrew from messaging on Ukraine. It created a positive environment where they had no place to message without looking bad.

00:17:38 SPEAKER_00
created a positive environment where they had no place to message without looking bad. I love this example. That leads also to what I want to introduce as a word. It's also be creative in these situations like you currently have. Look at the whole picture. Where can you connect certain things or how can you work around things when you aren't able to get the information? An example I wanted to introduce is research done by Dr. Cialdini based on can you predict the outcome of an election even more closely than the polls are doing? And in fact, that was the case. He did that in multiple states. And what he did was when people voted, he put flyers. on their bicycles, their cars, whatever they came with. And of course, there were flyers from the two candidates. And they calculated. So you just voted for a certain person. You don't put the flyer on the ground. That was the assumption, the hypothesis. If you just not voted for that person, but his competitor, you probably would put that flyer on the ground. But by counting the flyers, he could predict the outcome in that certain state more closely than even the exit polls were doing it. So it's about also being creative. And what I said about Dr. Cialdini, he is known to be a great observer and known to set up these work around with what you can have and come up with those solutions.

00:19:17 SPEAKER_01
So influence and persuasion are mentioned a lot as we look at competition. and the South China Sea between the U .S. and China. And I think this could be applied to not only this example, but other examples. So how can or should the U .S. government use these principles of persuasion and the influence process in competition?

00:19:40 SPEAKER_00
I like to answer questions based on case study, of course. So you are in coalition with China to reach a certain goal. So again, Where do you have the leverage of these principles? What is going on? By knowing these activators and amplifiers of these principles, knowing a case, then you can win the competition. I think in every influence challenge, you are in a certain competition. It's about being the detective using these principles in the most efficient and effective way. To look through these principles, what is your most persuasive approach? So to answer that question, I'm happy to give a more detailed answer because I understand this is pretty vague. But I like to get some more in -depth question about a certain case where I can say, well, in this case, this principle would be great. America is still perceived as the world economy. So there's an expert level. There's authority in certain cases. You have the expert on that certain matter. Again, I need to know who are you persuading? What are you trying to achieve? What is China trying to achieve to give you a good, informative answer on this challenge? Do you want me to jump in? Yeah, for sure.

00:21:01 SPEAKER_03
want me to jump in?

00:21:04 SPEAKER_00
Okay. One issue that's a great example is Cleo Pascal, who covers the PRC's influence on Palau and the Marshall Islands.

00:21:05 SPEAKER_03
issue that's a great example is Cleo Pascal, who covers the PRC's influence on Palau and the Marshall Islands. Her concern is that PRC comes into a nation like Blau or the Marshalls,

00:21:12 SPEAKER_00
concern is that PRC comes into a nation like Blau or the Marshalls,

00:21:17 SPEAKER_03
and they use criminality or direct influence to buy elections and then use those elections to change how the policy in that nation is towards PRC or removing recognition of Taiwan and other things.

00:21:18 SPEAKER_00
use criminality

00:21:21 SPEAKER_03
elections and then use those elections to change how the policy in that nation is towards PRC or removing recognition of Taiwan and

00:21:28 SPEAKER_00
or removing recognition of

00:21:32 SPEAKER_03
other things. And usually the way... That she spots it is that the PRC either tries to pre -trade them within Palau in order to run a casino, run drugs, run money into the nation and then start buying influence in the political realm to get their foreign policy goals.

00:21:37 SPEAKER_00
either tries to pre -trade them within Palau in order to run

00:21:46 SPEAKER_03
the nation and then start buying influence in the political realm to get their foreign policy goals. This is also very similar to what Sam Cooper talked about. He just recently went to the Canadian Foreign Influence Commission and spoke about how China is using drugs and casinos to run drugs in and spread throughout the population, gain money, launder it back through the casinos, but also then buy properties in Canada as long -term holds for their financial assets.

00:22:06 SPEAKER_00
drugs in and spread throughout the population, gain money, launder it back through the casinos, but also then buy properties in Canada as long -term holds for their financial assets.

00:22:17 SPEAKER_03
But then they use that money in position to influence politicians.

00:22:18 SPEAKER_00
they use that money in position to influence politicians.

00:22:22 SPEAKER_03
to get either reduced political scrutiny on their actions or they do direct buys to bring influence on that country to support more PRC foreign policy goals.

00:22:29 SPEAKER_00
influence on that country to

00:22:34 SPEAKER_03
And so by knowing their behaviors and actions, then you can start to expose certain aspects of it.

00:22:35 SPEAKER_00
so by knowing

00:22:40 SPEAKER_03
aspects of it. And that's what Cleo did in Plow. She exposed the free trade zone, some of the rules that are being applied. But by exposing it, it forced the politicians then

00:22:47 SPEAKER_00
that are being applied. But by exposing it, it forced

00:22:52 SPEAKER_03
to acquiesce that it was a bad deal,

00:22:52 SPEAKER_00
acquiesce that it was a bad deal,

00:22:54 SPEAKER_03
and then they shut it down. And so they did build a casino in the country. They still continue influence,

00:22:55 SPEAKER_00
they shut it down.

00:22:57 SPEAKER_03
did build a casino in the country. They still continue influence, but she continues to dog them on what they're doing as they try to persuade that country to remove their ties with Taiwan and build more ties with PRC.

00:22:57 SPEAKER_00
did build a casino in the country. They still continue influence, but she continues to dog them on what they're doing as

00:23:04 SPEAKER_03
they try to persuade that country to remove their ties with Taiwan and build more ties with PRC.

00:23:04 SPEAKER_00
they try to persuade that country to remove their ties with Taiwan

00:23:10 SPEAKER_03
And so exposure and countering with better options as well as showing the criminal intent that's going on.

00:23:14 SPEAKER_00
with better options as

00:23:17 SPEAKER_03
the criminal intent that's going on. All the negative things that a competitor is doing, you expose.

00:23:18 SPEAKER_02
criminal intent that's going on. All the negative things that a competitor is doing, you expose.

00:23:23 SPEAKER_03
The good things they're doing, you can steal.

00:23:24 SPEAKER_02
things they're doing, you can steal.

00:23:26 SPEAKER_03
And then you also then build your counter brand to compete with them. So you offer better trade and security deals. Like I said, you steal their good things and use them for yours as well. So you got competing in that space.

00:23:27 SPEAKER_02
also then build your

00:23:28 SPEAKER_00
counter brand to compete with them. So you offer better trade and security deals. Like I said, you steal their good things and

00:23:36 SPEAKER_03
And then you try to build a whole brand on top of that where you're offering things that the PRC just cannot do because of the structure of their government.

00:23:39 SPEAKER_00
on top of that where you're offering things that the PRC just cannot do because

00:23:45 SPEAKER_03
So there's my example in plowing the marshals of what's going on that support this.

00:23:45 SPEAKER_00
my example in plowing the marshals of what's going on that support this. Hopefully that helps. Thanks. That helps a lot, Jack.

00:23:50 SPEAKER_03
helps.

00:23:53 SPEAKER_00
For me, two things of the influence process. You see the long -term influence action plan there. A lot of people associate influence with a quick interference, but it's often built on multiple mini -influence challenge to reach the next step in your end goal. There are multiple micro challenges, so to say, to reach your end goal. So I think that's very important to realize. It's not one intervention often and have these huge influence challenges solved. You have to break it down into a step -by -step action plan. The second thing,

00:23:53 SPEAKER_03
For me,

00:24:28 SPEAKER_00
second thing, what I hear, by exposing them, they lose their credibility. If you lose your credibility, you lose your ability to use the principle of authority. So this is indeed a counterattack where the principles are actually used against the other person in order to make you more credible. And again, you're talking about one of the seven principles.

00:24:52 SPEAKER_01
Misinformation and disinformation, this would be the goodest problem. So based on your experience, principles, your influence process, specifically, how can the U .S. best counter misinfo and disinformation?

00:25:05 SPEAKER_00
A very interesting challenge we are dealing with. You have a lot of trolls, especially social media. If you watch, for example, the Great Hack documentary, you see the huge impact of this misinformation can lead to complete genocides in some African countries who were triggered just by messaging on Facebook. So, yeah, it's something very important we have to deal with. What the initial advice here is... It's often built on social proof. A lot of these trolls claiming something. So the best counterattack on those messages is the authority message. Show the experts are not agreeing with the majority here. So that's the best. You have to counter those messages with a more credible message. So that's the 32nd answer. And of course, there's a lot going on. But this is definitely make sure you are perceived. as the expert, as the trustworthy, credible sender. So your message will override the message of those many fake information that is out there.

00:26:12 SPEAKER_01
No, absolutely. Honestly, another thing that was talking about, a new challenge is AI, you know, machine learning and what that's changing the landscape.

00:26:21 SPEAKER_00
Especially in influence, I like to say quickly a word. The danger there is that people perceive what let's say chat gbt an ai bot tells them as 100 truth nowadays with social media posts from others we are still slightly skeptical when we see it a lot of course there's social proof and it moves us more into that message but ai if you control what is the outcome of ai people perceive it almost without thinking as the truth so there's again indeed interesting challenges coming up that needs to be addressed as well. You're mute, Mariah.

00:27:03 SPEAKER_01
This is not my first day, guys. All right. I was just saying with that, we're a little bit over the hour. I want to thank our audience for joining us today and sending us questions. Bas, thank you so much for your time and presenting all this information. It was great for me. I was telling you earlier, I'm a communication grad. And one of the reasons I added on communication as the second major is because I could walk out of the classroom and apply it. And you said that right at the top and see that to this day. So I really appreciate your time today. Thank you for having me.

00:27:35 SPEAKER_00
Thank you for having me. I really enjoyed the conversation.

00:27:38 SPEAKER_01
Absolutely. No, thank you so much. Enjoy the rest of your day.

00:27:39 SPEAKER_00
No, thank you so much. Enjoy the rest of your day.

00:27:43 SPEAKER_01
Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you.

00:27:45 Close
you. Thanks for listening. If you get a chance, please like and subscribe and rate the show on your favorite podcast platform. Also, if you're interested in coming on the show or hosting an episode, email us at capodcasting at gmail .com. I'll have the email and CA Association website in the show notes. And now, most importantly, to those currently out in the field working with a partner nation's people or leadership to forward US relations, thank you all for what you're doing. This is Jack. your host. Stay tuned for more great episodes. One CA podcast.

167: Electronic Warfare with Michael Gudmundson

LTC Brian Hancock interviews CW5 Michael Gudmundson on electronic warfare (EW) and how it shapes current and future conflicts. Gudmundson spent four years at I Corps and then transferred to the U.S. Army in Europe and Africa to plan and advise on EW.

FeedSpot ranked One CA Podcast as one of their top 20 foreign policy podcasts. Check it out at: https://podcasts.feedspot.com/foreign_policy_podcasts/

One CA is a product of the civil affairs association 

and brings in people who are current or former military, diplomats, development officers, and field agents to discuss their experiences on the ground with a partner nation's people and leadership.

We aim to inspire anyone interested in working in the "last three feet" of U.S. foreign relations. 

To contact the show, email us at CApodcasting@gmail dot com

or look us up on the Civil Affairs Association website at www civilaffairsassoc.org

Special thanks to Zlatno Doba for arranging "Amazing Theramin Music Compilation." Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDYvQ8FsZB4&t=502s

---

00:00:07    Introduction
Welcome to the 1CA podcast. This is your host, Jack Gaines. 1CA is a product of the Civil Affairs Association and brings in people who are current or former military, diplomats, development officers, and field agents to discuss their experiences on ground with a partner nation's people and leadership. Our goal is to inspire anyone interested in working the last three feet of foreign relations. To contact the show, email us at capodcasting at gmail .com or look us up on the Civil Affairs Association website at www .civilaffairsassos .org. I'll have those in the show notes.

00:00:43    BRIAN HANCOCK
Welcome to the One Civil Affairs Podcast. I'm Lieutenant Colonel Brian Hancock, and I will be your host for this session. Today, we're going to explore the amazing world of electromagnetic warfare and its implications for the civilian populace. I have with me in the studio, Chief Warrant Officer 5, Michael Gunmanson, one of the Army's foremost experts on electronic warfare. Welcome to the show, Chief. Thanks. Glad to be here. Hey, I'm glad you're here, too. Now, I understand we have reason to celebrate. You recently moved from Chief Warrant 4 to 5. So tell the audience, what does it feel like to not have to ever worry about a senior rater making comments on your OER again?

00:01:24    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
I was so worried about it before that like now I just keep rowing, just I'll keep doing what I do.

00:01:30    BRIAN HANCOCK
Yeah, explore the freedom. I think the rest of us are always fighting for top blocks and trying to get those rater comments, which seem to be 90 % of promotions. So enjoy the freedom. I was wondering why you are so happy and now I know the truth of the matter. Okay, fantastic. Let me tell the audience a little bit about you. I'm lucky to know you well. Chief Warrant Officer 5 Gunmanson was selected for the very first electronic warfare warrant officer course taught by the U .S. Army in 2009. Following the course, he spent nine years as a brigade combat team electronic warfare technician. He's completed two deployments, first to Iraq and the second to Afghanistan.

00:01:42    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
I know the truth of the matter.

00:02:07    BRIAN HANCOCK
And next, he spent four years at First Corps and then transferred to the United States Army, Europe and Africa, where he has spent the last three years planning and training U .S. Army cyber electromagnetic activities to include electronic warfare. Amazing. I'm really glad you're here. Glad to be here. Okay. Let's give him the standard disclaimer because I know you and I are both opinionated. Reminder to the audience, all remarks made by Chief and I are ours and only ours and do not necessarily represent the views of the U .S. Army or the Department of Defense. All right, Chief, this is a complicated topic and got some pretty smart folks involved in Army and Marine Corps civil affairs, but not all of them spend time working in electronic warfare. So just to set the foundation, I'd like us to define a few terms. that we're going to be using repeatedly through the show. Let's start with that term electromagnetic warfare, EW. What exactly is EW and how does that differ from cyber electromagnetic warfare, SEMA?

00:03:08    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
The way I define it is electromagnetic warfare is radio frequency propagation and how the... all of the spectrum -dependent devices that count on radio frequencies. Electronic warfare is the attack and sensing of systems that are dependent on the spectrum. Where cyberspace electromagnetic warfare and SEMA, it includes EW because so many of those systems touch the spectrum. For example... I have an image of a cyberspace person who is always on the keyboard, who is hacking and doing everything on the Internet. And that image, I see that as there is a point in the nodes from the computer. to the Wi -Fi from the Wi -Fi back into a landline, either into fiber or some other system. And then when it gets pulled into a company that's providing that service, it's going to hit airwaves again in another form. And there's just all these different areas where electronic warfare will deal specifically with frequencies and then cyberspace would have to do with the effects on a device.

00:04:22    BRIAN HANCOCK
Thanks for clarifying that. It sounds like... If we have the Internet of Things in our house, we're doubly screwed. And that's where it gets complicated.

00:04:27    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
screwed. And that's where it gets complicated.

00:04:29    BRIAN HANCOCK
Amen. You mentioned spectrum. Spectrum, I think, is very important. I don't think we have specific MOSs dedicated specifically just to spectrum. I may be wrong about that. You can correct me. But in modern living, spectrum is kind of like air, right? It's all around us. It's ubiquitous. And everyone is using it for almost everything. Communication. to information, to understanding. Tell us a little bit about spectrum. What is it and who's responsible for it?

00:05:01    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
Yeah, spectrum management for the U .S. Army, it's an all -NCO MOS that manages the spectrums. And it is what frequency is your device operating on and how much of a specific frequency does it need to function properly.

00:05:20    BRIAN HANCOCK
And I'm glad to hear that we have the backbone of the Army getting after that with spectrum management. I suspect that that's going to become more and more contested over time, just like airspace, probably carefully metered, especially in these dense countries that we operate in, such as Europe. All right, let's switch gears a moment to your current role here at the United States Army Europe in Africa. Tell the audience a little bit about what you do here.

00:05:46    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
What I do is I help make sure that there are enough electromagnetic and SEMA resources for all of the units in Europe and Africa to conduct their missions and operations and training.

00:05:56    BRIAN HANCOCK
So you're kind of like a facilitator or a broker? Absolutely. Well, at your level of excellence, I'm not surprised. You'd be a force multiplier to help all those other people get it right. Do you do any active SEMA planning or coaching, anything like that?

00:06:10    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
Absolutely. If there's a SEMA question that comes up... I'll give my experience and I'll show where electromagnetic warfare and SEMA will fit into the mission.

00:06:21    BRIAN HANCOCK
Great. I wish you would continue that coaching and advice to the people who make GoWarsim and JCATs and these other devices so that we could get a SEMA layer in there. And we'll talk, obviously, later in the show why that's really important from what we're seeing in Ukraine and elsewhere. But keep doing that influencing you're doing. I think we need more of it. All right, let's talk about authorities, right? This is a pretty big topic for any enabler, and SEMA is no exception. What authorities, if any, exist to conduct electronic warfare in Europe or Africa? And how difficult is it to get authorities if you don't have one that you need?

00:06:56    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
The Department of Defense has a spectrum management doctrine regulations at how -to, and every piece of military equipment is annotated in that process. And so that process shows which piece of equipment we work with in the U .S. Army and how much of it can be shared with each country. To get after the authorities, the step number one is can we use the equipment in the country we're in? And then the step number two is how do we assign the frequencies to it? Because we're sharing the spectrum, which is owned by the host nation. Each host nation owns every frequency. In order to transmit on what we want to transmit, we have to share the parameters of the equipment. And there's a process for that. And we make sure that that process is. So that's how we get to the authorities. How long it takes with the processes that we and relationships we've built. If all of the documentation is in order, we can do it in. It's nice to have 30 days, but we can do it much faster. And then if that documentation isn't in order, I think we can do it in about 180 days.

00:08:10    BRIAN HANCOCK
All right. I imagine that varies quite a bit depending on where you're operating. Germany, where we are right now, is a pretty well -oiled machine when it comes to bureaucracy process and paperwork. Certain other countries, I think, is probably closer to the Wild West. So I imagine that that could vary quite a bit. But that's great explanation. It's really important as you move up. that you have those authorities to conduct on frequencies for whatever period is time, for whatever purpose, whatever condition. And ideally, we want to build those authorities into our operations plan in advance so that they're pre -coordinated and train them in exercises too, especially force -on -force tactical type exercises. I think one of the interesting things about electronic warfare and the spectrum itself is that we use antennas as our sensors.

00:08:52    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
think one of the interesting things about electronic warfare and the spectrum itself is that we use antennas as our sensors. Your eyeballs are as close as you're going to get to sensing the spectrum. Light is on the electromagnetic spectrum, but most of the devices we use, we can't actually feel the spectrum being used. And so we have to go through another medium, a computer, to identify whether it's on or off.

00:09:20    BRIAN HANCOCK
Yeah. I think all those folks in the... Cuban embassy were feeling the spectrum when Russian turned on the microwave emitters. But maybe not normal.

00:09:30    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
Absolutely. That's where you got to say most. But to get those results from what I understand is very high power and very highly specific systems.

00:09:43    BRIAN HANCOCK
Okay, I got it. Many of these folks that we have listening to 1CA podcast are officers and NCOs who have the burden of making things happen. And they have to take senior officers and turn those good ideas into actual executable operations. So they're doing a lot of the sausage mating. So in the intermediate level education that we get on the officer side, one of the things we really don't talk about is the electronic warfare process as to how that moves through boards, bureaus, centers, sales, working groups, all the way to the host nation, the country team, to result in an approved concept of operation that allows us to emit within a host nation. Can you tell those folks who want to incorporate EW into their planning, into their exercises, into their staff products, How do you move an EW CONOP from good idea all the way to firing it?

00:10:49    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
Yeah, for the U .S. Army, there are units that have been fielded equipment or there are units that have requested for equipment and have acquired equipment. In order to do specifically an electronic and attack CONOP, you just need to find the equipment and the power level and then also to plan it.

00:11:09    BRIAN HANCOCK
Yeah, but can't you get that at RadioShack? Yeah, you probably could. Right? So there's more to it, right, to get an Army approval to do that.

