A. Purpose

The purpose of this thesis is to answer the question: How can we develop a system dedicated to the sharing of lessons learned between the military, nongovernmental agencies (NGOs), international organizations (IOs), and government agencies? The intent is to develop a prototype Web site or Beta model to test the theory. Our goals are threefold:

• To establish a network that will allow the military and civilian organizations to meet in cyberspace and, in so doing, break down the cultural and stereotypical barriers between the military and civilian organizations that currently exist.
• Collaborate on lessons learned from operations in the civilian sector and areas in conflict.
• Empower individuals from the military and NGO/civilian community to conduct effective humanitarian operations in a cooperative manner.

B. Research Questions

Information sharing between these communities has been a heated topic for many years. As such, the thesis addresses the following questions:

• How can a web site bridge the gap between the military and other agencies?
• How has this separation inhibited operations or caused a duplication of effort?
• Can we develop a system by which civil affairs (CA) soldiers and the international community share lessons learned and collaborate on humanitarian missions?
• Who will maintain the site, once it has been created? (update information, monitor discussion groups etc…)
• Who will fund the site once it has been created? (Pay for workers, server space etc…)

C. Motivation

During my first quarter at NPS, I, Major Catanzaro, was in a class called Warfare in the Information Age. The professor, Dr. John Arquilla, was discussing a web site called Company Command. Two West Point professors, Tony Burgess and Nate Allen, created this site as a repository for lessons learned for Army company commanders. This grass roots endeavor was extremely successful in sharing best practices in the context of the Iraq war. As I was pondering this concept, I decided it would be a good idea to develop a similar site for the civil affairs community to share lessons learned with each other and the humanitarian aid community. I approached Dr Arquilla with my idea and he encouraged me to pursue it as a thesis project.

The type of lessons learned I wished to capture were unique to the humanitarian response community. These would be lessons from prior deployments or missions, not technical data found in a field manual or operations guide. For example, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) produces their own Field Operations Guide or FOG Manual. In it, one can learn how to build a well. The manual does not however, contain information specific to a certain regions. During one of my trips to Afghanistan, I was working in the Paktika province, which is located near the Pakistan border. Numerous aid workers and military personnel had dug so many wells that the water table had dropped. Therefore, if any one wanted to dig wells in Paktika, they either had to dig deeper and pay more money for a well, or decide to find an alternate project. This would have been a great lesson to share with the community so that they could adjust their plans before departing for Afghanistan.

A second example comes from an NGO based out of Colorado called Humanitarian International Services Group (HISG). In early 2002, HISG received many truckloads of medical supplies from a medical company that was going out of business. The CEO, Mr Kay Hiramine, worked arduously to try to get the supplies to Afghanistan 3 en masse, but to no avail. Eventually, Mr Hiramine sent the much-needed supplies into Pakistan, vis-à-vis freight fowarders and common carriers, and then trucked them into Afghanistan across the border. The entire process took many months. HISG even worked with the commander of the United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command (USACAPOC), Major General Altschuler, in a futile attempt to ship the supplies on military aircraft under provisions set forth in the Denton Amendment.[2]

If HISG had a network of fellow relief workers and humanitarian aid specialists, they might have succeeded in getting the supplies to Afghanistan quicker and in a more efficient manner.

As I entered my second quarter, I realized this was going to be a bigger project than I first estimated. I then set out to find a colleague. Major Brian Horine, a friend from my previous assignment in the 96th Civil Affairs (CA) Battalion, had just started classes at NPS. Major Horine had a desire to pursue a similar project based on his experience in the 96th CA Battalion and a recent workshop with the Center for Stabilization and Reconstruction Studies, which he had attended in the summer of 2006. Information sharing between the military, NGOs, IOs and government agencies was the topic of the last day of the workshop.

The group concluded that a system needed to be developed for information sharing, but nobody had the time, money, or personnel to set up such an organization. Therefore, we combined our efforts and expertise on this thesis.

D. Benefits of Research

This thesis will not simply provide a theoretical answer to these questions, it will also provide a practical prototype of a web site. The Beta model, along with all of the research, will then be handed over to an organization or institution. We will identify a problem; provide a recommended course of action, then implement that course of action.