00:11:15    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
Absolutely. In the scenario where you got something from RadioShack and you made a transmitter, you're going to classify the antenna. You're going to measure how far or how powerful it is and at what frequency it's tuned to. And then you're going to have a LAN to do it on. You're going to have to have a sensor to detect it or a device. that you're going to want to jam or interrupt. And the way we do it is you're going to put all of that data in a CONOP or in a request form with the five W's of how you want to perform your electronic attack mission or how you're going to perform your EW effect.

00:11:55    BRIAN HANCOCK
All right. How does that CONOP track through the process? You know, you and I sit at the computer. We ginned something up, and I think it's the greatest idea ever. I don't know if anybody else will, but what's our next stop with that after we've come up with that good idea and dropped it in the format?

00:12:09    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
We start with the signals section, the G6 at UCRF, and that's where they will look at the spectrum needs and determine if they have enough resources for it, if equipment can be turned on, if there is host nation trends. turning on that type of equipment in the location that we want to do it.

00:12:33    BRIAN HANCOCK
Okay. And, you know, like if it's a training area on foreign soil, we might have some type of standing arrangement which would grease the skids, so to speak.

00:12:42    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
And a lot of times in the planning conferences, if there's an event happening, a lot of people would love to have EW into their event.

00:12:47    BRIAN HANCOCK
lot of people

00:12:50    BRIAN HANCOCK
I really think so. You know, we keep looking at all of the CTC rotations, including JRMC. The senior leaders from Forcecom are talking and they say, every time we try and do any type of jamming, the movement goes to hell because nobody knows how to do that. They've forgotten how to operate without all of these bandwidths and all the devices that depend on it. And that doesn't seem to have gotten any better in the last 10 years or so. So I think at every level from tactical on up, there is a demand signal. to train in a SEMA -denied environment. And I know at the higher echelons in exercise controls, etc., every time we try and reduce these problem sets, units or other folks kind of wave us off because they don't want to add that level of complexity. So are we really training for modern warfare? I mean, we'll talk more about Lucrane and what we're seeing with EW there later, but are we really training for the warfare we're about to face? I would say it depends because...

00:13:48    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
would say it depends because... Yes, there's complexity that goes into the staffing of a process, and we kind of add enough friction to get after a lot of the training we're doing, which I would almost replicate to denied environment. However, at a tactical level, no. We should be building confidence in our systems and that they're hardened so that in a denied environment, we can depend on the system or we have a backup plan to use the map. Or the orders should be, if you don't hear from me, continue to this point until you do meet up with me. And with a mission and intent, any tactical unit could continue on in a denied environment.

00:14:31    BRIAN HANCOCK
I think that gives me a little more thought on how to proceed. I'm going to return to something we talked about earlier, the ubiquitous nature of the electromagnetic spectrum. All around us permeates everything, invisible but critical to almost everything we do. It seems to me it's inherently dual use, right? Civilians, as you said, are using that same spectrum as military and sometimes even on the same frequencies. So we have that complexity to deal with. At this point, most of the world is urbanized and that trend continues to accelerate. How do planners analyze the potential effects of electronic warfare on the civilian population? So we're going to be using those frequencies. And, you know, if you stepped on in the U .S. 9 -1 -1 or out here 1 -1 -2, you know, obviously there's going to be some heartburn that occurs, just one scenario. But how do, in the planning process and the staffing process as we're generating courses of action and plans and O plans and con plans, who is representing the civil population and considering? what the potential effects of electronic warfare.

00:15:40    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
So that's the reason why we start with the six, is because they represent the relationship here in Europe between the host nation for the location of wherever we want to conduct that EW action, but then also the host nation assigns the frequency to the U .S. Army to use to conduct the training. And it works the same way CONUS. The FCC and the U .S. military, they work out the, okay, you can use this part of the spectrum to conduct that training. That way the equipment is legally authorized or the authority for them to turn it on so that we don't interfere with any civilian frequencies.

00:16:16    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
or the authority for them to turn it on so that we don't interfere with any civilian frequencies.

00:16:26    BRIAN HANCOCK
I get that in competition where you have a lot of time to do all that deconfliction development up front. But we have to be prepared for crisis, right? Crisis and conflict. So jumping into that stage, many battles are decided in a matter of hours, not days or weeks. Lengthy approval processes can occur. And of course, you have things like inherent rights to self -defense. And I'll tell you, if I'm a company commander and I'm seeing hot rounds coming in at me and I've got some EW kits sitting over there that I think could save my Joe's life. I'm highly incentive to turn that guy off, which can have bleed over to the civilian populace. So when we're looking at conflict and crisis, who is considering the green, the voice of the civilian populace as we start having jamming? I mean, our jamming isn't as robust as some of our adversaries, which have jamming in depth, many bands, many layers deep, which I imagine is very disruptive. though I'm not sure they care so much about the civilian population. But we do. We care about civilians. Who is representing what happens if we start blocking large parts of the spectrum on short notice to deal with some type of contingency in combat operations? We have sensors that we could detect, but also we would inform people who have already have access to that part of the spectrum.

00:17:40    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
We have sensors that we could detect, but also we would inform people who have already have access to that part of the spectrum. So if you're going to attack on a frequency, you know what you're going to program your equipment to operate on. And so before you turn it on or in the case where you had to turn it on and use it for self -defense, I think as soon as you turned it off, you could then inform the people who possibly were affected that we interfered with your service for self -defense.

00:18:11    BRIAN HANCOCK
Yeah, especially if you're emanating from. potentially protected structure you know like a soldier say congregated a hotel right and then uh we get a terrorist attack and there's some type of munitions coming in and and we want to protect that site so we turn on ew kit thankfully we'll say in this case the the weapons miss right um so that you know that was important and that was within the inherent right to self -defense but that time when it was disrupted could cost millions of dollars in damage to commercial business,

00:18:46    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
right? Absolutely. From what I understand, when you purchase your cell phone, you're purchasing part of the spectrum in your contract with whoever your communication service is. And so, like, if you had a jammer and you turned it on near a cell phone tower, the host nation can legally come back to you with a bill for denying every person service provided.

00:19:10    BRIAN HANCOCK
Oh, we'll say we're sorry.

00:19:11    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
say we're sorry. No, absolutely. There are consequences for turning on a transmitter in a populated area, either for protection and self -defense, or if you turned it on and left it on. Right.

00:19:26    BRIAN HANCOCK
Leaving it on, I understand, especially if you're operating outside of your approval, there can be very steep fines. There absolutely are. It's my host nation, so that's de -incentivize us there. In civil affairs, we're no... strangers to Salacia type payments, right? So we took out, you know, a bunch of your comms affected your business. Here's the bill. Okay. I think we've seen that before. Now, ideally I'd like to say, Hey, the civil affairs officer or NCO should be that person representing the civilian population and the effects of electromagnetic warfare. But I'll tell you, we don't get training in the 38 series on electronic warfare. It's kind of a black box to us. It would be very difficult to do that. Some who have transferred from the signal branch, perhaps, on an individual basis could do something like that. But as we're operating progressively more and more in dual -purpose areas and urbanized areas, I just see the potential bleed over of exotic electronic warfare and other technical effects could create a new level of disruption that complicates stability operations. That's absolutely true.

00:19:37    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
In civil affairs,

00:20:29    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
That's absolutely true. For example, there was a period in the United States where you could... easily buy a handheld cell phone jammer back when the internet was less regulated. And then also, I know that you could purchase this handheld cell phone jammer. It wouldn't deny a lot of people, but if you were a teacher in a classroom and you were upset that your students kept using their cell phones, you could easily turn on this handheld device.

00:21:01    BRIAN HANCOCK
I think teachers all over the world are very interested in what you're saying.

00:21:03    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
you're saying. But the problem is it's illegal. And then and there are people who have gotten caught for doing it. You don't want that on your on your record.

00:21:14    BRIAN HANCOCK
OK, you know, in our focus is the civil population and what we do in civil affairs. So let me ask you, you've been around for more than a day or two in this field. deployed competition crisis and conflict. Can you give the audience an example of hypothetical or real, but where there were unintended consequences, maybe some seconds or effect of utilizing electronic warfare in a populated area?

00:21:39    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
Yeah, I was in a training area and it was a multinational training event and another country came with their EW kit and they turned it on during the exercise and it denied GPS. The area that they had turned it on happened to cover the highway, and motorists' GPSs stopped working, and they started reporting that interference. And when they found out, they ended up charging the country hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ouch. And, yeah, for turning on the jammer at the wrong time.

00:22:17    BRIAN HANCOCK
Oh, goodness. You know, it's not too distant in the future of science fiction where we talk about these remotely piloted vehicles, right, on smart highways or whatever. You start jamming that. Very interesting idea. All the Teslas run off the road.

00:22:32    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
What I like about the automated car or the idea of a driverless or a human driverless car is I think when their safety rating gets to the point where it is safer to get into a... non -human driver car than it is to have drivers or human drivers on the road,

00:22:40    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
think when their safety rating gets to the point where it is safer to get into a... non -human driver car than it is to have drivers or human drivers on the road, then we'll have no problems with it. I think we hit that threshold a decade ago in California.

00:22:55    BRIAN HANCOCK
I think we hit that threshold a decade ago in California. Have you seen how they drive out there? It's terrible. Let's talk about dense urban terrain. We've talked about the world becoming urbanized, right? But there's a difference between suburban sprawl and megacity type. density. And that presents a whole new series of challenges for electronic warfare. More and more military forces, NATO and the adversary are going to have to be operating in these real dense areas. In World War II, we often bypassed large cities because we didn't want to expend all the resources to capture them. And we were able to, but now large cities are often the political center of gravity for many nations. And when you're talking about something like regime change is Certainly we are in Ukraine with Putin's plan to depose the government. He had to control Kiev. He had to. That was an objective. So he's got to go into that very, very, very dense terrain. And there'll be times when we in NATO have to do as well. And when you're talking dense... terrain, lots of background interference, limited lines of sight, extensive subterranean tunnels and sewers and things that you may have to take emitting gear into and hope to talk to somebody. You know, where you have skyscrapers, you even have microclimates where the climate is actually different, which affects electronics, of course, in the shadow of some of these skyscrapers which blot out the sun. How does that impact electronic warfare, both electronic attack and electronic defense, if you have to operate in dense urban terrain?

00:24:32    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
So every structure, the frequency is going to interact with. And most likely, it depends on what it is to if it's going to operate through it. So like with glass, a frequency can get through glass. But like with concrete and any materials that we build buildings out of, it depends on what... size of frequency your device is operating on, but it's going to limit it. It's going to make it much harder. It's harder to create models for those situations, and it's going to be less predictable. You're going to have to run your antenna somewhere. Yeah.

00:25:06    BRIAN HANCOCK
So like a great place for command post, a denser terrain, is a subterranean parking garage. Yeah. If I want to crank up my EW equipment, So I have enough power to get through all that concrete. It seems to me if I take that device outside of that environment, I'm going to start frying people. And I imagine that's highly visible. That back and forth game between your force and the enemy,

00:25:25    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
That back and forth game between your force and the enemy, how strong you're going to set your power level to. It's going to allow you to be seen, but it also allows... you distance for your forces to receive your... More power means more visibility, but also more distance to enhance your command and control.

00:25:42    BRIAN HANCOCK
to receive your... More power means more visibility, but also more distance to enhance your command and control. That's right. All right, it makes sense to me. Hopefully we have decoys. We're going to be setting up a bunch of antennas. If I was the enemy, I'd start bombing buildings with antennas. You know, that's just me. Okay, I don't know if you recently read that article in Foreign Affairs published by Eric Schmidt. It's a good article. Yes, I have. About Ukraine losing the drone war.

00:26:04    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
Yes, I have.

00:26:08    BRIAN HANCOCK
It's... And in the article, he talks about the main reason why they're losing the drone war is because Russia has deployed electronic warfare capabilities in depth from tactical to strategic. And it is making it very difficult to use their capabilities. They're going astray. They're being spoofed. They're hitting the wrong targets. They're failing in flight. They're having broken links. And, you know, there's probably some ways to mitigate that, at least when it's on terminal entry, right? But that's a serious problem. And then on the flip side of that, of course, Ukraine has benefited from a lot of Western aid. And because that comes with our kit and our doctrine, our training, our knowledge from exercises, etc., they don't have a way to create similar dilemmas for all the Russian munitions coming in. And there's a lot, and it's increasing. What do you think about Eric Schmidt's article? Do you agree or disagree that this is a serious problem in Ukraine?

00:27:12    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
I do agree with his assessment. And I really liked the points he brought up about the Orlon and Lancet teams. And so I totally agree with the opinion. If you agree,

00:27:25    BRIAN HANCOCK
you agree, what, if anything, at the unclassified level could we do about it? What I like about electronic warfare is the frequencies are bound by the laws of physics.

00:27:28    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
it? What I like about electronic warfare is the frequencies are bound by the laws of physics. And so, like, if you're a physics nut, a lot of this stuff is based on power levels, size of antenna. And when one side decides how to operate inside on the battlefield, the other side can counter it. And then there will be pendulum swings of momentum back and forth. with the way we use the spectrum, and then who can capture it and then put it into their advantage. Especially from the example of the first person viewing drones. I really liked the visualization from the article that in the past artillery would wait until they saw the troops moving closer, and then they would turn it off. But with the first person viewers, they're able to wait until their forces are... much closer to use that viewpoint to their advantage. And then that synchronizing the spectrum the same way you would synchronize an operation to say, okay, turn on the frequencies to affect these devices now, stop those ones, turn on these frequencies at this time based on the way that the mission's going is absolutely the way to conduct it.

00:28:48    BRIAN HANCOCK
Okay. Sounds like we're going to be seeing a lot more of this in the future. Is our investment, in your opinion, where it needs to be? Do we have enough kit and trained forces to be able to rise to the challenge of where modern warfare is taking us? No,

00:29:03    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
I don't think that we have enough. However... I think it's a decision of, do we spend a lot of money now or do we spend a lot of money later? I think it's important to train forces now so we can build that culture of synchronizing how we're going to conduct these operations with spectrum -dependent devices. I've also experienced when there's been a surge for money and to solve a problem. But I would like to see more investment in it. And I would like to see assessments done so that we can. purchase more equipment and train soldiers, but then give maneuver commanders and give tactical operations the experience and confidence in their own equipment and in their TTPs so that they can build SOPs that say denial comms. Oh, that's just part of my matrix. I'm going to switch either to an alternate frequency or I'm going to move to this alternate device and I'm going to get the message through. So it's minimal impact on the unit.

00:30:05    BRIAN HANCOCK
Yeah, I suspect if we had some general officers in the room, they'd chuckle, smile and look at us and say, well, you 17 series guys, you can just wait in line because I'm short this percentage on my M2 of this and short that and they don't have enough of these. And I don't have enough F -35s. I have 10. I wanted 20. They're $122 million each and millions and millions and millions of dollars a year to maintain and fly and everything else. Is CIMA? That expensive? Were we talking $122 million a unit or what could you do with $122 million to advance our EW? Compared to what we have right now,

00:30:39    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
to what we have right now, we could do a lot. However, the decisions have to be made. And again, I think every decision should come with a consequence. But I think also the SEMA and the EW community, we can decide and recommend the right equipment and the acquisition process. And we need to have functioning equipment. So the maneuver commanders are like, oh, the EW guys got this. I've seen them operate in this training environment. And my EW guy, I'll put them up next to that next guy's EW guy. I don't think we're at a level where our commanders are ready to bet on their EW guys right now.

00:31:17    BRIAN HANCOCK
I understand that. From what I've seen, it's been more than a decade that many folks in the EW community have kind of been shouting from the rooftops that we need to start getting serious about this. The tech studies that come out show we're just well behind some of our near -peer competitors, and that costs a lot of lives. However, there doesn't seem to be any real appetite to invest and commit to this. When it comes to R &D and acquisitions, it seems like we're excessively focused on lethality, right? Even though if we put some investment in this, some of our $2 million a shot missiles, more of them would actually hit the target for a fraction of that cost. It seems like something doesn't directly kill somebody. We're somewhat reluctant to invest and develop it in the military.

00:32:05    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
And there are different tools. If we could get a system close enough that would fry the computer system or the programmer takes them and makes it.

00:32:13    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
them and makes it. useless, and then it takes them longer to replace that device. And that's on a directed energy weapon. But then the other side is, with a portion of electronic warfare, as soon as you turn the equipment off, you get your spectrum back. Your system's going to operate correctly. And there are ways that we can take advantage of that. And I think we have a hard time conceptualizing that in seconds. the effect is restored back to normal operations.

00:32:46    BRIAN HANCOCK
Right on. Can't wait for you to get after that when you promote to CW6 and go to the Pentagon and make everything right. I'll make recommendations.

00:32:55    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
Commanders will make decisions. I'll make recommendations.

00:32:58    BRIAN HANCOCK
I love it. I'll be one of your henchmen. Right on. Okay. I love where you're going with that. Let's talk about space for a minute. We now have a Space Force. There are a lot of sections which utilize space assets. They're very important for what we do. And space, again, is another one of those areas where we're touching that communal spectrum. I don't know if we have a spectrum warfare division. Maybe we should. But when you're talking about space, space is one of the only ways we can do deep sensing. If you want to take the deep fight to the enemy. You have to have a way to sense and make sense. And space gives you some of your only sensors and assets to be able to enable that level of the fight. The writing on that same spectrum, though, that we're employed by commercial, by the military, by SEMA, by electronic warfare,

00:32:59    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
henchmen. Right on. Okay. I love where you're

00:33:46    BRIAN HANCOCK
given the fact that there's kind of a natural symbiosis, let me ask the question, how closely do SEMA and EW and space work together? And if there's conflict, he de -conflicts that.

00:33:59    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
We absolutely work close together. The only way you're going to affect a space object is through the spectrum. And so spectrum is what ties it together. If there's a conflict or friction between whether it needs to be a SEMA mission or a space mission, both arguments are presented, and the decision maker will say, okay, this one means more to me for this instance, and this one means the other, and then we'll march out.

00:34:26    BRIAN HANCOCK
Awesome. Last question, I kind of want to wrap up with a little bit more on drone warfare, because that really is, I think, defining aspect of postmodern warfare and what we're seeing. I don't know if you had a chance to read Paul Charest's landmark book, Army of None, which talks about autonomous warfare and drone warfare and has some important and in some cases dire predictions for the future. In the Second Nagorno -Karabakh War, place in 2020. There's a fantastic Canadian intelligence product which came out talking about how the Azerbaijanis adopted Russian snow dome operations characterized by rolling electromagnetic bubbles, high -level drones doing spotting for loitering munitions, and then vectoring in either attack drones like a TB2 by actor, Turkish drone, or a Harup, Israeli loitering munition. that they would then strike targets, and there were very few large -scale unit engagements. It was kind of this sense, detect, destroy kind of slugfest that went on for a while with very high attrition rates on both sides for drones. But unfortunately, the Armenians had not really invested in those sensing and drone capabilities, and they were decimated in that war. They lost. badly because they didn't understand that war had changed. And so we're of drones now. Now, fast forward to Ukraine. This is exactly what we're seeing unfolding there. It would be very difficult for the Ukrainians to keep pace with a fully militarized Russian economy, which is going to be producing a lot of drones, gifts they're going to be getting from Iran and other places in very large. So they're going to need an equalizer to deal with this. Can electronic warfare be an equalizer? What can we do with electronic warfare in the UAS and small UAS? Can we harden the Ukrainian munitions? Could we jam more of the Russian munitions? What could be done to improve the survival chances for the Ukrainian patriots who are fighting right now?

00:36:50    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
Absolutely. Electronic warfare can assist in any operation that is connecting a unmanned system, as long as that unmanned system is receiving command.

00:36:57    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
connecting a unmanned system, as long as that unmanned system is receiving command.

00:37:04    BRIAN HANCOCK
But human on the loop is also okay, right? So a first person view drone, it's manned by an operator technically.

00:37:12    MICHAEL GUNMANSON
And it's receiving, like it is transmitting and receiving back and forth to and from that drone. And in that scenario, electronic warfare is just finding how far away that attack antenna needs to be, and then what power level, and then how to disrupt the receiver from that antenna. Those are just very basic ideas and concepts, and those are only a part of it. There's a lot more that can go into how you would program. a command either to the receiver to either take over the system or to keep it off course so it doesn't make its final target. Again, what I appreciate about spectrum operations and EW is that it's locked in physics. And so, in my opinion, we can enhance it, we can choose when we want to use it, and we can absolutely outsmart other humans on how they're choosing to use it as well.

00:38:13    BRIAN HANCOCK
That's really important. I know we aren't going to solve that in the time that we have available here. But the fact that you say, hey, there is something that can be done there to help level the playing field through spectrum, through electronic warfare, is encouraging. And I hope, you know, the powers that be explore those opportunities to their fullest, both to help in the current conflicts and to protect NATO and other countries moving forward. Well, Chief, any last thoughts you want to share with the audience? Thank you very much. I've had a lot of fun. Awesome. Well said. Hey, thank you. Really appreciate you coming into the studio and I wish you success and all your future endeavors.

00:38:51    Close
Thanks for listening. If you get a chance, please like and subscribe and rate the show on your favorite podcast platform. Also, if you're interested in coming on the show or hosting an episode, email us at capodcasting at gmail .com. This is Jack, your host. Stay tuned for more great episodes. One CA podcast.

166: Ilya Zaslavsky on Alexei Navalny and Russian Political Dissent

With the death of Alexei Navalny, I called Ilya Zaslavsky, A Russian anti-Putin activist, and asked him to come on the show to give some perspective on what happened and its ramifications.

This show was a quick turnaround, so I apologize for the editing. I wanted to get it out to you as soon as possible. 

Also, a quick heads-up: FeedSpot just ranked One CA Podcast as one of their top 20 foreign policy podcasts. Check it out at:

https://podcasts.feedspot.com/foreign_policy_podcasts/

---

One CA is a product of the civil affairs association 

and brings in people who are current or former military, diplomats, development officers, and field agents to discuss their experiences on the ground with a partner nation's people and leadership.

We aim to inspire anyone interested in working in the "last three feet" of U.S. foreign relations. 

To contact the show, email us at CApodcasting@gmail dot com

or look us up on the Civil Affairs Association website at www civilaffairsassoc.org

---

Special thanks to the PilSkills Cheftain Channel for creating 11 hours of hip hop instrumentals for the sample. Found on YouTube at (+/-2:40:00) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgl9ZsT3jKs

---

00:00:03    JACK GAINES
Welcome to the 1CA podcast. This is your host, Jack Gaines. 1CA is a product of the Civil Affairs Association and brings in people who are current or former military, diplomats, development officers, and field agents to discuss their experiences on ground with the partner nation's people and leadership. Our goal is to inspire anyone interested in working the last three feet of foreign relations. To contact the show, email us at capodcasting at gmail .com or look us up on the Civil Affairs Association website at www .civilaffairsassos .org. I'll have those in the show notes. Today, we have a special episode.

00:00:40    JACK GAINES
With the death of Alexei Navalny, I called Ilya Zaslavsky, a D .C.-based anti -Putin activist, and asked him to come on the show to give some perspective on what happened and its ramifications. This show is a quick turnaround. So I apologize for the editing, but I wanted to get it out to you as soon as possible. We've known each other for a couple of years now, right? Correct. And for this call, I just wanted to bring you on because of the whole Navalny announcement that he was killed, and it was right in the middle of the Munich Security Conference. It was right when his wife was about to speak, I believe.

00:01:14    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
Absolutely, yes. She spoke yesterday and she said that maybe it would have been a better choice for her to go to her family, but... She understood that if Alexei was alive, he would be on this stage speaking against Putin. So that's why she did it.

00:01:29    JACK GAINES
Right. Yeah. And so have you been getting prompt a lot since the Navalny? Do you mind if I just call it a Navalny murder? Even though he was in prison, it was timed specifically for this Munich conference and to send a message to the West. Does that bother you if I call it a murder?

00:01:45    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
No, no, no. It is a murder and it should be called a murder. It's a deliberate assassination.

00:01:50    JACK GAINES
Okay. I try not to editorialize too much, but when something like this happens, it's so obvious that you just kind of have to name it. And I thought of you because you get pinged on these things a lot because of your work with anti -corruption and anti -cliptocracy. And I thought this is a great time to reach out and just get your opinion on what's going on and also talk about how this demonstrates how cliptocracy becomes an ongoing national security threat. Absolutely, it does.

00:02:17    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
And this grave concern has been going on since the beginning of Russian war against Ukraine in 2014, for others much earlier, since actually Putin's speech at Munich conference, I believe it was like 2007 or something, just before Russia attacked Georgia. And within Russian opposition, both within Russia and outside in the diaspora, there have been lots of divisions and lots of different thoughts. But I would say... There were people who were still hopeful to do changes within Russia. And Navalny was their flagman, was their leader, was their organizer. Many people considered him one of the best people who can unite, especially young people and young professionals. Right. Him and Barbouris Nemtsov. And that's why when Nemtsov was killed. There was so much discouragement and tragedy, but people were still hoping that we still got Navalny. And then there was another, I would say, streak of thought and activity that is, especially in the diaspora, where some activists and experts were not hopeful about things within Russia and didn't believe that much can be changed. But they saw a global security. threat coming out of Russia. Sure. Out of Russian corruption and plutocracy. And because they saw it spread in the near broad, that's how Russia used to call former Soviet Union states,

00:03:40    JACK GAINES
of Russian corruption and plutocracy.

00:03:49    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
but also in Eastern Europe, in Western Europe, and then in Africa, Southern America, and then in the West, in US, in Canada, in Japan, among G7 and NATO allies. And I belong to the second camp. I don't suggest that they are mutually incompatible, but I never believe that we can actually stop Putin's regime anytime soon. But I always warned since at least 2012 that this is absolutely unprecedented kleptocratic regime. It's worse than Soviet regime in some aspects. And the West is partly complacent in giving resources,

00:04:29    JACK GAINES
resources, money. You're talking about banking. especially intermediaries that help with hiding banking and buying commodities and just feeding this regime allowing it to trade globally in the way that it wants rather than forcing them to trade on the western governance standards and that this will have grave security implications this will this is not something happening in distant russia you know with poor russian people and i sympathize i'm not make sarcasm here but

00:04:30    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
money. You're talking about

00:04:36    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
and just feeding this regime allowing it to trade globally in the way that it wants rather than forcing them to trade on the western governance standards and that this will have grave security implications this will this is not something happening in distant russia you know with poor russian people and i sympathize i'm not make sarcasm here but It will not stay contained within Russia. So this is not some distant story. We in the West will pay a price. In 2012, it sounded freaky and then alarmist. After 2014, it gradually became, the acknowledgement sort of grew. But it still took years and years. And only full -scale attack on Ukraine actually made it mainstream. And now NATO is talking about long -term conflict with Russia. which Russia is forcing on NATO. And everyone is talking finally about defense spending and collective action and containment. So to bring this back to Navalny, Navalny showed the actual magnitude of this corruption. Someone calculated overall, he and his team, around 100 major investigations. And I mean, it depends how one counts, but... I think if you include all the small and little regional investigations and various findings they did on individuals, it will be much more. Like this investigation of Putin palaces and yachts, but also... That's right.

00:06:08    JACK GAINES
That's right. I remember that, the ones that were off the Black Sea, right?

00:06:11    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
Yes, and it had millions of views. But what he showed isn't just the fancy and the scary part of corruption. What he showed is the systemic nature of it. And if we're talking about systemic nature, it is not contained within Russia. It is global. They're using global financial system and using lots of various partners, allies, and enablers, including in the West, to carry out what they do. And so that's the legacy of Navalny. For me, he not just mobilized people who wanted to do changes within Russia, but he also showed the international experts applications of This grant corruption for the rest of the world.

00:06:53    JACK GAINES
Then obviously Putin took him seriously because he went after him when he was living overseas and then he captured him when he was in the country. So does that mean that Putin is influenced or his government is influenced by the diaspora and how they think about Russia?

00:07:08    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
It's a great question. To be honest,

00:07:09    JACK GAINES
question. To

00:07:10    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
be honest, I'll be brief about this. I think Putin tolerated Navalny and actually tried to exploit his existence for his own political needs at the time. And his expediency and his needs fluctuated over time and changed significantly over time. I think he always hated the West and the U .S. in particular. Yeah, he blamed him for collapsing the Soviet Union. Yes, and he always had this revanchist kind of mind.

00:07:29    JACK GAINES
for collapsing

00:07:35    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
of mind. What we should not forget about him is that his cool nature is that he's a KGB recruiter.

00:07:40    JACK GAINES
a KGB recruiter. Right, so anytime you offer him an opportunity, he'll explore it to see if he can exploit it. or if it's worth cooperating with. But if it's not, then he'll go against it or undermine it.

00:07:53    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
Exactly. He sort of reached the ceiling of globalization. He exploited it to the best of his ability, and then he got disappointed in it, that he couldn't manipulate it further. But while he was still doing it, he was consolidating power within Russia. And I think until maybe 2010, 2012, he was using... Navalny and other investigations from third parties to keep a leash on his own boyah. It's a story ancient as Russian history. Corrupt and tyrant czar keeping at bay his boyahs through third parties and forcing them to fight each other. He basically wanted to have compromise on everyone and some of that compromise to be publicized. But that led some people to... even accuse, you know, Navalny of being a Kremlin's project, which is nonsense, just insane. But I'm sure Navalny was always a genuine activist and a genuine anti -corruption fighter.

00:08:52    JACK GAINES
fighter. He was probably trying to play within the rules at some point to cooperate and still be the opposition. But when he just got to be too dichotic, he just said, that's it. I got to just go all the way with this.

00:09:05    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
Exactly. I share the same opinion. Along that murky and bumpy road, Navalny did a lot of things. He removed all the cases that got in his hands, and he mobilized many young people, and he gave hope to many of them. But then the dire times started. Putin really decided to go full -scale against Ukraine, and I believe that's why he started to eliminate opponents physically. And openly.

00:09:36    JACK GAINES
openly. The chair flying contests out of all the windows in Moscow. Yes, and he did these constitutional amendments, which allowed him to basically stay for life and get reelected as many times as he wanted for rigged elections.

00:09:39    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
Yes, and he did these constitutional amendments, which allowed him to basically stay for life and get reelected as many times as he wanted for rigged elections. I think very few people in Russian opposition or among Western policymakers understood the scale of Putin's intentions. He would actually go at the full scale war with Ukraine, but also with the West. What we're witnessing over the last two years is almost total disentanglement of Russia from Western globalization, from Western economic ties. Something that has been built since even Stalin times. The first gas deals were discussed even in the last years of Stalin and then Khrushchev and Brezhnev. He disentangled all of that, even like the most sacred to some of his KGB colleagues and party bosses. So he was preparing for many years for this attack. And Navalny was one of the people who meddled with this policy. And he had to be either squeezed out of the country or eliminated within the country. So they tried to poison him. And then when he returned back to Russia, not receiving the signal to shut up and to stay abroad, they immediately jailed him and they started to isolate him. And they still couldn't manage to do that. because Navalny managed to be vocal even from the prison. So what happened over the last half a year is a clear preparation for the murder because they moved him around the country and eventually put him in this very distant northern region where no one can reach it. They opened criminal cases on his lawyers. So they squeezed two out of his five lawyers out of the country and the three others are now in prison. And he got new lawyers. So he kept on kind of being resurgent in his protest and in his activism. So yeah, they decided to kill him. In any case, it was deliberate and it couldn't have been done without the protest direct order. And you know,

00:11:45    JACK GAINES
there's two things that come to mind. One, a friend of mine who is very familiar with Russia told me a story. He said, when you get to the point where you feel like you can't win, it's like you live in a neighborhood and you really hate the guy next door. And so you start talking to people who are arsonists and you just start passing out matches and say, just go burn something, just go burn something, whatever, just go burn stuff. And you may burn down your own house, but eventually they're going to burn down that guy's house and you'll be happy. And that's kind of the mindset is if I'm going down, everyone's burning down. And so, which is a very dire view of current conditions. But to me, it shows the willingness to take that risk of losing his money. He's willing to do that because he'd rather take new money out of Russia. He'll take more money out of the foreign campaigns where Wagner and other groups are running mines in Africa. He can get more money. He doesn't worry about the money. It's the power and the position that he worries about. The second thing that gets me is I don't see a transition plan.

00:12:11    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
that's kind

00:12:40    JACK GAINES
I don't see a transition plan. So he doesn't care. Once he passes, it just goes off a cliff. And that's a real worry to me about Russia is that since he's killing off anyone who may have power or authority. It's going to be a scramble for how to keep that nation from dissolving into a series of fiefdoms when he does pass. It's all legitimate concerns. I wouldn't get pessimistic about them,

00:13:06    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
I wouldn't get pessimistic about them, but obviously, at the same time, we need acknowledgement and action, not just stand on the side in awe and just be horrified and just try to appease or... or at least not touch this thing until it breaks,

00:13:22    JACK GAINES
it breaks, you know? Don't be a train wreck tourist and just sit there and watch them crash into it. Exactly. I mean, the same kind of feeling existed when USSR was collapsing.

00:13:29    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
feeling existed when USSR was collapsing. And now we know that some US presidents and policymakers were not even happy about USSR collapsing. They didn't know what would happen with, you know, nuclear arsenal and all this, not fiefdoms, but maybe like would Russia and Soviet Union break into many... Although it's claiming, you know, a nuke for himself. This didn't happen. And we shouldn't be too paranoid about this. At the same time, I also, it's not just about Putin. He did build a whole circle. And I'm afraid to say this, but I don't share the view of many within Russian opposition, including among Navalny team that, you know. Actually, there is no majority of Russians for Putin and that there is a significant minority or even majority of people against him. So my response to all of this, there is a way out, but it's difficult. It requires costs now, today. So first of all, we need to help Ukraine. They're the ones on the front lines actually fighting and sacrificing their blood and lives. Us not giving them just military equipment and money is just ridiculous.

00:14:47    JACK GAINES
Well, and it's bizarre. Every time we give away munitions, we refresh them with new stuff. So our stocks are always current. And it comes from U .S. manufactured weapons. So it doesn't make sense to me. Yes.

00:15:01    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
The issue became very partisan. And, you know, there are many meeks promoted that we give them free money, which they now, meaning Ukrainians, and they steal it. It's all bizarre because none of that happens. And there are some minor issues, you know, with procurement and various things, as would happen in any war with such scale. Just, you know, read Catch -22 or any book on any American war abroad or any war abroad.

00:15:32    JACK GAINES
But Zelensky has made sure that people, even with a hint of corruption, are thrown out. I mean, he's done a good job of trying to... assure his partners and allies okay exactly if there was one thing that i want you know your listeners to take away from this conversation is that uh we we americans we in the west our allies in nato we should understand we are at war with russia it's it's still a hybrid war most of it it's still a weird version of kind of cold war with new hybrid elements but it's actually in some places already hot

00:15:43    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
if there was one thing that i want you know your listeners to take away from this conversation is that uh we we americans we in the west our allies in nato we should understand we are at war with russia it's it's still a hybrid war most of it it's still a weird version of kind of cold war with new hybrid elements but it's actually in some places already hot And what you mentioned is Putin is different from Soviet leaders. Stalin was absolutely horrible, and he would also do poisonings abroad, but he never actually seriously contemplated of having an actual war with the West. He stopped in Berlin. He actually found a coexistence with the West.

00:16:35    JACK GAINES
the West. He had to learn that certain levels of trust and cooperation. I'm not saying that's it. He had to.

00:16:40    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
not saying

00:16:42    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
I'm not saying any good things about Stalin. He's as horrible as Hitler. But all I'm saying is that Putin may be more horrible than Stalin. That he is ready to do things that no Soviet leader was ready. I'm convinced they did assassinations on U .S. soil, like with Russia Today guy here in D .C. Listen, he was... killed under various strange circumstances on Dupun Circle. But they're putting nukes in outer space. They've been caught meddling in elections. They've been caught trying to upset New York Stock Exchange, various hacking attacks, which I'm sure if they were available to Soviet leaders, I don't think they would be doing this. Because at least people understood that the war can be triggered by accident. The only moment when we had that in history was Caribbean crisis. Yeah. But that was actually a lesson for both sides, including for the Soviets. They never again went to such a brink. Putin is going to such a brink all the time. His planes are attacking NATO planes. His ships are doing risky things all the time. But are they successful?

00:17:56    JACK GAINES
Define success. Are they able to pull off the risk? Did they gain the award? that the risk was attempting to achieve? I think partly they do in the sense that they keep on forcing NATO to be on the defense and try not to trigger Russians, and they keep on getting more space for their own abrasive activity.

00:18:07    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
they do in the sense that they keep on forcing NATO to be on the defense and try not to trigger Russians, and they keep on getting more space for their own abrasive activity. So they test the boundaries of impunity. That's what they're doing. And they're succeeding in that sense.

00:18:27    JACK GAINES
And then they're surprised when Norway and Sweden decide, okay, we're going to join NATO now. It's gotten too crazy. It doesn't seem like they really believe that anything's going to happen until something dies.

00:18:38    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
Well, yes and no. I think in the sense that with Sweden and Finland, they already saw them not in their camp or not actually being neutral, not being neutral. But they do test. Article 5, they do want to see the limits of how much they can test Article 5.

00:19:01    JACK GAINES
Yeah, because that helps them to know where they can operate without creating a war.

00:19:05    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
They are doing lots of things in the Baltic countries. And I mean, that's been a dispute ever since 2014. Russia tried these hybrid methods of attack in the Baltics. And will NATO respond? Right. I mean, there was this great BBC film in UK where they had war games and they tested would like Britain join the war to save dog of pills. Right. In the Baltics. And unfortunately, the TV show showed that maybe not.

00:19:37    JACK GAINES
Maybe we won't be making this call.

00:19:40    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
Yes. So and obviously, Russians are carefully monitoring all of this. Sure.

00:19:46    JACK GAINES
Sure.

00:19:46    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
reactions so my point in all of this we are in the new cold slash hot war slash a hybrid war uh it's for a long time it's we're just at the start of it and putin is getting more and more impunity it's definitely a signal to the west i'm not sure if it was just to the munich conference or in general but it's his signal To Biden, to everyone, I can kill my opponents, both on my soil and abroad. And he is relentless in Ukraine. They just conquered Avdivka, which is a big suburban city next to Donetsk, which was a stronghold for Ukraine for many years, but unfortunately they had to give up. And he's just on the, how you say it, ascendancy. So how will we respond? Will we... give money to our allies, step up our defense, do actual updated containment strategy of Russia as we did in the Cold War? Will we finally wake up to the fact that this leadership, it's not just Putin, his leadership, his whole country is mobilized in a hybrid war with us? Or will we just continue to wish for the best and continue in this wishful thinking that things can get back to business as usual?

00:21:08    JACK GAINES
I just did an opinion piece and I posted on LinkedIn. It was basically saying that not only is Russia fully mobilizing to win its war in Ukraine, but they're actually using a network, a global network to support it. They've got, you know, weapons coming in from China, North Korea, Iran, obviously. But they have, you know, they're doing trade to build support and finance. And I think they're also encouraging their partners and allies to create chaos wherever they can. I believe that Venezuela's threats with Guyana are encouraged by the Russians. And I think that Iran prompting Hamas to attack Israel was prompted by Russia and by Iran. I think that they are interconnected in this. I don't see the Houthi strikes as not tied to Ukraine. and through Hamas conflict. One, I see it as a way for Russia to try to get U .S. support diverted to other areas, either South America or the Middle East. Absolutely. But I also see it as a way to manage the ceiling for the conflict, because if your adversary is distributed, then you can kind of manage how much support Ukraine will get. And you can then build in more support for your side, which then your network is stronger than the defense network, and you can actually win the war. Absolutely. And previously, you mentioned arsonist in the neighborhood.