E. Methodology

• Conduct interviews with military personnel, government workers, IOs, NGOs and various institutes that deal with security, stability, transition, and reconstruction. E.g. Mercy Corps, Interaction, and The Peace Operations Program at George Mason University.
• Research on books, articles, military doctrine, and scholarly works pertinent to the topic.
• Conduct research at Fort Bragg and at the Pentagon to identify similar initiatives that have already been untaken.
• Conduct analysis of current web sites to determine what similar projects are already in existence; this is essentially a market analysis of our competitors.
• Participate in the CSRS (Center for Stabilization and Reconstruction) games at NPS.

Organization of Thesis

Chapter II will focus on the issue of civilian-military relations. We will address the history of civilian and military relations and determine if there is a separation between these communities. We will then identify what have been the effects of this separation, has there been any improvement, and determine if there is a desire for increased cooperation. We will conclude the chapter with a proposal on how to fix the problem and whether or not there exists any similar endeavors.

In Chapter III, we will discuss networks. We identify networks in history, classify different types of networks topologies, and determine how the information age has facilitated the rapid expansion of networks. We will then analyze the web-based phenomena of communities of interest and the advent of the second generation of the Internet called Web 2.0.

In Chapter IV, we will address the intricate components of the web site from personnel to the capabilities that we envision being used to deliver the function-ability of ICIN. Chapter IV will also present illustrations of the organizational model, information flow through the website and the network of stakeholders. We will conclude the thesis with Chapter V.

A. History of Military and NGO Relations and Workspaces

The relationship between the military and numerous NGOs and IOs has a varied history. First, many NGOs and IOs are relatively young compared to the military. Second, the face of conflict has changed quite drastically over the decades, often forcing these communities into shared missions and locations.

The U.S. Army dates back to June 14, 1775, a year before our declaration of independence from England. Many NGOs were not established however, until the mid to late twentieth century. For example, one of the most famous NGOs, Médecins Sans Frontières[5], was not founded until 1971. Air Serv International[6], an NGO that provides aircraft for humanitarian operations, was not founded until 1985. There are some older NGOs like the International Rescue Committee[7] and the International Organization for Migration,[8] which were founded in 1945 and 1951 respectively. While there are some a bit older, like the Red Cross, which is 125 years old (founded in 1881 by Clara Barton), most were not founded until the post World War II era. Hence, their relationships with the military are relatively quite new.

In general, this refers to the NGOs of today. In the 19th and 20th centuries, faith based and missionary organizations generated a tremendous presence in the world. They were the NGOs of their time. The exact numbers of these missionaries are unknown since many of the individual denominations kept their own records, some of which may have been erroneous. However, as Mead explains, One listing counts about five thousand American Protestant missionaries abroad in 1900, with the number increasing to more than nine thousand by 1915.[9] As Mead continues his discussion, he explains these numbers include full-time missionary workers only and are not reflective of wives, support personnel, doctors, and the like. This figure would culminate in 2000 with approximately one hundred thousand American missionaries working abroad.[10] With missionary presence increasing worldwide, so was their increased contact with the military. As wars have increased in frequency, missionaries have become more susceptible to the dangers of war and have sometimes looked to the military to deliver them from such dangers. In these circumstances, Mead reveals that missionaries welcomed the presence of Western troops when their lives and property were endangered.[11]

Secondly, wars and conflicts have transformed in intensity, type, and involvement over the decades. The American Civil War and World War I were high intensity, conventional wars. Battles were fought on clearly defined battlefields, which may or may not have been in a village or city, and civilians either were moved or became victims. The belligerents were conventional military forces. Civilians, in many cases, were an afterthought. Additionally, the belligerents had altered their tactics and thereby had drawn civilians into active warfare. In the past, armies mostly fought armies. While civilians were often injured as a result of collateral damage, or were located in or near a factory, which was considered a strategic objective, they were essentially ignored. As wars have progressed, though, civilians are more frequently becoming the specific target of terrorists and insurgents. As underscored by a recent article on insurgent activities in Afghanistan, The minister [Afghan Education Minister Mohammed Hareef Atmaf] claimed insurgents were switching to attacks on soft, unguarded targets because of the country's strengthening domestic military and police forces.[12]

Since World War I, the conduct of war has changed. The United Nations (U.N.) was established (on 26 June 1945, when the UN Charter was signed), and conflicts have become quite frequent, though, in some cases, less intense. New missions have entered into our lexicon like low intensity conflict and peacekeeping missions. With these new operations and the emergence of more and more NGOs and IOs, the world has become a bit more crowded.