00:22:42    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
arsonist in the neighborhood. That's what the Kremlin is today. KGB rule, divide and rule, and create multiple fronts for the U .S. That's a playbook from Cold War. The U .S. cannot afford... to have two or three major wars going on and being engaged in. And I mean, in a way, U .S. engagement in Iraq allowed Putin to grow his base and to grow his economic base and to transform into dictatorship. That's also contributed. Yes. So now, yeah, I agree. They are instigating and supporting these various conflicts, either directly or indirectly, through their own allies. And yeah, Israel and Ukraine are facing the same enemies, Russia and Iran, which is astonishing how that is still not clearly understood in D .C., at least in some circles. But to return back to Navalny, you know, when he was arrested, President Biden said that if something happens with Navalny, if he's killed, then Russian leadership will face grave repercussions. So it's great that President Biden spoke on the occasion of Navalny's death and put the blame on Putin's shoulders. That's great. But now we need to see those repercussions. We need more sanctions. We need Navalny Act. We need clear aid to Ukraine. And we need propping up our allies and our own defense and being prepared for this global arsonist and killer. This country woke up too late to threat from Hitler and Japan. So let's not repeat that mistake with the new Hitler of our time.

00:24:27    JACK GAINES
That's a great wrap -up to that point. So what is it that you are up to? Because you live here in D .C., right? Yes, yes, correct. You've got your own efforts to reform the Russian way of living. Yes. You have a campaign that you're working on.

00:24:36    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
You've got your

00:24:43    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
i'll maybe give a very quick background to how i came to this and then to see what i do you can cut out anything i probably cut out half of my jokes because maybe it will explain um go ahead and and feel free to joke about bad humor i come from a mixed background my mom is from ukraine at the wet ukraine um it's she's from ukrainian jewish community in dnipro

00:24:50    JACK GAINES
probably cut out half of my jokes because maybe it will explain

00:24:54    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
go ahead and and feel free to joke about bad humor i

00:25:02    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
come from a mixed background my mom is from ukraine at the wet ukraine um it's she's from ukrainian jewish community in dnipro But she was raised in Moscow herself, and I was born in Moscow. So I'm a Russian -Ukrainian Jew raised in Moscow. But I also went to study in the U .S. as a school student for one year on the Freedom Support Act program. And then I was lucky to study for scholarships in Britain. And I got my high education in Russia and in Oxford, in liberal arts. In 2004, when I was done with studies, I was still hopeful about Russia, and I went back to work on climate change programs, projects with a Danish company in Moscow. And then I wanted to join a Western energy company. I applied to multiple. So I ended up working in TNKBB, which was a subsidiary of a Western company. And they were in bed with Putin. We did some many good things on climate change projects, introducing new standards for health, safety and environment. And it was good for Russia. It was good for the world. Oil and gas are still needed there, at least at that time. But none of those standards mattered to Russians, at least in the Kremlin. And they violently took over that company in 2008, 2009. And I was in the middle of that conflict. I was fabricated as a spy. by Russian security services and Russian oligarchs. And I saw firsthand how major Anglo -American company didn't respond to that attack. And that's what triggered my understanding that if Russians can do this thing to senior Western oil executives, they will do it to anyone and they will export this abroad. So I went through a short trial. I was tried in the same court as Magnitsky. Literally the same judge was trying us in 2009. It was a kangaroo court. And all my prosecutors and the judge are now on the Magnitsky list. So I was my dual citizen, a Russian -American. And for Russians, I was an American. So they trashed me on TV as a British spy, as an American spy, as a Ukrainian spy already in 2008. So eventually I managed to get out because the Russians got everything they wanted and they still were not in the open war. with with the west and so i got out of russia in 2010 and since then you know i've wrote multiple papers that wake up this will have grave security implications for the west this kind of regime will not stop this will have a spillover effect globally and then i moved to dc and i started fighting these oligarchs who i can see more agents of the kremlin they are the biggest difference with the soviet times now putin has these very powerful agents who present themselves as private businessmen, who can travel around the world absolutely legalized. In broad daylight, they can do various hybrid warfare activities on behalf of the Kremlin. And gain a profit on it. And make a profit on it, but also do the bidding for the Kremlin. They bring a salad bar of options for the Kremlin, and the Kremlin picks what they like. The co -opting people, getting political access, making political donations to parties, meddling in elections, buying strategic assets, censoring Western media, not just Russian. So I've seen it all. And I've been writing about several dozen of oligarchs and exposing them both privately in briefings to policymakers, but also publicly through various campaigns. And since 2014, I saw that Russians could turn this hybrid war into actual war. This is a long story, maybe for the rest of our lifetime, like Cold War wars, which lasted almost 80 years. So we might be for another 80 years or so with this regime in Russia. We have to contain it. We have to reduce resources available to them in a drastic way. We have to... stop any proliferation of any dual -use military equipment to them. I continue to expose oligarchs, who continue to operate freely in the West. Most of them are not sanctioned enough. But also, apart from oligarchs, I'm very concerned for the fate of Ukraine, because if Ukraine falls, then I have no doubt that we will have a much bigger war in Europe, and the U .S. will be involved in that war.

00:29:38    JACK GAINES
Yeah, they now have 600 ,000. military that has battle experience. Yes, and other aggressors and dictatorships are watching.

00:29:47    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
are watching.

00:29:48    JACK GAINES
If not cooperating somehow.

00:29:51    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
Yes, maybe they're cooperating tacitly, but as soon as Russia wins in Ukraine, China, Iran, North Korea, they'll be encouraged to do many more horrible things. They will feel emboldened. Venezuela, you mentioned. They will feel emboldened. to take on allies of US. So we shouldn't allow ourselves to go that path. In a way, if I had to compare, war in Ukraine right now is like a war against Spain and the Czech Republic in 1930s.

00:30:27    JACK GAINES
Okay, so I need to go Google up the Spanish -Czech war.

00:30:31    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
Well, basically, Hitler with Franco was testing his Luftwaffe and his armies. and his technology, and they crushed the Republic. And Franco and all fascists around the world at the time felt emboldened on the West, on the U .S. They had a weapons supplier to support their ambitions.

00:30:48    JACK GAINES
had a weapons supplier to support their ambitions.

00:30:51    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
Exactly. So what I'm doing here, I'm trying to wake up policymakers and expert community and anyone interested in democracy that we are in grave danger. And this hybrid warfare that is already waged against the U .S. can turn hot and bigger if we don't act. And there are concrete ways how we can act. It's not just I'm being alarmist and saying, wake up. I'm saying, give money and equipment to Ukraine, step up our own defense, help our allies, ensure NATO has all contingency plans, but also just acknowledge the fact that we are no longer in peaceful time with Russia. And they're trying all sorts of new innovative ways inside this country through hacking, through co -optation, through access to political opinion makers and leaders. And oligarchs, they are not independent from the crime. And let's prevent all of that.

00:31:50    JACK GAINES
Is there anything that you want me to put on the web for you or share? Or do you have any last comments? Any last thoughts?

00:32:01    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
Navalny's death should not just bring condolences and concern. It should bring concrete actions in the form of aid to Ukraine, Navalny Act, containment strategy, sanctions, much wider sanctions in areas that we discussed. That's the best outcome.

00:32:16    JACK GAINES
I appreciate you doing it to the last second. I'm sure you're getting pinged right and left by folks that want to talk or pull you into panels or want to bring you into testimony.

00:32:21    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
talk or

00:32:23    JACK GAINES
to bring you into testimony.

00:32:24    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
to bring you into testimony. I'm really glad we did this. I'll stay in touch. Let's continue.

00:32:32    JACK GAINES
All right. Well, thanks for your time.

00:32:34    ILYA ZASLAVSKY
Talk soon. Thanks for listening.

00:32:36    JACK GAINES
If you get a chance, please like and subscribe and rate the show on your favorite podcast platform. Also, if you're interested in coming on the show or hosting an episode, email us at capodcasting at gmail .com. And now, most importantly, to those currently out in the field. working with a partner nation's people or leadership to forward U .S. relations. Thank you all for what you're doing. This is Jack, your host. Stay tuned for more great episodes. 1CA Podcast.

165: Part II of the Courtney Mulhern and Dan Joseph interview

Today, Courtney Mulhern interviews Dan Joseph, Author of the Combat Psych website and the book Backpack to Rucksack: Insight Into Leadership and Resilience From Military Experts. 

His articles and tools are to help soldiers and families build mental fitness and overcome past trauma so that they can live healthier / happier lives. 

As you know from Courtney Mulhern's episode, she is a practicing therapist and a terrific interviewer, so I put the two together for this episode.

Dan Joseph's info:

https://combatpsych.com

"Backpack to Rucksack: Insight Into Leadership and Resilience From Military Experts": 
https://www.amazon.com/Backpack-Rucksack-Leadership-Resilience-Military

Website "Combat Psych" where you can find more information about him and the things he's working on: https://www.combatpsych.com

Instagram: @mhen2.mentalhealth

One CA is a product of the civil affairs association 

and brings in people who are current or former military, diplomats, development officers, and field agents to discuss their experiences on the ground with a partner nation's people and leadership.

We aim to inspire anyone interested in working in the "last three feet" of US foreign relations. 

To contact the show, email us at CApodcasting@gmail dot com

or look us up on the Civil Affairs Association website at www civilaffairsassoc.org

Special Thanks to Amr Diab for the song and album "Amarain." 
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6RC2T3Q7rs

---

Transcript for episode I&II

00:00:00    Introduction
Welcome to the 1CA Podcast. This is your host, Jack Gaines. 1CA is a product of the Civil Affairs Association and brings in people who are current or former military, diplomats, development officers, and field agents to discuss their experiences on ground with the partner nation's people and leadership. Our goal is to inspire anyone interested in working the last three feet of foreign relations. Contact the show. Email us at capodcasting@gmail.com. or look us up on the Civil Affairs Association website at www.civilaffairsassoc.org. I'll have those in the show notes. Okay, testing.

00:00:37    COURTNEY MULHURN
Can you hear me, Dan?

00:00:38    DANNY JOSEPH
Yes, loud and clear. Today, Courtney Mulhern interviews Dan Joseph, author of the Combat Psych website and the book Backpack to Rucksack, Insight into Leadership and Resilience for Military Experts. His articles and tools are to help soldiers and their families build mental fitness and overcome past trauma so that they can live healthier, happier lives. As you know from Courtney Mulhern's episode, she's a practicing therapist and a terrific interviewer. So I put the two together for this episode. This is part one of two. I'll have a link to his site in the show notes. So back to Courtney.

00:01:14    COURTNEY MULHURN
Hi, Dan, and welcome to the 1CA podcast.

00:01:17    DANNY JOSEPH
Thanks for having me. Yes,

00:01:18    COURTNEY MULHURN
we've got a lot to talk about today. Looks like you've been very busy with several books out now and still more coming. So I want to talk to you about all of that. But before we get into that, I just want to hear a little bit about your military service.

00:01:33    DANNY JOSEPH
Yeah, I was a combat engineer, training folks to go deploy, and was a platoon leader. Got to spend a lot of time with the Joes out in the field. And it was a short contract. I was only in for three and a half years. And I'm out now, but definitely I'm looking at rejoining in other capacities.

00:01:53    COURTNEY MULHURN
Okay. So kind of moving into your writing process, just kind of curious how you got into writing.

00:02:01    DANNY JOSEPH
So the main crux of it was getting out of the military, trying to fit in society and realizing I was totally different. I changed in a big way that I didn't expect. It was quite subtle, to be honest. And I joined old. I joined at 32. So a lot of my buddies were 18, 19 when I met them. So I had to go through basic training before OCS. And so mental health was a big issue due to COVID. I was in the military during the lockdowns. I had a soldier survive his suicide attempt. Another friend of mine lost 13 men from his unit to suicide after Afghanistan, which is crazy, crazy numbers. I'm shoppable. I need to think about. And so when I got out, I just wanted to make sense of what was going on. What I felt as points of friction with my identity and who I was, I also wanted to apply, because I'm a big nerd, aspects of neurophysiology to the concept of being a leader in the military. What that means in an environment where your sympathetic response and their sympathetic response are constantly triggering on and off due to high intensity, high urgency, combat experience, things of that sort. Working with a lot of combat veterans. I witnessed the weight that they carried. And it just begged the question, how does a military leader stay tactically aggressive and at the same time show consideration and care and love for the men and women who are in their platoon, in their unit, who potentially are struggling with invisible weight? And so it's just one big constellation of variables. There's so many moving parts. So writing was just my way of kind of trying to process all this.

00:03:39    COURTNEY MULHURN
So where does one even start? How do you start to organize the thoughts pen to paper?

00:03:45    DANNY JOSEPH
So my first book was a journal entry that turned into like 400 pages. When I got out, I thought about my soldier, Cody. He wrote the introduction to the book. The foreword was written by Austin, who lost 13 of his men. And I started journaling on what could be done to help those who are hurting and struggling with depression, with suicidality, with difficult feelings. So I started a journal entry about the neurobiology that underlies chronic depression. So it was kind of like this dual process of what does my gut tell me? And then what does the science tell me? And I was trying to make sense of this. And all of a sudden I realized, hey, this is an interesting dualistic process here. So I'm looking at warm, fuzzy feelings. And then I'm looking at hardcore functional MRIs and brain scans and all that. And I wanted to marry the two. And then that turned into multiple pages. And then I thought, well, I could write about another soldier right now that I know. I could write about a Marine that I met and an airman and a Navy rescue swimmer, a Navy EOD. And so I started piecing together kind of this crumb trail of service members who inspired me and touched my life even before I joined the military. And this book came out with a little nuggets of advice that hopefully will help. Incoming leaders, especially junior officers, have a special kind of consideration for the nuanced variables of being a leader.

00:05:14    COURTNEY MULHURN
So then Backpack to Rucksack. So was there anything specific that made you want to focus your thoughts into this book? Or how did this one start?

00:05:27    DANNY JOSEPH
So yeah, this one started as the journal entries. And then I created the Combat Psych Handbook as a boiled down version of it. And I gear it specifically towards men because men tend to have less emotional vocabulary and they're much more inclined if you look at the rates of suicidality and successful suicides. It's way higher. I think it's four to one when it comes to men. And so there's just such a stigma on talking about feelings and discussing things. And so I wanted to give the troops some really, really boiled down lists of thoughts and phrases, self -talk, journal prompts. and just variations on how to describe their feelings, how to understand their feelings, and why it doesn't mean that they're weak because they experience very inconvenient feelings at times. Again, it goes down to the neurocircuitry of the brain. So that was a distilled version of Backpack to Rucksack.

00:06:21    COURTNEY MULHURN
I like how you organize the chapters. So you kind of give keywords at the beginning that will be discussed throughout the chapter with some definitions, and then an introduction, how to be a good... military leader, the psychological application, and then leadership advice?

00:06:38    DANNY JOSEPH
While I was in the Army, during the lockdowns, things got slow, right? A lot of the pipelines were shut down. So Ranger School, Airborne, Aerosol, everything was just on hold. And so I thought, and what do I do in an indefinite amount of time? And I thought, well, Army offers tuition assistance. So I started an online organizational psychology degree. And what I loved about getting a master's in org psych is that There's no necessarily right or wrong answer when you give a prompt to the professor, but you need to back it up with peer -reviewed journal citations. And so I started looking at terms and definitions and ideas and concepts in the world of psychology, but based on peer -reviewed journals. So there's a community of researchers that agree or disagree on certain things. And so I kind of brought that muscle memory into this book. And so I wanted to offer terms that basically provide a sense of objectivity. that I'm not just talking about my feelings and my perspective. Yes, a lot of the book reflects that for sure. But I also wanted to inject some objective truth that regardless of my biases, I wanted to mitigate that as much as possible. So I thought, let me add some of the words, the definitions, let me add some journal citations and give credit to researchers who did the science and then expand on that.

00:07:58    COURTNEY MULHURN
Definitely. And throughout this book, you discuss many of your relationships and with just other service members both peers friends and mentors as a part of your research so what was that like talking to different service men and women and hearing their stories and and just making them a part of this book a lot of these people molded me before i joined and while i was in i had my own issues growing up i had my own experiences and

00:08:20    DANNY JOSEPH
lot of these people molded me before i joined and while i was in i had my own issues growing up i had my own experiences and I was not in a healthy lifestyle before I joined and was asking myself existentially who I want to be in this world. I started meeting service members. I met some awesome Navy SEALs here at San Diego, started working out with them. I started meeting EODs who were coming back and forth from multiple deployments back to back in Afghanistan. I started having these conversations with people who were my demographic, my age range and all that, but they were doing some things in their lives that I just couldn't even wrap my head around. I saw their self -discipline. I saw their humility. I saw how focused they were and that they weren't doing horrible things with their lives like me and my friends were doing. And that rubbed off on me. I wanted to emulate that. And so this book is kind of a journey through all the different people who mentored me through the way they behaved, just observing them and seeing the qualities that they had. And yeah, I didn't have a great relationship with my father. And so especially for me, meeting male mentors was really cool to just understand what healthy masculinity looked like. And jujitsu played a big role in that as well. Getting me to just break my own ego or having black belts on the mats break my ego for me and allow me to reconstruct it in a healthy way. Just knock down my pride. I needed that. And then some of my sisters in arms showed me kind of their side of it too, what it was like being in the military with certain issues that they were facing. It was a family, you know, and so we all kind of bonded together. It was just cool identifying as service members wanting to strengthen America. And that was the overarching relationship that we had with each other. And anything else that we brought to the table, regardless of race, gender, any ideologies that we had, we just together in uniform, you know, we all needed to work together and that was it.

00:10:25    COURTNEY MULHURN
Absolutely. So how were you able to network across different branches and ranks? Like if there are units out there, you know, it's important. We're all brothers and sisters in this. So how would you suggest to network with each other?

00:10:40    DANNY JOSEPH
One big thing was jujitsu gyms. I guess fight houses. So if you do MMA, jujitsu, Muay Thai, things of that sort, you know, CrossFit, go to a gym where you meet people with uniforms, right? So you meet. all these different service members who are driven, who are motivated, who are making healthy decisions with their minds, their bodies. And that's a way to connect. I met a lot through like groups groups and men's groups and things like that, where I was intentionally seeking mentorship and just kind of spiritual guiding as well. And then honestly, just having, having conversations with people from whether you go to MEPS and you're joining, you just talk to the people left or right of you, or if you're at a D shock at a dining facility, I mean, Having that openness to just talk to people like they're people, regardless of rig. And I noticed that just the more relaxed someone is in approaching others in uniform, you allow them to relax as well. And you can have these awesome discussions. And one thing that was so cool was I'd be working with a soldier, let's say a senior NCO, who's fairly reserved. And then I would just ask them a question. Hey, so how long have you been in? Where have you deployed? what's your take on things going on right now and we would talk about what they experienced in combat like things would come up that they'd want to share voluntarily it was just so cool to know that they did these things for our country and they weren't looking for the limelight or anything by just validating that and asking them to share some wisdom you know i'm a new officer tell me something that i don't know that you know that you learned in war that you wanted them and you just see them light up And say, yeah, you know what, when it comes to this, this should be your focus. So these are your priorities. This is how you care for people. And then it would just blossom into these discussions where you realize you're talking to the smartest person in the room and they're also the quietest. They're the most reserved. I love that. You know, I'm just naturally curious about people's inner world and what makes them tick. I love that because in the military, it's so easy to look at somebody as rank or just see what tabs they have. But when you really get to know them. And you know the sacrifice that they've experienced or the childhood they experienced. That was huge too. So I'd have soldiers in my platoon who grew up in ghettos in Chicago. And it was common that people, young teenagers, had to carry weapons on them just to make it to school. Knock it, mom. They come to work. They can shave in. They got things together. It's all good, right? Then you find out what they're going to go home to on the holidays or the stuff that they're struggling with or the stuff their families go going through that they've escaped because they joined the military. These are all sorts of things that just really make your culture in the military so rich, but it often goes unappreciated and unknown.