With reference to peacekeeping missions, Landon and Hayes explain: In its first 43 years, the U.N. Security Council authorized 13 peacekeeping operations. In the 43 months from 1988 to 1992, U.N. Member States authorized 13 additional operations (see Figure 1).[13]

Figure 1. UN Peace Operations

The U.N. was not the only organization to enter into new mission sets. In their article, Who's Keeping the Peace, Bellamy and Williams present a chart of numerous non-U.N. peace operations just in the last decade (see Table 1).[14] Various nations have conducted these peace operations around the world, which further created overlapping areas of operation for the military and civilian relief agencies.

Table 1. Multi-lateral Non-UN Operations.

Table 1 above is but a partial list of peace operations. For a more complete list, see Appendix A, which provides a comprehensive list from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Yearbook and the United Nations Peace Keeping online home page of both UN and non-UN missions as of 2006. All told, Appendix A lists 54 UN peacekeeping missions, 32 non-UN multi-lateral missions, and nine US combat missions or wars. As these conflicts and missions have increased and changed, so has the relationship between the military and the civilian community. It was not until the latter part of the 1980s that these communities began to operate contiguously. Not only did they begin to work closely together; they became dependent on each other. As Landon and Hayes further explain:

During traditional peacekeeping deployments prior to the late 1980s, there was no particular need for interaction between political/military and humanitarian concerns. Today, international and non-governmental organizations have become increasingly important in the formulation of political, social, or economic solutions to complex political emergencies. In most cases, they are a crucial part of the solution.[15]

A recent study conducted by the RAND Corporation addressed this relationship in depth. The study underlines the fact that since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. military has been involved in an abundant number of conflicts, operations, and missions, which brought it into frequent contact with the civilian missions operating in the areas in question. The civilian-military interaction has varied from cooperation and coordination in some cases to friction and contention in others.[16]

The question arises, though, if these communities are reliant on each other as Landon and Hayes posit, why is there a separation between these communities? Additionally, is there even a separation at all between them?

B. Is There a Separation?

We must first point out that the type of relationship between these communities depends on the type of operations in which they are involved. In benign missions, like providing assistance during a natural disaster (a tsunami in Indonesia or earthquake in Pakistan for example), relationships tend to be quite cooperative. As highlighted in the RAND study, In these situations [disaster relief], the military acts in a humanitarian support role. There is no fundamental clash between the missions of the humanitarian assistance (HA) providers and the military.[17] However, these HA missions are rare. Most missions will occur in more hostile environments, and that is where we will focus our attention.

There are some conflicting values, from both the military and civilian sector, that have led to this separation between the communities. As the Department of Defense's (DoDs) Joint Publication 3-08 explains, Each agency has core values and legal requirements that it will not compromise. These values form the foundation upon which key functions of the agency grow. In any interaction, all participants must be constantly aware that each agency will continuously cultivate and create external sources of support and maneuver to protect its core values.[18]

While the U.S. military has been working in close proximity to NGOs and IOs, these communities have not done so with an attitude of cooperation. As Francis Abiew explains, the various civilian and military actors involved in peace operations have not always, necessarily, acted jointly, or in concert to achieve the desired aims of sustainable peace. Several areas of tension still exist between the two groups.[19]

The problems go both ways: NGOs quite often will vocally express their desire to distance themselves from the military and other governmental agencies. This attitude was best demonstrated at a recent Strong Angel (SA III) exercise in San Diego California, which was held in August 2006.[20] At this event, there was a group of ten NGOs, to include Save the Children, and they created and displayed the sign, seen in the following picture (see Figure 2). It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words; this picture definitely supports that claim. This sign may have been written tongue in cheek, but it speaks volumes. The picture reveals the inherent distrust of other agencies, yet also expresses their desire to educate others on their ideology and a desire to learn about others' missions and purposes.