00:13:25    COURTNEY MULHURN
Yeah. And we're more than just the job or whatever we're called to do. And everyone's got a story to tell. So I think that's great to stay curious and find that common activity or whatever, just to kind of engage in conversations with each other. I think that's really important. So I'm glad that you highlight that in the book. At different times in your life, in different situations, sometimes you needed compassion to kind of get you through it. Other times you needed a bit of a tough love approach. And I think it's kind of just in regards to leadership. It kind of shows that not one size fits all. You can't be just tough love the entire time for that specific person. And I think that was just kind of my takeaway that we just have to stay authentic to who we are and stay consistent in that and for whoever we're leading. So I just thought that was great that you took different things from different people, different leadership styles.

00:14:18    DANNY JOSEPH
Yeah, it's just frustrating. It's frustrating when somebody doesn't put any effort to kind of customize their approach to different people, unless they be inauthentic or necessarily shift too much in how you address people. But just understanding that everyone has different motivations, whether it's intrinsic motivational factors and extrinsic motivational factors, and knowing how to inspire people is... It's tough to do. It takes a little bit of thought. In psychology, they talk about a transformational leader versus a transactional leader. And transformational leaders, they reach inside somebody and pull something out. Or at least they enable that concept within them. And it's really, really inspiring to see that. Because you're not forcing someone to do the job. They're genuinely fired up about it. And then transactional leadership is, you will do the job, and then I will pay you to the job, and that's it. But there's a time and place for all this stuff. And leadership in itself is complicated enough. Just being a manager at a company is complicated enough, let alone an environment where things can become lethal very quickly. This stuff is not to be taken lightly.

00:15:22    COURTNEY MULHURN
And so how do leaders motivate others to dig deeper into that mental toughness and resilience? Like what should we be doing now and how to motivate people that just aren't quite there yet?

00:15:36    DANNY JOSEPH
So just from what I experienced with the soldiers in my platoon, and this is like such a prickly discussion to have, but giving autonomy to soldiers within reason is great to get them motivated. A lot of these folks are moms and dads by the time they join, even though they're so young, you know, you look at them and they're married, they've got families that they're running. So when they take a job in the military, they don't want to feel like they're being treated as children. And so to let them know, I will give you adult responsibility. I'll treat you like an adult until you prove otherwise. And I'll give them those left to right limits and grant them that autonomy to go execute. And that really motivates them. I'd ask them, what are your hobbies? What are your interests? What are your goals after the military? Whether it's in a year, whether it's in a couple of decades. And then just letting them know there's tuition assistance. There's an educational center. There's ways to start investing in yourself. as a human being outside of uniform. And they love that stuff because that proves that I'm looking at them as more than just a soldier doing a soldier's job in a very specific capacity. And by the way, the healthier that somebody is holistically, they're going to be healthier in uniform. So if we work on their resilience, if we work on their self -care, self -enrichment, education, their knowledge, it's going to translate at work. They're going to be more present. There'll be less safety issues. There'll be less mistakes. There'll be more rested. And when the op tempo gets insane, there'll be more recharged for those aspects as well. It'll avoid burnout. Again, looking at the neurochemistry of the brain, the more we tax these service members, our service members, the less resources they have cognitively to function. So yes, tough love does work, but it needs to be followed with rest. It needs to be followed with self -care. There has to be a regenerative aspect to that where they can recharge their battery and whatever tough love we experience. Like for me, if I get pummeled in jujitsu on the mats, I get absolutely crushed by my training partner. I get to go home and rest and then come back to the mats healthy to get crushed again. But if I get crushed back to back, get that tough love on the mats back to back, I will get injured. The inflammation is going to accumulate and I'll be injured. And then guess what? I can't train for six months. So that's what I want to see more than military self -care and letting people have not necessarily just downtime, but there's various ways to throttle down the stress. And that's to promote longevity, by the way.

00:18:08    COURTNEY MULHURN
Right. And I think it kind of goes along the lines of getting to know your soldier too, because everyone's going to obviously have different needs. But if you just get to know them and directly ask them what works well for you and what do you need? I think that. really probably goes a long way as well.

00:18:26    DANNY JOSEPH
Yep. I know there's a time and place where we have to simulate war. Right. Right. And so we can't ask that because it's not applicable in that scenario. But letting them know that is awesome. Again, identifying that, just labeling that lets them know, well, there will be an end to this. Deployments last so long. War lasts so long. And to just remind them that things are going to suck for a period. It's going to be tough. But that doesn't mean that we have to stop looking at our future goals. Because once you lose hope, things get dark pretty fast. And that's where mental health issues really become aggravated. But to let the soldiers know, and this isn't permanent, there will be a point where you are going to get rest. You are going to get downtime. You are going to get vacation days, whatever it is. And help them plan for that. And help them feel supported in the relationships around them. And that's what we do best in the military. When we're in an austere training environment. When we have to embrace the suck, we do it together. So it galvanizes our relationships as brothers and sisters in arms. And so to foster those type of discussions is huge. To put the focus on that. But some leaders won't do that. I've witnessed it where some leaders just focus on how hard things are going to be and how terrible things are going to be. End of discussion. But then you see these leaders who acknowledge, hey, this is tough. But guess what? Look out for those next to you. Because... We are all we have in this environment. And those are really inspiring briefs to get because it reminds us why we signed that contract. But a lot of that has to do with that trickle -down effect from the Canadian climate.

00:20:02    DANNY JOSEPH
That's the end of part one. We'll see you next week for part two of Courtney Mulhern and Dan Joseph. Thanks for listening. If you get a chance, please like and subscribe and read the show on your favorite podcast platform. Also, if you're interested in coming on the show or hosting an episode, Email us at capodcasting@gmail.com. And now, most importantly, to those currently out in the field, working with a partner nation's people or leadership to forward U .S. relations, thank you all for what you're doing. This is Jack, your host. Stay tuned for more great episodes, One CA Podcast.

 

00:00:00    DANNY JOSEPH

Welcome to the 1CA Podcast. This is your host, Jack Gaines. 1CA is a product of the Civil Affairs Association and brings in people who are current or former military, diplomats, development officers, and field agents to discuss their experiences on ground with the partner nation's people and leadership. Our goal is to inspire anyone interested in working the last three feet of foreign relations. Contact the show. Email us at capodcasting@gmail.com. Or look us up on the Civil Affairs Association website at www .civilaffairsassos .org. I'll have those in the show notes.

 

00:00:35    DANNY JOSEPH

Today, Courtney Mulhern interviews Dan Joseph, author of the Combat Psych website and the book Backpack to Rucksack, Insight into Leadership and Resilience for Military Experts. His articles and tools are to help soldiers and their families build mental fitness and overcome past trauma so that they can live healthier, happier lives. As you know from Courtney Mulhern's episode, she's a practicing therapist and a terrific interviewer. So I put the two together for this episode. This is part two. I'll have a link to his site in the show notes. So back to Courtney.

 

00:01:10    DANNY JOSEPH

Talks like that from your leadership alleviates some of that stress and anxiety put on maybe some younger folks that don't have super high resiliency quite yet because they're younger and they're still working on it. So to hear that from leaders, I think that's really great. And that kind of goes in line with your next book, The Combat Psych Handbook. It's a bit less narrative, and it has just more practical examples, evoking more dialogue. Tell us a little bit more about your thoughts behind writing this handbook.

 

00:01:39    COURTNEY MULHURN

Yeah, so Tammy Pulaski wrote the foreword to the book. It's dedicated to her son, Jeremiah. Essentially, what Tammy said was, if she had known how to describe his feelings, maybe he'd still be alive today. I asked her to write the foreword to the book because what he experienced after war, not understanding how to process the weight that he felt. But there was a lot of what my soldiers still struggle with, even necessarily just from war, from a variety of issues, but how much more so for the service members who have been in war. And so I wanted to give a very quick, streamlined approach. Almost like a break glass in case of emergency type words. Hey, I got the stuff that's stuck inside of me. I don't know what it is. So they could flip through the chapters. And it's supposed to be like a kind of a diagnostic. Like, hey, what are you struggling with? Look at the chapters. They're actually alphabetical A through Z. It's like the first chapters about anxiety, aggression, avoidance, assertion. There's specific prompts that deal with how the brain is processing any one of these circumstances. And I specifically wanted to give these troops the phrases that they may not even know are occurring within their minds subconsciously. Because in psychology, there's something called the aha moment. And you can't fabricate that. It's a resolution to cognitive dissonance. It's internal conflict that exists that we try to self -medicate. Once you realize the truth of what's causing that, it's this instantaneous kind of release of pressure. Just this big breath of like, oh, that's what it was, right? That's what I was struggling with. It's because this person said this and it reminded me of when this other person said that. All these different subconscious variables. And so all this to say, again, thinking about Jeremiah's story, how we lost him as a soldier and his mom is now a gold star mom. It's just heartbreaking. And so I want to help shatter that paradigm. and let them know your feelings are valid, your feelings have a neurological basis, they are worth looking at. And it's something that I struggled with personally, to be totally transparent with you. When I was self -medicating, I didn't know the trauma experience. Jiu -jitsu brought it out of me. I started having flashbacks on the mats. I started having panic attacks. I started having the freeze response, the flight response. Technical words inside of my head telling me I'm worthless and that things got really dark. Self -medication was all I could do to numb myself out. And then I realized how powerful psychology was in understanding all this. And again, when we look at the military, look at how much care we put into our vehicles and the weapon systems just to keep things going. So let's do some brain maintenance.

 

00:04:37    DANNY JOSEPH

Yeah, absolutely. I see a lot of topics in this handbook, the A to Z, but are not typically fun. Words associated with like shame or depression or fear and ego, it doesn't elicit a very comfortable response when you think about these words. But I also think that's the point. Words do have that stigma or feelings associated with them. But I think if we normalize these topics and make them more comfortable, the more we talk about them, we can find the words like you were saying to what these look like. I think that's a takeaway is to just get more comfortable with really heavy topics if we want to move forward within ourselves and the military.

 

00:05:24    COURTNEY MULHURN

Definitely. You know, I was talking to one of my soldiers from my platoon about how a lot of people were self -medicating. That's alcohol consumption for one thing. I like to ask the question, what are you drinking? And there's a reason behind it. And oftentimes, unfortunately, we don't know. People don't understand. I mean, I'm tense. I'm stressed. And so I got to decompress. Plopting into the specifics, let's ask the whys. What's stressing them out? Why is it an issue? Why the volatility? And oftentimes what we experience in present day reaches back to a past experience that we had.

 

00:05:59    COURTNEY MULHURN

That's not something most people will just voluntarily want to do. And I understand that. But again, this book is... Free on the website. The entire PDF is totally free because I want them to have a resource to flip through and start to work on things. Because what's cool about the brain, if you look at it as sort of a selective algorithm, something is going to pop out viscerally. They'll have a reaction to it. So a word or phrase like shame or fear or maladaptive behaviors or whatever it is, depending on their linguistic strengths or whatnot. I want to create a book where they can guide themselves through their feelings as much as possible. And especially because not a lot of service members want to go to behavioral health. Not a lot of combat veterans want to disclose to psychologists things that they experience. And I know that firsthand through people have told me that there's things they wanted to discuss that they've never shared with anybody. And if you get critical,

 

00:07:02    COURTNEY MULHURN

you get critical, if they have a flashback or if they fall into a depressive cycle, they will need professional help. At least let's get them open to that privately. So if they read a book like this privately, and they acknowledge, yep, I've got some issues, my marriage is falling apart, I'm doing this to my spouse, I'm talking like this to my children, or this is the phrase that always pops in my head when I look at my reflection in the mirror, then give them those words, and then maybe they could begin to seek counsel to work on themselves.

 

00:07:31    DANNY JOSEPH

Yeah, and I was even thinking, I just have really good practical examples on here that would do really well in small group discussions. I was thinking on a drill weekend for us in the reserve, facilitating some of these discussions. This is just a really great resource to have. I am a social worker on the civilian side and just a big fan of small group settings, big fan of AA, NA. I just think there's a huge power in a group and sharing on a topic that's not normally discussed in normal conversation. So I think just facilitating discussions as a leader, I think is really important. And this is just a great resource to have.

 

00:08:07    COURTNEY MULHURN

Thanks. That's kind of the dream that I have is just seeing these discussions happen. And again, it's not about the right or wrong answer here. It's about the talks.

 

00:08:18    DANNY JOSEPH

Yeah. And I think it's about the process too. It's not just the right answer or it's not like a one answer will solve everything. It's the process. And like you said, A word might stick out and somebody might relate to that and be willing to share. And that might speak to another person in the group. So big fan of that. And then moving on to your third book, The Black Belt Mindset, Mastering Anxiety Through the Power of Breath. What was the inspiration behind this book?

 

00:08:43    COURTNEY MULHURN

So when I was in the Army working on my master's degree, I was prompted by one of the professors to basically structure a psychology study. And not actually do the study, not conduct it, but just structure one. So I chose jujitsu and anxiety management because, again, I have the flashbacks and all my issues on the mats and jujitsu. So I was like, let me study the psychology of what martial arts does to the human brain. And that blew up into a 32 black belt study that I just asked about sports and how psychology is impacted by anxiety and what they experience physiologically, how they need breath control or don't use breath control. So I studied the black belts who analyze threats in a way different way. It's so different than what a normal human would look at a threat. So you grab the throat of a black belt. They're not looking at it as, oh my gosh, I'm in trouble. The black belt will look at a hand approaching their throat as points of leverage, points of distance, and modifying somebody's face and their center of gravity in order to throw them. bend their arm a certain way to either break it or to get past that. And so they are able to appraise the situation differently. And therefore, they're able to self -regulate and they're able to self -seed. They're able to down -regulate their limbic response, their amygdala. They're able to trigger a calm,

 

00:10:09    COURTNEY MULHURN

a sense of calm amidst chaos. So this book goes through kind of my interview process, what these black belts told me about what they experienced. psychologically and emotionally, and just lessons learned that I wanted to apply.

 

00:10:22    DANNY JOSEPH

So how would you say Jiu -Jitsu is beneficial to service members, or what are some parallels that go alongside having a discipline like that as it relates to leadership in the military? So it goes back to one story I learned in OCS.

 

00:10:36    COURTNEY MULHURN

goes back to one story I learned in OCS. We heard this story from an EOD, and he told us how there was an IED that exploded and took out multiple vehicles. There were some service members who were injured, and some of them were dying, and the medic rushed to the scene, and in front of this EOD, who was attempting to minimize any further casualties, the medic began to panic. And when the medic started to panic, the soldiers were looking at the medic, and they were starting to panic. So this EOD ran up to the medic, grabbed him, and said, listen, you need to take a breath, you need to calm down, and you need to try to save these people. Do your job, you know what to do. But he said, everyone's looking at you. If you freak out, everyone's going to freak out. So I need you to be here right now and do what you can. And right then the medic got back to the present moment and began to execute and save lives. And so EOD told us as junior officers to understand that both calm is contagious and panic as well. So be the person who induces a sense of calm in the unit. Now in jujitsu, when I'm getting choked out or I'm getting smothered, by one of the upper belt men and they're just absolutely crushing me. If I begin to panic, I will hyperventilate and I will lack the ability to survive that round. The more I breathe chaotically, the less air I'm taking in efficiently. My diaphragm isn't getting activated. Everything is on the upper chest. I'm not getting oxygen in my blood because I'm getting smothered. And so what I'm taught by my coaches, my instructors on the mats is to just slow down that breath rate. diaphragmatic breathing, calm down, and then that'll switch on my prefrontal cortex. The science shows this in the functional MRIs and whatnot. When the prefrontal cortex switches back on, I will jump back into a higher brain functioning where I can think about the sequence of moves that I need to execute to change the situation. What variables can I control? What can I do with my body to defend myself and to work to move? and to stay oxygenated so I don't pass out or black out or get choked out or whatever the issue is. And the more I can calm myself down on the mats, the more I can calm myself down in traffic. Or when as a platoon leader, I'm in the field and a vehicle breaks down and it's 125 degrees and everyone's freaking out because we're not making it to the grid corner that we need to be at. Take that breath, calm myself down, and then the troops around me will see that and they calm down. If I'm freaking out and I'm anxious, well, my sparring partner is going to feel that. My soldiers are going to feel that. And so this is philosophical wisdom that applies to your whole life.

 

00:13:16    DANNY JOSEPH

It sounds just like a different level of awareness, too. You talk a lot about self -awareness, and you basically have to be in that scenario. You talk a lot about mindfulness in terms of mental health and resilience, and you have to be in the moment if you're actively engaging with somebody. I definitely see that benefit to jujitsu. So where would someone even start?

 

00:13:42    COURTNEY MULHURN

Some people could just walk into a gym and start sparring and they're good to go. For me, it was a very awkward start with a friend of mine from high school who graciously brought me to his gym after hours and helped me get through the fear and trepidation there. And then that tribal family grew out of that. But yeah, starting with breath control, starting with yoga, starting with... whatever it is to kind of gain presence in the body. And it really depends on what people have experienced. There needs to be a special consideration for a very close -knit, trusted group around you. And you just tell people, hey, you know what? I got some weird physiological responses. I got a free response that I'm trying to get through. Can you help me on the mat? So then you find a coach or somebody that says, yes, I will. I will talk to you about your breath awareness. I will remind you to breathe. Literally, I don't have training orders. They'll be like, hey, buddy, I need you to breathe. You got to remember to breathe. And I'm like, oh, okay, that's why I was panicking. But again, when somebody suffers abuse at a younger age, they go into a rage and freeze response because they can escape the situation. And same with combat. We're talking about veterans at PTS, and they get on the mats, and they go through a flashback on the mats. It's going to get weird for them to ask. but to let them know we can discuss it, we can talk about it. I'd say fighting coaches and combat veteran. That really helped me a lot. I rolled with several combat vets. So there was nothing that I would bring to the table that would surprise them. They've been through it, they've worked through it, they've battled through it. And I would love to see each other grew because of that. That was the biggest game changer for me.

 

00:15:19    DANNY JOSEPH

It's really powerful that, like you mentioned, with your trauma, To use something positive to address it head on and take yourself back to a vulnerable spot, but in a safe environment with people you trust and respect, I think that's really powerful to heal.

 

00:15:38    COURTNEY MULHURN

Yeah, it's called exposure therapy. And it's very important to throttle it accordingly. Because I overdid it at times and got into panic attacks because I didn't know what it was. Once I found out what it was, I could tell my buddies. Different dudes that I got to roll with where I got to tell them, hey, man, I got some stuff going on. Can you be aware for me? They said, yes, we'll keep an eye on you. Whether you're sparring with us or if you're sparring with someone else, if we see something wrong, we'll help you out. We'll be there for you. And that was so cool. You know, I paid for therapy before. I've seen a therapist. But then when you get on the mats with someone, therapists can't just start putting me in a rear naked choke, right? Therapist can't do that to me. But one of my buddies can. And they can also talk to me about my breath. They can also ask me about what I'm feeling.

 

00:16:24    DANNY JOSEPH

Are there women in jujitsu too? Is that common or is that? I don't know. At my gym,

 

00:16:29    COURTNEY MULHURN

my gym, there's an all -female class. They've experienced any sort of abuse, physical, sexual abuse, whatever trauma it is that they do not want a male around them in that capacity. There's an all -women's class, which is cool. So they're protected there. They're on a whole different mat. But then we do have mixed -gender classes where obviously any woman can jump on the mat and roll with us. And again, different people have different boundaries. And so there's that awareness that some feel totally comfortable getting after it and getting aggressive, and that's fine. It could be someone who are training for MMA. So like for myself, I didn't like getting hit. If we're talking about combat jiu -jitsu, if we're talking MMA. But I guess the point is having emotional intelligence enough to ask people what they're okay with or just reading the room. But yeah, our gym definitely has... a very large female -to -male ratio, maybe more so than other gyps. Okay.

 

00:17:22    DANNY JOSEPH

Because I got to say, I don't know some of these names you're using. I don't know what they are, but they don't sound very fun or, you know, I don't get choked out or anything.

 

00:17:33    COURTNEY MULHURN

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The big thing that I would say to anybody joining jiu -jitsu is be vocal about what you're comfortable with and what you're not comfortable with. It's okay to have boundaries on the mats.

 

00:17:45    DANNY JOSEPH

Definitely. And then if you're not super into that even, just kind of, you discussed in your book, just basic breath work will just be important. That's something you can do anywhere, anytime. It's just so important to work on the breath, as we know.

 

00:17:59    COURTNEY MULHURN

Definitely. Diaphragmatic breathing is, man, just like conscious breath effort. It's weird. It's awkward at times. It's difficult for a lot of us because we're so used to just being on autopilot. And then to say like, wait a minute, how do I put my breath in my stomach and not in my upper chest? Because once you do that, it activates the parasympathetic response. It activates down regulation of adrenaline. Like the adrenal glands actually secrete less adrenaline when you do that. And so what happens is you automatically start to become aware of different things, different tension in your body, pressure,

 

00:18:39    COURTNEY MULHURN

pain, discomfort, fatigue. We're good things. Happy things can come out too. It's not all dark and heavy, but it's just interesting how we're so caught up in our social media traffic, getting from point A to B, looking a certain way, having whatever it is in our life. And then you breathe and you slow things down. Your brain can then go into this kind of self -diagnostic mode where you just begin to naturally scan your body and you begin to feel grounded in the present. But if there's stuff that makes you uncomfortable, it's going to come up as well.

 

00:19:12    DANNY JOSEPH

Mm -hmm. Definitely. Okay, so you've got two books coming up here, Bridging Worlds and Motor Mind. Do you want to share a little bit about those books?

 

00:19:24    COURTNEY MULHURN

Yeah, so the Motor Mind one is creating analogies about the human brain in terms of a vehicle's engine. So it's supposed to discuss the neurosurgery of the brain in terms of the mechanics of the mind. That's kind of the concept there. So it should be a fun read that allows people to look at the brain not as just relational, not as just touchy feelings. So what's the science say about the neurocircuits and the components of the brain? And then Bridging World is about my story growing up in America as a first -generation child of Middle Eastern immigrants. So it has to do with shame, honor -based cultures and how they differentiate from guilt -based cultures. So an Eastern versus Western. kind of conflict of ideologies and how to navigate that.

 

00:20:13    DANNY JOSEPH

Very cool. Those sound like great reads. You have a diversified repertoire in your writing, so that's really, really cool. And then your website. So combatpsych .com. Very nicely done website. It has all your work on there. Other resources and tools. You've got downloads. which I think kind of just back to a small group, a lot of these are just really great discussion group resources that one can just have with maybe on a drill weekend or something just to kind of get that conversation going. So really great website there and links to your books.

 

00:20:57    COURTNEY MULHURN

Yeah, thanks for saying that. I appreciate the kind words. Yeah, it's all free for the most part. Books you can buy on Amazon or they can download a couple of them for free. on the website. But yeah, it's free stuff. So just grab it, grab whatever you want, use whatever you want. I paid a lot out of pocket for therapy, for a master's, for all that stuff. And I don't want other people to have to pay for it just because I don't want there to be a pain wall between a soldier not living their best life. So whatever you can use, whatever speaks to you and definitely use it. And I hope it helps. I'm going to upload self -assessment diagnostic in the next few days as well as a PDF. I just want to offer whatever tools that I got in life that carried me forward. I want soldiers especially to have that in anybody else.

 

00:21:42    DANNY JOSEPH

Yeah. And just overall resilience. That's what we want. We want to move forward. We want to grow as people and as military members. So CombatPsych .com for good resources there. And then what's next for you?

 

00:21:54    COURTNEY MULHURN

Definitely have those books I want to finish and a few more I'm building out the framework for. I will be working with the government on a new job pretty soon. Tuts. protecting our country i'm really proud of that but i'm motivated by the troops that i'm meeting and the folks especially here in san diego some of my good friends are just doing some amazing things i'm meeting some young guys in the buds pipeline or inspiring me they remind me of my soldiers in jiu -jitsu i'm just surrounded by a lot of a lot of veterans and you know just the community is so inspirational to me Again, I thought when I got out, I just go back into society and Charlie Mike, like I did before I joined. But now that I'm out, there's just something so near and dear to my heart when I can hang out with service members and veterans and whatnot. And so I just want to build a life working alongside them and also giving them tools and helping them become better.

 

00:22:46    DANNY JOSEPH

Awesome. Awesome. All right. Well, thank you for being here and for sharing your work and your thoughts. Very important topics. Just good to get these conversations going. It's important to keep up with our mental health and resilience in the military. And did you have any other final thoughts?

 

00:23:04    COURTNEY MULHURN

Again, I got this from J .P. Lane, who's a really amazing combat veteran. That you're worth it. He'd always say that to people, and I loved it. I love it how he says that. And I would say that to anybody who feels like they're struggling, who feels like they're stuck, you're worth self -enrichment, you're worth becoming your best self. Because the stronger you become as an individual, the stronger your unit will be. So invest in that. Whatever it is, look for those resources and tools. Go to my website. Go to other websites. Read books and grow yourself.

 

00:23:35    DANNY JOSEPH

All righty. Well, thank you for your time, Dan. Appreciate it.

 

00:23:39    Close

Thanks for listening. If you get a chance, please like and subscribe and read the show on your favorite podcast platform. Also, if you're interested in coming on the show or hosting an episode, email us at capodcasting@gmail.com. And now, most importantly, to those currently out in the field, working with a partner nation's people or leadership to forward U .S. relations, thank you all for what you're doing. This is Jack, your host. Stay tuned for more great episodes, 1CA Podcast.

164: Part I, Courtney Mulhern and Dan Joseph on the book "Backpack to Rucksack"

Today, Courtney Mulhern interviews Dan Joseph, Author of the Combat Psych website and the book Backpack to Rucksack: Insight Into Leadership and Resilience From Military Experts. 

His articles and tools are to help soldiers and families build mental fitness and overcome past trauma so that they can live healthier / happier lives. 

As you know from Courtney Mulhern's episode, she is a practicing therapist and a terrific interviewer, so I put the two together for this episode.

Dan Joseph's info:

https://combatpsych.com

"Backpack to Rucksack: Insight Into Leadership and Resilience From Military Experts": 
https://www.amazon.com/Backpack-Rucksack-Leadership-Resilience-Military

Website "Combat Psych" where you can find more information about him and the things he's working on: https://www.combatpsych.com

Instagram: @mhen2.mentalhealth

One CA is a product of the civil affairs association 

and brings in people who are current or former military, diplomats, development officers, and field agents to discuss their experiences on the ground with a partner nation's people and leadership.

We aim to inspire anyone interested in working in the "last three feet" of US foreign relations. 

To contact the show, email us at CApodcasting@gmail dot com

or look us up on the Civil Affairs Association website at www civilaffairsassoc.org

Special Thanks to Amr Diab for the song and album "Amarain." 
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6RC2T3Q7rs

---

Transcript for Episode I&II

00:00:00    Introduction
Welcome to the 1CA Podcast. This is your host, Jack Gaines. 1CA is a product of the Civil Affairs Association and brings in people who are current or former military, diplomats, development officers, and field agents to discuss their experiences on ground with the partner nation's people and leadership. Our goal is to inspire anyone interested in working the last three feet of foreign relations. Contact the show. Email us at capodcasting@gmail.com. or look us up on the Civil Affairs Association website at www.civilaffairsassoc.org. I'll have those in the show notes. Okay, testing.

00:00:37    COURTNEY MULHURN
Can you hear me, Dan?

00:00:38    DANNY JOSEPH
Yes, loud and clear. Today, Courtney Mulhern interviews Dan Joseph, author of the Combat Psych website and the book Backpack to Rucksack, Insight into Leadership and Resilience for Military Experts. His articles and tools are to help soldiers and their families build mental fitness and overcome past trauma so that they can live healthier, happier lives. As you know from Courtney Mulhern's episode, she's a practicing therapist and a terrific interviewer. So I put the two together for this episode. This is part one of two. I'll have a link to his site in the show notes. So back to Courtney.

00:01:14    COURTNEY MULHURN
Hi, Dan, and welcome to the 1CA podcast.

00:01:17    DANNY JOSEPH
Thanks for having me. Yes,

00:01:18    COURTNEY MULHURN
we've got a lot to talk about today. Looks like you've been very busy with several books out now and still more coming. So I want to talk to you about all of that. But before we get into that, I just want to hear a little bit about your military service.

00:01:33    DANNY JOSEPH
Yeah, I was a combat engineer, training folks to go deploy, and was a platoon leader. Got to spend a lot of time with the Joes out in the field. And it was a short contract. I was only in for three and a half years. And I'm out now, but definitely I'm looking at rejoining in other capacities.

00:01:53    COURTNEY MULHURN
Okay. So kind of moving into your writing process, just kind of curious how you got into writing.

00:02:01    DANNY JOSEPH
So the main crux of it was getting out of the military, trying to fit in society and realizing I was totally different. I changed in a big way that I didn't expect. It was quite subtle, to be honest. And I joined old. I joined at 32. So a lot of my buddies were 18, 19 when I met them. So I had to go through basic training before OCS. And so mental health was a big issue due to COVID. I was in the military during the lockdowns. I had a soldier survive his suicide attempt. Another friend of mine lost 13 men from his unit to suicide after Afghanistan, which is crazy, crazy numbers. I'm shoppable. I need to think about. And so when I got out, I just wanted to make sense of what was going on. What I felt as points of friction with my identity and who I was, I also wanted to apply, because I'm a big nerd, aspects of neurophysiology to the concept of being a leader in the military. What that means in an environment where your sympathetic response and their sympathetic response are constantly triggering on and off due to high intensity, high urgency, combat experience, things of that sort. Working with a lot of combat veterans. I witnessed the weight that they carried. And it just begged the question, how does a military leader stay tactically aggressive and at the same time show consideration and care and love for the men and women who are in their platoon, in their unit, who potentially are struggling with invisible weight? And so it's just one big constellation of variables. There's so many moving parts. So writing was just my way of kind of trying to process all this.

00:03:39    COURTNEY MULHURN
So where does one even start? How do you start to organize the thoughts pen to paper?

00:03:45    DANNY JOSEPH
So my first book was a journal entry that turned into like 400 pages. When I got out, I thought about my soldier, Cody. He wrote the introduction to the book. The foreword was written by Austin, who lost 13 of his men. And I started journaling on what could be done to help those who are hurting and struggling with depression, with suicidality, with difficult feelings. So I started a journal entry about the neurobiology that underlies chronic depression. So it was kind of like this dual process of what does my gut tell me? And then what does the science tell me? And I was trying to make sense of this. And all of a sudden I realized, hey, this is an interesting dualistic process here. So I'm looking at warm, fuzzy feelings. And then I'm looking at hardcore functional MRIs and brain scans and all that. And I wanted to marry the two. And then that turned into multiple pages. And then I thought, well, I could write about another soldier right now that I know. I could write about a Marine that I met and an airman and a Navy rescue swimmer, a Navy EOD. And so I started piecing together kind of this crumb trail of service members who inspired me and touched my life even before I joined the military. And this book came out with a little nuggets of advice that hopefully will help. Incoming leaders, especially junior officers, have a special kind of consideration for the nuanced variables of being a leader.

00:05:14    COURTNEY MULHURN
So then Backpack to Rucksack. So was there anything specific that made you want to focus your thoughts into this book? Or how did this one start?

00:05:27    DANNY JOSEPH
So yeah, this one started as the journal entries. And then I created the Combat Psych Handbook as a boiled down version of it. And I gear it specifically towards men because men tend to have less emotional vocabulary and they're much more inclined if you look at the rates of suicidality and successful suicides. It's way higher. I think it's four to one when it comes to men. And so there's just such a stigma on talking about feelings and discussing things. And so I wanted to give the troops some really, really boiled down lists of thoughts and phrases, self -talk, journal prompts. and just variations on how to describe their feelings, how to understand their feelings, and why it doesn't mean that they're weak because they experience very inconvenient feelings at times. Again, it goes down to the neurocircuitry of the brain. So that was a distilled version of Backpack to Rucksack.

00:06:21    COURTNEY MULHURN
I like how you organize the chapters. So you kind of give keywords at the beginning that will be discussed throughout the chapter with some definitions, and then an introduction, how to be a good... military leader, the psychological application, and then leadership advice?

00:06:38    DANNY JOSEPH
While I was in the Army, during the lockdowns, things got slow, right? A lot of the pipelines were shut down. So Ranger School, Airborne, Aerosol, everything was just on hold. And so I thought, and what do I do in an indefinite amount of time? And I thought, well, Army offers tuition assistance. So I started an online organizational psychology degree. And what I loved about getting a master's in org psych is that There's no necessarily right or wrong answer when you give a prompt to the professor, but you need to back it up with peer -reviewed journal citations. And so I started looking at terms and definitions and ideas and concepts in the world of psychology, but based on peer -reviewed journals. So there's a community of researchers that agree or disagree on certain things. And so I kind of brought that muscle memory into this book. And so I wanted to offer terms that basically provide a sense of objectivity. that I'm not just talking about my feelings and my perspective. Yes, a lot of the book reflects that for sure. But I also wanted to inject some objective truth that regardless of my biases, I wanted to mitigate that as much as possible. So I thought, let me add some of the words, the definitions, let me add some journal citations and give credit to researchers who did the science and then expand on that.

00:07:58    COURTNEY MULHURN
Definitely. And throughout this book, you discuss many of your relationships and with just other service members both peers friends and mentors as a part of your research so what was that like talking to different service men and women and hearing their stories and and just making them a part of this book a lot of these people molded me before i joined and while i was in i had my own issues growing up i had my own experiences and

00:08:20    DANNY JOSEPH
lot of these people molded me before i joined and while i was in i had my own issues growing up i had my own experiences and I was not in a healthy lifestyle before I joined and was asking myself existentially who I want to be in this world. I started meeting service members. I met some awesome Navy SEALs here at San Diego, started working out with them. I started meeting EODs who were coming back and forth from multiple deployments back to back in Afghanistan. I started having these conversations with people who were my demographic, my age range and all that, but they were doing some things in their lives that I just couldn't even wrap my head around. I saw their self -discipline. I saw their humility. I saw how focused they were and that they weren't doing horrible things with their lives like me and my friends were doing. And that rubbed off on me. I wanted to emulate that. And so this book is kind of a journey through all the different people who mentored me through the way they behaved, just observing them and seeing the qualities that they had. And yeah, I didn't have a great relationship with my father. And so especially for me, meeting male mentors was really cool to just understand what healthy masculinity looked like. And jujitsu played a big role in that as well. Getting me to just break my own ego or having black belts on the mats break my ego for me and allow me to reconstruct it in a healthy way. Just knock down my pride. I needed that. And then some of my sisters in arms showed me kind of their side of it too, what it was like being in the military with certain issues that they were facing. It was a family, you know, and so we all kind of bonded together. It was just cool identifying as service members wanting to strengthen America. And that was the overarching relationship that we had with each other. And anything else that we brought to the table, regardless of race, gender, any ideologies that we had, we just together in uniform, you know, we all needed to work together and that was it.

00:10:25    COURTNEY MULHURN
Absolutely. So how were you able to network across different branches and ranks? Like if there are units out there, you know, it's important. We're all brothers and sisters in this. So how would you suggest to network with each other?

00:10:40    DANNY JOSEPH
One big thing was jujitsu gyms. I guess fight houses. So if you do MMA, jujitsu, Muay Thai, things of that sort, you know, CrossFit, go to a gym where you meet people with uniforms, right? So you meet. all these different service members who are driven, who are motivated, who are making healthy decisions with their minds, their bodies. And that's a way to connect. I met a lot through like groups groups and men's groups and things like that, where I was intentionally seeking mentorship and just kind of spiritual guiding as well. And then honestly, just having, having conversations with people from whether you go to MEPS and you're joining, you just talk to the people left or right of you, or if you're at a D shock at a dining facility, I mean, Having that openness to just talk to people like they're people, regardless of rig. And I noticed that just the more relaxed someone is in approaching others in uniform, you allow them to relax as well. And you can have these awesome discussions. And one thing that was so cool was I'd be working with a soldier, let's say a senior NCO, who's fairly reserved. And then I would just ask them a question. Hey, so how long have you been in? Where have you deployed? what's your take on things going on right now and we would talk about what they experienced in combat like things would come up that they'd want to share voluntarily it was just so cool to know that they did these things for our country and they weren't looking for the limelight or anything by just validating that and asking them to share some wisdom you know i'm a new officer tell me something that i don't know that you know that you learned in war that you wanted them and you just see them light up And say, yeah, you know what, when it comes to this, this should be your focus. So these are your priorities. This is how you care for people. And then it would just blossom into these discussions where you realize you're talking to the smartest person in the room and they're also the quietest. They're the most reserved. I love that. You know, I'm just naturally curious about people's inner world and what makes them tick. I love that because in the military, it's so easy to look at somebody as rank or just see what tabs they have. But when you really get to know them. And you know the sacrifice that they've experienced or the childhood they experienced. That was huge too. So I'd have soldiers in my platoon who grew up in ghettos in Chicago. And it was common that people, young teenagers, had to carry weapons on them just to make it to school. Knock it, mom. They come to work. They can shave in. They got things together. It's all good, right? Then you find out what they're going to go home to on the holidays or the stuff that they're struggling with or the stuff their families go going through that they've escaped because they joined the military. These are all sorts of things that just really make your culture in the military so rich, but it often goes unappreciated and unknown.

00:13:25    COURTNEY MULHURN
Yeah. And we're more than just the job or whatever we're called to do. And everyone's got a story to tell. So I think that's great to stay curious and find that common activity or whatever, just to kind of engage in conversations with each other. I think that's really important. So I'm glad that you highlight that in the book. At different times in your life, in different situations, sometimes you needed compassion to kind of get you through it. Other times you needed a bit of a tough love approach. And I think it's kind of just in regards to leadership. It kind of shows that not one size fits all. You can't be just tough love the entire time for that specific person. And I think that was just kind of my takeaway that we just have to stay authentic to who we are and stay consistent in that and for whoever we're leading. So I just thought that was great that you took different things from different people, different leadership styles.

00:14:18    DANNY JOSEPH
Yeah, it's just frustrating. It's frustrating when somebody doesn't put any effort to kind of customize their approach to different people, unless they be inauthentic or necessarily shift too much in how you address people. But just understanding that everyone has different motivations, whether it's intrinsic motivational factors and extrinsic motivational factors, and knowing how to inspire people is... It's tough to do. It takes a little bit of thought. In psychology, they talk about a transformational leader versus a transactional leader. And transformational leaders, they reach inside somebody and pull something out. Or at least they enable that concept within them. And it's really, really inspiring to see that. Because you're not forcing someone to do the job. They're genuinely fired up about it. And then transactional leadership is, you will do the job, and then I will pay you to the job, and that's it. But there's a time and place for all this stuff. And leadership in itself is complicated enough. Just being a manager at a company is complicated enough, let alone an environment where things can become lethal very quickly. This stuff is not to be taken lightly.

00:15:22    COURTNEY MULHURN
And so how do leaders motivate others to dig deeper into that mental toughness and resilience? Like what should we be doing now and how to motivate people that just aren't quite there yet?

00:15:36    DANNY JOSEPH
So just from what I experienced with the soldiers in my platoon, and this is like such a prickly discussion to have, but giving autonomy to soldiers within reason is great to get them motivated. A lot of these folks are moms and dads by the time they join, even though they're so young, you know, you look at them and they're married, they've got families that they're running. So when they take a job in the military, they don't want to feel like they're being treated as children. And so to let them know, I will give you adult responsibility. I'll treat you like an adult until you prove otherwise. And I'll give them those left to right limits and grant them that autonomy to go execute. And that really motivates them. I'd ask them, what are your hobbies? What are your interests? What are your goals after the military? Whether it's in a year, whether it's in a couple of decades. And then just letting them know there's tuition assistance. There's an educational center. There's ways to start investing in yourself. as a human being outside of uniform. And they love that stuff because that proves that I'm looking at them as more than just a soldier doing a soldier's job in a very specific capacity. And by the way, the healthier that somebody is holistically, they're going to be healthier in uniform. So if we work on their resilience, if we work on their self -care, self -enrichment, education, their knowledge, it's going to translate at work. They're going to be more present. There'll be less safety issues. There'll be less mistakes. There'll be more rested. And when the op tempo gets insane, there'll be more recharged for those aspects as well. It'll avoid burnout. Again, looking at the neurochemistry of the brain, the more we tax these service members, our service members, the less resources they have cognitively to function. So yes, tough love does work, but it needs to be followed with rest. It needs to be followed with self -care. There has to be a regenerative aspect to that where they can recharge their battery and whatever tough love we experience. Like for me, if I get pummeled in jujitsu on the mats, I get absolutely crushed by my training partner. I get to go home and rest and then come back to the mats healthy to get crushed again. But if I get crushed back to back, get that tough love on the mats back to back, I will get injured. The inflammation is going to accumulate and I'll be injured. And then guess what? I can't train for six months. So that's what I want to see more than military self -care and letting people have not necessarily just downtime, but there's various ways to throttle down the stress. And that's to promote longevity, by the way.

00:18:08    COURTNEY MULHURN
Right. And I think it kind of goes along the lines of getting to know your soldier too, because everyone's going to obviously have different needs. But if you just get to know them and directly ask them what works well for you and what do you need? I think that. really probably goes a long way as well.

00:18:26    DANNY JOSEPH
Yep. I know there's a time and place where we have to simulate war. Right. Right. And so we can't ask that because it's not applicable in that scenario. But letting them know that is awesome. Again, identifying that, just labeling that lets them know, well, there will be an end to this. Deployments last so long. War lasts so long. And to just remind them that things are going to suck for a period. It's going to be tough. But that doesn't mean that we have to stop looking at our future goals. Because once you lose hope, things get dark pretty fast. And that's where mental health issues really become aggravated. But to let the soldiers know, and this isn't permanent, there will be a point where you are going to get rest. You are going to get downtime. You are going to get vacation days, whatever it is. And help them plan for that. And help them feel supported in the relationships around them. And that's what we do best in the military. When we're in an austere training environment. When we have to embrace the suck, we do it together. So it galvanizes our relationships as brothers and sisters in arms. And so to foster those type of discussions is huge. To put the focus on that. But some leaders won't do that. I've witnessed it where some leaders just focus on how hard things are going to be and how terrible things are going to be. End of discussion. But then you see these leaders who acknowledge, hey, this is tough. But guess what? Look out for those next to you. Because... We are all we have in this environment. And those are really inspiring briefs to get because it reminds us why we signed that contract. But a lot of that has to do with that trickle -down effect from the Canadian climate.

00:20:02    DANNY JOSEPH
That's the end of part one. We'll see you next week for part two of Courtney Mulhern and Dan Joseph. Thanks for listening. If you get a chance, please like and subscribe and read the show on your favorite podcast platform. Also, if you're interested in coming on the show or hosting an episode, Email us at capodcasting@gmail.com. And now, most importantly, to those currently out in the field, working with a partner nation's people or leadership to forward U .S. relations, thank you all for what you're doing. This is Jack, your host. Stay tuned for more great episodes, One CA Podcast.

 

00:00:00    DANNY JOSEPH

Welcome to the 1CA Podcast. This is your host, Jack Gaines. 1CA is a product of the Civil Affairs Association and brings in people who are current or former military, diplomats, development officers, and field agents to discuss their experiences on ground with the partner nation's people and leadership. Our goal is to inspire anyone interested in working the last three feet of foreign relations. Contact the show. Email us at capodcasting@gmail.com. Or look us up on the Civil Affairs Association website at www .civilaffairsassos .org. I'll have those in the show notes.

 

00:00:35    DANNY JOSEPH

Today, Courtney Mulhern interviews Dan Joseph, author of the Combat Psych website and the book Backpack to Rucksack, Insight into Leadership and Resilience for Military Experts. His articles and tools are to help soldiers and their families build mental fitness and overcome past trauma so that they can live healthier, happier lives. As you know from Courtney Mulhern's episode, she's a practicing therapist and a terrific interviewer. So I put the two together for this episode. This is part two. I'll have a link to his site in the show notes. So back to Courtney.

 

00:01:10    DANNY JOSEPH

Talks like that from your leadership alleviates some of that stress and anxiety put on maybe some younger folks that don't have super high resiliency quite yet because they're younger and they're still working on it. So to hear that from leaders, I think that's really great. And that kind of goes in line with your next book, The Combat Psych Handbook. It's a bit less narrative, and it has just more practical examples, evoking more dialogue. Tell us a little bit more about your thoughts behind writing this handbook.

 

00:01:39    COURTNEY MULHURN

Yeah, so Tammy Pulaski wrote the foreword to the book. It's dedicated to her son, Jeremiah. Essentially, what Tammy said was, if she had known how to describe his feelings, maybe he'd still be alive today. I asked her to write the foreword to the book because what he experienced after war, not understanding how to process the weight that he felt. But there was a lot of what my soldiers still struggle with, even necessarily just from war, from a variety of issues, but how much more so for the service members who have been in war. And so I wanted to give a very quick, streamlined approach. Almost like a break glass in case of emergency type words. Hey, I got the stuff that's stuck inside of me. I don't know what it is. So they could flip through the chapters. And it's supposed to be like a kind of a diagnostic. Like, hey, what are you struggling with? Look at the chapters. They're actually alphabetical A through Z. It's like the first chapters about anxiety, aggression, avoidance, assertion. There's specific prompts that deal with how the brain is processing any one of these circumstances. And I specifically wanted to give these troops the phrases that they may not even know are occurring within their minds subconsciously. Because in psychology, there's something called the aha moment. And you can't fabricate that. It's a resolution to cognitive dissonance. It's internal conflict that exists that we try to self -medicate. Once you realize the truth of what's causing that, it's this instantaneous kind of release of pressure. Just this big breath of like, oh, that's what it was, right? That's what I was struggling with. It's because this person said this and it reminded me of when this other person said that. All these different subconscious variables. And so all this to say, again, thinking about Jeremiah's story, how we lost him as a soldier and his mom is now a gold star mom. It's just heartbreaking. And so I want to help shatter that paradigm. and let them know your feelings are valid, your feelings have a neurological basis, they are worth looking at. And it's something that I struggled with personally, to be totally transparent with you. When I was self -medicating, I didn't know the trauma experience. Jiu -jitsu brought it out of me. I started having flashbacks on the mats. I started having panic attacks. I started having the freeze response, the flight response. Technical words inside of my head telling me I'm worthless and that things got really dark. Self -medication was all I could do to numb myself out. And then I realized how powerful psychology was in understanding all this. And again, when we look at the military, look at how much care we put into our vehicles and the weapon systems just to keep things going. So let's do some brain maintenance.

 

00:04:37    DANNY JOSEPH

Yeah, absolutely. I see a lot of topics in this handbook, the A to Z, but are not typically fun. Words associated with like shame or depression or fear and ego, it doesn't elicit a very comfortable response when you think about these words. But I also think that's the point. Words do have that stigma or feelings associated with them. But I think if we normalize these topics and make them more comfortable, the more we talk about them, we can find the words like you were saying to what these look like. I think that's a takeaway is to just get more comfortable with really heavy topics if we want to move forward within ourselves and the military.

 

00:05:24    COURTNEY MULHURN

Definitely. You know, I was talking to one of my soldiers from my platoon about how a lot of people were self -medicating. That's alcohol consumption for one thing. I like to ask the question, what are you drinking? And there's a reason behind it. And oftentimes, unfortunately, we don't know. People don't understand. I mean, I'm tense. I'm stressed. And so I got to decompress. Plopting into the specifics, let's ask the whys. What's stressing them out? Why is it an issue? Why the volatility? And oftentimes what we experience in present day reaches back to a past experience that we had.

 

00:05:59    COURTNEY MULHURN

That's not something most people will just voluntarily want to do. And I understand that. But again, this book is... Free on the website. The entire PDF is totally free because I want them to have a resource to flip through and start to work on things. Because what's cool about the brain, if you look at it as sort of a selective algorithm, something is going to pop out viscerally. They'll have a reaction to it. So a word or phrase like shame or fear or maladaptive behaviors or whatever it is, depending on their linguistic strengths or whatnot. I want to create a book where they can guide themselves through their feelings as much as possible. And especially because not a lot of service members want to go to behavioral health. Not a lot of combat veterans want to disclose to psychologists things that they experience. And I know that firsthand through people have told me that there's things they wanted to discuss that they've never shared with anybody. And if you get critical,

 

00:07:02    COURTNEY MULHURN

you get critical, if they have a flashback or if they fall into a depressive cycle, they will need professional help. At least let's get them open to that privately. So if they read a book like this privately, and they acknowledge, yep, I've got some issues, my marriage is falling apart, I'm doing this to my spouse, I'm talking like this to my children, or this is the phrase that always pops in my head when I look at my reflection in the mirror, then give them those words, and then maybe they could begin to seek counsel to work on themselves.

 

00:07:31    DANNY JOSEPH

Yeah, and I was even thinking, I just have really good practical examples on here that would do really well in small group discussions. I was thinking on a drill weekend for us in the reserve, facilitating some of these discussions. This is just a really great resource to have. I am a social worker on the civilian side and just a big fan of small group settings, big fan of AA, NA. I just think there's a huge power in a group and sharing on a topic that's not normally discussed in normal conversation. So I think just facilitating discussions as a leader, I think is really important. And this is just a great resource to have.

 

00:08:07    COURTNEY MULHURN

Thanks. That's kind of the dream that I have is just seeing these discussions happen. And again, it's not about the right or wrong answer here. It's about the talks.

 

00:08:18    DANNY JOSEPH

Yeah. And I think it's about the process too. It's not just the right answer or it's not like a one answer will solve everything. It's the process. And like you said, A word might stick out and somebody might relate to that and be willing to share. And that might speak to another person in the group. So big fan of that. And then moving on to your third book, The Black Belt Mindset, Mastering Anxiety Through the Power of Breath. What was the inspiration behind this book?

 

00:08:43    COURTNEY MULHURN

So when I was in the Army working on my master's degree, I was prompted by one of the professors to basically structure a psychology study. And not actually do the study, not conduct it, but just structure one. So I chose jujitsu and anxiety management because, again, I have the flashbacks and all my issues on the mats and jujitsu. So I was like, let me study the psychology of what martial arts does to the human brain. And that blew up into a 32 black belt study that I just asked about sports and how psychology is impacted by anxiety and what they experience physiologically, how they need breath control or don't use breath control. So I studied the black belts who analyze threats in a way different way. It's so different than what a normal human would look at a threat. So you grab the throat of a black belt. They're not looking at it as, oh my gosh, I'm in trouble. The black belt will look at a hand approaching their throat as points of leverage, points of distance, and modifying somebody's face and their center of gravity in order to throw them. bend their arm a certain way to either break it or to get past that. And so they are able to appraise the situation differently. And therefore, they're able to self -regulate and they're able to self -seed. They're able to down -regulate their limbic response, their amygdala. They're able to trigger a calm,

 

00:10:09    COURTNEY MULHURN

a sense of calm amidst chaos. So this book goes through kind of my interview process, what these black belts told me about what they experienced. psychologically and emotionally, and just lessons learned that I wanted to apply.

 

00:10:22    DANNY JOSEPH

So how would you say Jiu -Jitsu is beneficial to service members, or what are some parallels that go alongside having a discipline like that as it relates to leadership in the military? So it goes back to one story I learned in OCS.

 

00:10:36    COURTNEY MULHURN

goes back to one story I learned in OCS. We heard this story from an EOD, and he told us how there was an IED that exploded and took out multiple vehicles. There were some service members who were injured, and some of them were dying, and the medic rushed to the scene, and in front of this EOD, who was attempting to minimize any further casualties, the medic began to panic. And when the medic started to panic, the soldiers were looking at the medic, and they were starting to panic. So this EOD ran up to the medic, grabbed him, and said, listen, you need to take a breath, you need to calm down, and you need to try to save these people. Do your job, you know what to do. But he said, everyone's looking at you. If you freak out, everyone's going to freak out. So I need you to be here right now and do what you can. And right then the medic got back to the present moment and began to execute and save lives. And so EOD told us as junior officers to understand that both calm is contagious and panic as well. So be the person who induces a sense of calm in the unit. Now in jujitsu, when I'm getting choked out or I'm getting smothered, by one of the upper belt men and they're just absolutely crushing me. If I begin to panic, I will hyperventilate and I will lack the ability to survive that round. The more I breathe chaotically, the less air I'm taking in efficiently. My diaphragm isn't getting activated. Everything is on the upper chest. I'm not getting oxygen in my blood because I'm getting smothered. And so what I'm taught by my coaches, my instructors on the mats is to just slow down that breath rate. diaphragmatic breathing, calm down, and then that'll switch on my prefrontal cortex. The science shows this in the functional MRIs and whatnot. When the prefrontal cortex switches back on, I will jump back into a higher brain functioning where I can think about the sequence of moves that I need to execute to change the situation. What variables can I control? What can I do with my body to defend myself and to work to move? and to stay oxygenated so I don't pass out or black out or get choked out or whatever the issue is. And the more I can calm myself down on the mats, the more I can calm myself down in traffic. Or when as a platoon leader, I'm in the field and a vehicle breaks down and it's 125 degrees and everyone's freaking out because we're not making it to the grid corner that we need to be at. Take that breath, calm myself down, and then the troops around me will see that and they calm down. If I'm freaking out and I'm anxious, well, my sparring partner is going to feel that. My soldiers are going to feel that. And so this is philosophical wisdom that applies to your whole life.

 

00:13:16    DANNY JOSEPH

It sounds just like a different level of awareness, too. You talk a lot about self -awareness, and you basically have to be in that scenario. You talk a lot about mindfulness in terms of mental health and resilience, and you have to be in the moment if you're actively engaging with somebody. I definitely see that benefit to jujitsu. So where would someone even start?

 

00:13:42    COURTNEY MULHURN

Some people could just walk into a gym and start sparring and they're good to go. For me, it was a very awkward start with a friend of mine from high school who graciously brought me to his gym after hours and helped me get through the fear and trepidation there. And then that tribal family grew out of that. But yeah, starting with breath control, starting with yoga, starting with... whatever it is to kind of gain presence in the body. And it really depends on what people have experienced. There needs to be a special consideration for a very close -knit, trusted group around you. And you just tell people, hey, you know what? I got some weird physiological responses. I got a free response that I'm trying to get through. Can you help me on the mat? So then you find a coach or somebody that says, yes, I will. I will talk to you about your breath awareness. I will remind you to breathe. Literally, I don't have training orders. They'll be like, hey, buddy, I need you to breathe. You got to remember to breathe. And I'm like, oh, okay, that's why I was panicking. But again, when somebody suffers abuse at a younger age, they go into a rage and freeze response because they can escape the situation. And same with combat. We're talking about veterans at PTS, and they get on the mats, and they go through a flashback on the mats. It's going to get weird for them to ask. but to let them know we can discuss it, we can talk about it. I'd say fighting coaches and combat veteran. That really helped me a lot. I rolled with several combat vets. So there was nothing that I would bring to the table that would surprise them. They've been through it, they've worked through it, they've battled through it. And I would love to see each other grew because of that. That was the biggest game changer for me.

 

00:15:19    DANNY JOSEPH

It's really powerful that, like you mentioned, with your trauma, To use something positive to address it head on and take yourself back to a vulnerable spot, but in a safe environment with people you trust and respect, I think that's really powerful to heal.

 

00:15:38    COURTNEY MULHURN

Yeah, it's called exposure therapy. And it's very important to throttle it accordingly. Because I overdid it at times and got into panic attacks because I didn't know what it was. Once I found out what it was, I could tell my buddies. Different dudes that I got to roll with where I got to tell them, hey, man, I got some stuff going on. Can you be aware for me? They said, yes, we'll keep an eye on you. Whether you're sparring with us or if you're sparring with someone else, if we see something wrong, we'll help you out. We'll be there for you. And that was so cool. You know, I paid for therapy before. I've seen a therapist. But then when you get on the mats with someone, therapists can't just start putting me in a rear naked choke, right? Therapist can't do that to me. But one of my buddies can. And they can also talk to me about my breath. They can also ask me about what I'm feeling.

 

00:16:24    DANNY JOSEPH

Are there women in jujitsu too? Is that common or is that? I don't know. At my gym,

 

00:16:29    COURTNEY MULHURN

my gym, there's an all -female class. They've experienced any sort of abuse, physical, sexual abuse, whatever trauma it is that they do not want a male around them in that capacity. There's an all -women's class, which is cool. So they're protected there. They're on a whole different mat. But then we do have mixed -gender classes where obviously any woman can jump on the mat and roll with us. And again, different people have different boundaries. And so there's that awareness that some feel totally comfortable getting after it and getting aggressive, and that's fine. It could be someone who are training for MMA. So like for myself, I didn't like getting hit. If we're talking about combat jiu -jitsu, if we're talking MMA. But I guess the point is having emotional intelligence enough to ask people what they're okay with or just reading the room. But yeah, our gym definitely has... a very large female -to -male ratio, maybe more so than other gyps. Okay.

 

00:17:22    DANNY JOSEPH

Because I got to say, I don't know some of these names you're using. I don't know what they are, but they don't sound very fun or, you know, I don't get choked out or anything.

 

00:17:33    COURTNEY MULHURN

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The big thing that I would say to anybody joining jiu -jitsu is be vocal about what you're comfortable with and what you're not comfortable with. It's okay to have boundaries on the mats.

 

00:17:45    DANNY JOSEPH

Definitely. And then if you're not super into that even, just kind of, you discussed in your book, just basic breath work will just be important. That's something you can do anywhere, anytime. It's just so important to work on the breath, as we know.

 

00:17:59    COURTNEY MULHURN

Definitely. Diaphragmatic breathing is, man, just like conscious breath effort. It's weird. It's awkward at times. It's difficult for a lot of us because we're so used to just being on autopilot. And then to say like, wait a minute, how do I put my breath in my stomach and not in my upper chest? Because once you do that, it activates the parasympathetic response. It activates down regulation of adrenaline. Like the adrenal glands actually secrete less adrenaline when you do that. And so what happens is you automatically start to become aware of different things, different tension in your body, pressure,

 

00:18:39    COURTNEY MULHURN

pain, discomfort, fatigue. We're good things. Happy things can come out too. It's not all dark and heavy, but it's just interesting how we're so caught up in our social media traffic, getting from point A to B, looking a certain way, having whatever it is in our life. And then you breathe and you slow things down. Your brain can then go into this kind of self -diagnostic mode where you just begin to naturally scan your body and you begin to feel grounded in the present. But if there's stuff that makes you uncomfortable, it's going to come up as well.

 

00:19:12    DANNY JOSEPH

Mm -hmm. Definitely. Okay, so you've got two books coming up here, Bridging Worlds and Motor Mind. Do you want to share a little bit about those books?

 

00:19:24    COURTNEY MULHURN

Yeah, so the Motor Mind one is creating analogies about the human brain in terms of a vehicle's engine. So it's supposed to discuss the neurosurgery of the brain in terms of the mechanics of the mind. That's kind of the concept there. So it should be a fun read that allows people to look at the brain not as just relational, not as just touchy feelings. So what's the science say about the neurocircuits and the components of the brain? And then Bridging World is about my story growing up in America as a first -generation child of Middle Eastern immigrants. So it has to do with shame, honor -based cultures and how they differentiate from guilt -based cultures. So an Eastern versus Western. kind of conflict of ideologies and how to navigate that.

 

00:20:13    DANNY JOSEPH

Very cool. Those sound like great reads. You have a diversified repertoire in your writing, so that's really, really cool. And then your website. So combatpsych .com. Very nicely done website. It has all your work on there. Other resources and tools. You've got downloads. which I think kind of just back to a small group, a lot of these are just really great discussion group resources that one can just have with maybe on a drill weekend or something just to kind of get that conversation going. So really great website there and links to your books.

 

00:20:57    COURTNEY MULHURN

Yeah, thanks for saying that. I appreciate the kind words. Yeah, it's all free for the most part. Books you can buy on Amazon or they can download a couple of them for free. on the website. But yeah, it's free stuff. So just grab it, grab whatever you want, use whatever you want. I paid a lot out of pocket for therapy, for a master's, for all that stuff. And I don't want other people to have to pay for it just because I don't want there to be a pain wall between a soldier not living their best life. So whatever you can use, whatever speaks to you and definitely use it. And I hope it helps. I'm going to upload self -assessment diagnostic in the next few days as well as a PDF. I just want to offer whatever tools that I got in life that carried me forward. I want soldiers especially to have that in anybody else.

 

00:21:42    DANNY JOSEPH

Yeah. And just overall resilience. That's what we want. We want to move forward. We want to grow as people and as military members. So CombatPsych .com for good resources there. And then what's next for you?

 

00:21:54    COURTNEY MULHURN

Definitely have those books I want to finish and a few more I'm building out the framework for. I will be working with the government on a new job pretty soon. Tuts. protecting our country i'm really proud of that but i'm motivated by the troops that i'm meeting and the folks especially here in san diego some of my good friends are just doing some amazing things i'm meeting some young guys in the buds pipeline or inspiring me they remind me of my soldiers in jiu -jitsu i'm just surrounded by a lot of a lot of veterans and you know just the community is so inspirational to me Again, I thought when I got out, I just go back into society and Charlie Mike, like I did before I joined. But now that I'm out, there's just something so near and dear to my heart when I can hang out with service members and veterans and whatnot. And so I just want to build a life working alongside them and also giving them tools and helping them become better.

 

00:22:46    DANNY JOSEPH

Awesome. Awesome. All right. Well, thank you for being here and for sharing your work and your thoughts. Very important topics. Just good to get these conversations going. It's important to keep up with our mental health and resilience in the military. And did you have any other final thoughts?

 

00:23:04    COURTNEY MULHURN

Again, I got this from J .P. Lane, who's a really amazing combat veteran. That you're worth it. He'd always say that to people, and I loved it. I love it how he says that. And I would say that to anybody who feels like they're struggling, who feels like they're stuck, you're worth self -enrichment, you're worth becoming your best self. Because the stronger you become as an individual, the stronger your unit will be. So invest in that. Whatever it is, look for those resources and tools. Go to my website. Go to other websites. Read books and grow yourself.

 

00:23:35    DANNY JOSEPH

All righty. Well, thank you for your time, Dan. Appreciate it.

 

00:23:39    Close

Thanks for listening. If you get a chance, please like and subscribe and read the show on your favorite podcast platform. Also, if you're interested in coming on the show or hosting an episode, email us at capodcasting@gmail.com. And now, most importantly, to those currently out in the field, working with a partner nation's people or leadership to forward U .S. relations, thank you all for what you're doing. This is Jack, your host. Stay tuned for more great episodes, 1CA Podcast.

162: Rob Boudreau and Joel Searls

This week, Rob Boudreau hosts Joel Searl, who created and runs the U.S. Marine, 1st CAG, podcast "The Human Dimension," their social media and public outreach programs.

The original is located at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpdSA_Z7pAs

One CA is a product of the civil affairs association 

and brings in people who are current or former military, diplomats, development officers, and field agents to discuss their experiences on the ground with a partner nation's people and leadership.

We aim to inspire anyone interested in working in the "last three feet" of US foreign relations. 

To contact the show, email us at CApodcasting@gmail dot com

or look us up on the Civil Affairs Association website at www civilaffairsassoc.org

Special thanks to Gloria Estefan and Sony Music Media for a sample of Dingui-Li Bangui. Released 1990-09-16. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7J_DVryF-g  

---

Transcript

00:00:06 Introduction
Welcome to the 1CA Podcast. This is your host, Jack Gaines. 1CA is a product of the Civil Affairs Association and brings in people who are current or former military, diplomats, development officers, and field agents to discuss their experiences on ground with the partner nation's people and leadership. Our goal is to inspire anyone interested in working the last three feet of foreign relations. To contact the show, email us at capodcasting@gmail.com. or look us up on the Civil Affairs Association website at www .civilaffairsassoc.org. I'll have those in the show notes.

00:00:42 ROB BOUDREAU
Welcome to the 1CA podcast. I'm Rob Boudreau, and today we're joined by Joel Searles, who is a podcaster in his own right. He is also a Comstratat Officer and Civil Affairs Officer in the Marine Corps Reserve. Before we get started, I'd like to just include a quick disclaimer that the views expressed today are those of participants and do not reflect the views of the federal government or any of its components. So with that, Joel, welcome to the podcast.

00:01:05 JOEL SEARLES
Hey, thanks for having me, Rob. It's a pleasure to be here.

00:01:08 ROB BOUDREAU
Absolutely. Our introduction was through Jack Gaines, who made a connection, I think, with mutual contacts of both of ours. So my understanding is that you're a podcaster, is that right?

00:01:18 JOEL SEARLES
That's correct. Yes, I've worked on and ran and created three podcasts.

00:01:24 ROB BOUDREAU
All right. So I know that you're a reservist. Are you able to provide a little information about what you do in the civilian world?

00:01:29 JOEL SEARLES
Sure. I currently run my own company. It's a small production company in the entertainment business. We focus on military and inspirational stories, sports stories, features, and television. Currently do that. I write within that company as well. I've been hired to write core screenplay based on a true story. And then also I do acting. And I've been able to act usually as a Marine or as a police officer or authority figure in some TV shows and feature films and supporting rules.

00:02:00 ROB BOUDREAU
Wow, that's terrific. That sounds like it dovetails really well with your reserve career as a Comstead officer. It does. Yeah. How have you been able to blend those things? Have you been able to use your civilian skills? How do you pair those with your military service?

00:02:15 JOEL SEARLES
Well, this all came about during the pandemic. On July 1st, I was called by my boss. I worked at a boutique entertainment firm, finance firm in Century City. And he had called me to let me know. He went out of business. His deal flow went through the basement, basically, and he wasn't able to sustain his company anymore. And he'd had some of his assets acquired. So I got that call and thought to myself, how am I going to survive this? And, you know, how am I going to find a job when nobody's running or, you know, only a few companies are. So I called my reserve unit, which was the entertainment media liaison office. And I hadn't even been to public affairs QCORS yet. I told my boss and talked to him. His name's Joe. And he's like, well, I want to help you. I know you need to work, but we're closed. But what would you want to do if you could? And I've already done a few interviews of successful Marines in Hollywood. And what can you do during the pandemic? You can make Skype and Zoom calls with people and phone calls and write interviews. And so I pitched, how about I do a series of interviews with successful Marines in Hollywood? He's like, that's a great idea. It'll help with recruiting. You know a lot of folks, so give me a list, I'll prove it, and you go talk to them. And that led to me starting a writing career, and I'd just been hired by We Are the Mighty the month before because they'd seen some of the interviews I'd done and enjoyed them. And so I was kind of dual hat, and I was writing for the Marine Corps and, you know, getting things published on Divids, and then eventually over to We Are the Mighty, and I was viewing veterans during the pandemic like Robert Duvall. And Bob Gunton, who was the warden in Shawshank Redemption, Warden Norton, who's a Vietnam vet. And Roberto Barba, who's a showrunner, TV show producer, probably done 40 or 50 now. But through the Marine Corps, I was able to interview Don Balisario, who created NCIS and Magnum PI and Airwolf and so many other great shows. Bill Broyles, who wrote Cast Away and Apollo 13. I mean, you know, Oscar -level screenwriter and Vietnam vet. And then that eventually led to me interviewing Fred Smith, who founded FedEx and finances feature films, such as The Blind Side and Sicario movies. I know those are a lot of names and a lot of references, but that's really where this all started. And I started writing, kind of got a name for myself as a writer in a good way, and then, you know, started my own small firm. focused on specific genres that I'm comfortable with and that also resonate with a lot of veterans and the American audience. So that's really where it started. From there, it just kind of branched out. That's now three and a half years ago.

00:04:54 ROB BOUDREAU
Wow, that's fantastic. So you live in the information space. How did you get into civil affairs?

00:05:00 JOEL SEARLES
So I was doing some research. I looked at civil affairs even seven, eight years ago and recognized a couple of things. My initial MOS was air defense and a LAD, Stinger missiles. That MOS has now since kind of restarted and gained some steam. But, you know, eight years ago, there was really talk about it all. If you wanted to have a continued career in the reserves, you needed to find an MOS that was more applicable and relevant. And so I looked at civil affairs, saw it was only secondary. I didn't know how that would allow me to continue. And so I held on it. Went to the entertainment office after making about four or five different inquiries about coming to the office on an MLS waiver. And they let me in based on my industry experience because I worked at a talent agency, actually for probably the only Marine talent agent left in Hollywood and packaged the film while I was there. But I digress. So after completing the time there at the entertainment office, I looked at civil affairs and knew some people in the unit. Got some intel and information about people who enjoyed it. And I decided to join the unit myself back in August of 2022. That's great. And you're with First Civil Affairs Group out of San Diego.

00:06:17 ROB BOUDREAU
First Civil Affairs Group out of San Diego. Is that right? Camp Pendleton. Camp Pendleton.

00:06:23 JOEL SEARLES
Pendleton.

00:06:24 ROB BOUDREAU
All right. Close enough. But either way, you're living the Hollywood Marine dream as a civil affairs officer. I like that. Well, the way our intro came about as a result of a podcast that you launched with First CAG. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

00:06:38 JOEL SEARLES
Absolutely, yes. Our CO and XO, and OPSO at the time, brought me into the unit, and they wanted to maximize not only the Hollywood style, being able to translate the narrative into action, but also some of my creative skills that I've been blessed with probably since childhood. I guess they kept that part of me alive and always maintained curiosity. So they initially wanted me to do a social media revamp. which allowed me to kind of structure and align our social media, develop a system that was accessible, and allowed the CO's voice and the Marine's voice to be heard and seen. And so I wrote an SOP, spent a good amount of time developing that, and got a lot of references and insights and help from people. So I'm grateful for that. And got the SOP signed and put it out into action. And then that's since led to an increase in our recruiting and efforts there as a unit. We've had people come in from all over the base. and even off base on the other side of the country. And they've seen some of the posts and they've seen what's going on with the unit. And they're like, yeah, I'd like to check this out. I'd like to join. So the CEO was happy about that. The hire, Marfor Rez, was happy about her social media impact and imprint. And that led to them being open to, hey, can I do a podcast? That's great. Yeah, you can highlight things within the unit, what we've done or what we're going to go do. You know, I have an OPSEC manager who comes in and makes sure what we've talked about is kosher. And I briefed the maroons beforehand to keep it on the unclassed side and things that are out in the ether are ready. So we're keeping our cards close to our chest. And I share it with the CO and usually the INI to get their opinions on it as well. And then I post it. And that's helped generate some interest, obviously, even from yourself. We're grateful for that. And you put in one of our podcasts on your page and sharing it. And that it led to... us doing an internal command messaging program called the CMP, not the Combat Marksmanship Program, but the Command Messaging Program. And we've put up displays inside the command to highlight what the Marines are doing so they can see current messages inside of our unit. You know, we've got stuff from the Gulf War, stuff from Mogadishu. We have things from OIF like 2 and 3. So everything on the walls, for the most part, is either 10 to 30 years old, older than a lot of the junior Marines that are there at times. And even some of the officers like myself, like I remember the Gulf War as a kid and watching it on CNN and PBS. But, you know, I certainly wasn't in the service. And I mean, I know people that served in that war, but that's a long time ago. So the CO wanted to be relevant. We've repainted the walls. We're doing some stenciling. updating everything. We've got a really engaged first sergeant. We've got some other engaged Marine sergeants and even up to company and field grade officers that really want to see this turn out well. And so it's looking good. We've got the electronic displays up and it's crossed into the 2020 plus decade and years to engage the Marines to know that what they're doing is relevant. And here's photos from a lot of different Marines of the unit and what they're doing.

00:09:52 ROB BOUDREAU
That's amazing stuff. You made reference there to we had the privilege of rebroadcasting one of your introductory shows over the holidays, so we appreciate the opportunity to synergize there. Getting off the ground, you had a lot of resources and folks you're able to lean on. Is it fair to say that this is a fairly siloed effort by First CAG? And what I'm getting at is the social media stuff. That's not really being driven by hire, is it?

00:10:17 JOEL SEARLES
No, the CEO wanted it, and I wanted it too as a comms right officer. I've done that. sweet social media managers course, which is really tough. I went and did that and paid for it on my own dime to get better even before I came to the unit. Once I came, I was able to put it into use right away. So it is an internal CAG, internal generation, and an internal purpose and drive that is making positive ripples and waves far out from our unit.

00:10:47 ROB BOUDREAU
That's great. And obviously, outside of yours truly, Have there been other folks from the Marine Corps or units that have looked into what you guys have been able to generate and ask you any questions or anything like that?

00:11:00 JOEL SEARLES
Yes. To my knowledge, the SOP I wrote was shared with Hire because they asked for it. I believe it was FHG asked for it because they wanted to know what we were up to because they were seeing a lot of activity and they were hearing positive things.

00:11:14 ROB BOUDREAU
Yeah, absolutely. And it sounds like your reach, beyond the substance of that, you've also been able to provide. additional influence, if you will, in the recruiting lanes and other things that I think are outside the traditional mission, at least as we ordinarily think of it. So that's really awesome. Thank you. I'm blessed with some strong support and good Marines.

00:11:30 JOEL SEARLES
Thank you. I'm blessed with some strong support and good Marines. For sure. And sailors. Absolutely.

00:11:36 ROB BOUDREAU
Can't forget our Navy brethren. Right. We've got,

00:11:37 JOEL SEARLES
We've got, I believe, our corpsman and then our logistics chief. And then I think the first sergeant, they were out doing woodwork to put up stuff and hold the displays we hang on the walls now. with the laptops and the electronic displays. So even the Navy's jumped in and done some carpentry and some staining to bring, I guess, an old core sense of work ethic of just getting it done and making it look new and fresh and taking responsibility for our structure and engaging younger Marines and the younger audience, the Marines and sailors and their families and the general public.

00:12:13 ROB BOUDREAU
Wow, that's awesome. That's quite a concerted effort. Thank you. Leading up to the launch of the podcast, did you stand up an operational planning team or conduct any kind of formal planning for what it was going to look like?

00:12:25 JOEL SEARLES
That was just left to me. You know, I conversed with higher and I conversed with my wife's counsel on how to exactly do it. And then, you know, registered the website with the YouTube page with headquarters Marine Corps and discussed it with the INI and the CO and the XO. But there really wasn't OPT. Kind of like, just go out and make it happen. You know, do it, you don't. And there was planning that went into it. It was just, you know, more focused on what it was going to look like, but it was internal and external. And probably the best way to answer that is just the planning involved very specific key points of wisdom within the Marine Corps at the unit and higher.

00:13:08 ROB BOUDREAU
Can you talk a little bit about the process of getting any sort of internal approvals? Were there restrictions that you had to work through to get launched?

00:13:16 JOEL SEARLES
I had to meet the OPSEC manager's guidelines. It had to fall in line with the I &I wanted and the CEO wanted. You know, they like to collaborate and be on the same page. And then it also had to be staffed within the unit. Overall, it was well -received. And again, I was given some really good templates and some advice and insight from some people who've been doing this for a long time. It's actually one lieutenant. He was prior MARSOC. He gave me some good insights and his team did. So there was a lot of minds working on it.

00:13:49 ROB BOUDREAU
Good stuff. So looking at the shows that you've been able to post to date, I don't want to use the phrase target audience because that's like a loaded phrase, but who are you looking to reach with your podcast?

00:14:00 JOEL SEARLES
We'd love to reach the Marines, potential Marines to join the unit and the general public, you know, to let them know the relevancy. We want one MEF to check it out as well. We tag them when we do a social media post with a link to an updated podcast that's been uploaded. We tag them. We're trying to get their attention because, you know, we're about early integration into OneMath and developing a posture and a reassurance and preparation for Indo -PACOM. That's where we're focused. And then, you know, we're maintaining that relevancy with Marines and their families and the general public. So there's kind of a three -pronged approach. that we're going for with this and audiences and lines of effort.

00:14:42 ROB BOUDREAU
That's awesome. Now, I know in the podcast that we were able to rebroadcast, you had Marines on talking about their experiences with Exercise Bright Star. Yep. Can you give us a little bit more info on the type of content that you're looking to put out? Sure.

00:14:59 JOEL SEARLES
Really, any Marines officer unless they go and do an exercise, we want to capture that as much as we can. and within, you know, our battle rhythm, and be able to share that with the public, again, to maintain that relevancy and show that we're a valuable asset to one MEF and the entire Marine Corps, and to also give those Marines a voice and a chance to speak about what they've seen and done and better their lives, change their lives, give them a new perspective. Well, vignettes, really vignettes, and it's a great way to teach people. It's a great way to... fire people and keep young blood coming into the unit.

00:15:39 ROB BOUDREAU
That's all really great. And of course, we wish you continued success. Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. As you keep that moving along. Well, one of the challenges we face reserve Marine Corps officers is that we have to switch units. So it's not a formal PCS, but it might as well be because we have to find new homes every couple of years. So it sounds like a lot of what you've been able to accomplish has been driven by your individual actions and then working with an engaged team down there at First CAG. Thinking about continuity and maintaining the social media presence, continuing the podcast, what sorts of things are you looking at to ensure that this will have some longevity?

00:16:16 JOEL SEARLES
So we've already been developing that. There's discussions of the CO and the XO and using the G9 because I operate officially as the deputy G9. And we're developing a team now. Since we've got it off and we're moving forward, we've really been pressing it since probably last May, as far as once we really stood it up. When we started, you know, firing on little cylinders, we've been looking for the right team to complement and supplement me, but also once I do depart in the future, you know, plan on staying for a while and transition into more leadership opportunities within the unit, the team will be ready. And it's not like that I'm going to totally disappear. If there's questions they have, I'm happy to answer them. However, I've done my very best to set up a pretty foolproof system that we can get things in and out in an efficient manner and a secure manner. And then also, you know, it's simple to follow. Simple instructions. We all got that at boot camp and OCS. At least we should have.

00:17:19 ROB BOUDREAU
Well, that's terrific. And I'm glad you've already been having those thoughts about the future and how to... maintained a really high standard that you've already set, carrying the Marine Corps' message out to the community, both in the military and beyond. So I really appreciate that. Yeah. The name of your podcast is the Human Dimension podcast. Where can folks find that if they're looking to listen in?

00:17:41 JOEL SEARLES
You can search it, First Civil Affairs Group, First TAG, that'll come up. It'll be the Human Dimension. We have two episodes up now. Also, Google search should come up under that as well. And then you can follow us on Instagram under First TAG. You can follow us on Facebook. We have a First CAG page. And then we also have an X account for First CAG. So there's three places you can follow us or four technically with the YouTube channel if you want to subscribe. And we look forward to hearing from you if you have any requests or insights or comments about the civil affairs group. Fantastic.

00:18:15 ROB BOUDREAU
Well, every good Marine Corps conversation has to end with an opportunity for saved rounds. So any saved rounds, Joel?

00:18:22 JOEL SEARLES
I hit on that. I hit on our three lines of effort.

00:18:22 ROB BOUDREAU
that. I hit on

00:18:24 JOEL SEARLES
early integration with one nest, posture, preparation and deterrence and reassurance for endopaycom, and then communicate the relevancy and value of first CAG. So I touched on those earlier. I can't think of anything else.

00:18:37 ROB BOUDREAU
Oh, we appreciate it. Thanks for joining the show today, Joel Semper Fi. Great. Thanks.

00:18:43 CLOSE
Thanks for listening. If you get a chance, please like and subscribe and rate the show on your favorite podcast platform. Also, if you're interested in coming on the show or hosting an episode, Email us at capodcasting@gmail.com. And now, most importantly, to those currently out in the field working with a partner nation's people or leadership to forward U .S. relations, thank you all for what you're doing. This is Jack, your host. Stay tuned for more great episodes. One CA Podcast.