SA-III focused on simulating those aspects of post-disaster conditions that specifically impact communication, information sharing, and coordination. The weeklong demonstration consisted of a series of collaborative technical and non-technical experiments based on both lessons learned in past disasters and on emerging requirements for integrated operations.

Figure 2. Photo of a sign at a NGO table at SA III.[21]

Although many in the military would like to fault NGOs for all the problems, we share the blame. Service members tend to see NGOs and IOs as being constituted by incompetent, liberal, tree-hugging hippies. As Abiew points out the results have been that, military forces have made very little effort to engage NGOs. They lack an understanding of the different hierarchies, charters, distinctions, and modes of operation of NGOs.[22]

Even when there has been information sharing between these communities, the military has sometimes done so without complete fairness. Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) was a watershed event for cooperation between the military and humanitarian organizations. However, it was fraught with many problems as well. While the Army's Central Command (CENTCOM) established liaison billets for IOs and NGOs, the information flow seemed to go one way. As the RAND study explains, Some U.N. and NGO representatives were frustrated with the liaison arrangement, because they believed that they were providing information to CENTCOM without receiving a free flow of information in return.[23]

From the NGO perspective, there is an innate and reasonable desire to maintain distance from the military for fear of becoming tainted or accused of collaboration. NGOs and IOs need to maintain impartiality and a perception of being altruistic. As highlighted in a United Nations handbook, Humanitarian actors must not allow themselves to become allied with a party to a conflict.[24] If local populations or warring factions suspect NGOs and IOs of working with the military, these locals or belligerents could possibly shun or even target the aid workers. Dziedzic and Seidl substantiate this more by emphasizing that: The International Committee of the Red Cross and MSF or Doctors Without Borders maintain a strict separation from belligerent military forces, even espousing neutrality.[25] Dziedzic and Seidl further posit:

[Access to these populations] may be compromised or lost entirely if the assistance community is perceived as undermining the interests and objectives of one of the parties to the conflict or having partisan sympathies. Any taint of association generates a risk that the faction perceiving itself to be disadvantaged will consider humanitarian actors a threat and target their staff and facilities.[26]

Some critics' antagonism toward the military stems from their biased opinions. They believe that the military should not involve itself in these types of missions at all. As Pugh explains:

Military personnel are not ideally suited to humanitarian work; they lack training, expertise and appropriate policy configurations for building local capacities and accountability to local populations; above all, military acts are inherently political and usually connote partisanship – in contrast to traditional humanitarianism, which is idealized as morally autonomous and not politically conditioned or imposed.[27]

In discussing the affects of the U.S. military conducting humanitarian assistance, Guttieri explains that MSF [Médecins Sans Frontières] departed [Afghanistan] with a closing salvo against the military for blurring the boundaries of humanitarian space by directly delivering aid.[28] Part of MSF's complaint, along with many other NGOs, was that military was conducting these operations while wearing civilian clothing and growing beards, so as to melt in with the local populace (see Figure 3). This only furthered the disdain many NGOs already had of the military. This situation was emphasized in the RAND study, which stated:

Many civilian aid providers believed their ability to perform their humanitarian mission [in Afghanistan] was placed in real jeopardy by U.S. Army civil-affairs [sic] officers (and others, including U.S. and UK Special Operations units in the south) dispensing assistance while wearing civilian clothing.[29]

Figure 3. Photo of an unnamed CA officer.[30]

Surprisingly, a large cause of the separation between the military and NGOs comes down to the simple usage of words, or semantics. There has been much debate over the use of the term humanitarian in the US military's doctrine and vernacular. Joelle Tanguy, U.S. Executive Director of Doctors Without Borders, best describes the NGO community's feelings about the military's involvement in humanitarian missions when she said, It [humanitarian intervention] conveys the civilian action to provide assistance in the face of the consequences of crises, it does not include the political and military actions deployed in response to the causes of crises.[31] Tanguy continues her discourse by positing;

The expression itself "humanitarian military intervention" and its associated legalistic rationale the "right to intervene", or "authority to intervene", mix two approaches which, though not mutually exclusive, weaken each other when they are combined. Both approaches may be necessary, but in order to serve their purposes, we believe that humanitarian and military work must carry out [sic] independently.[32]

While some of these complaints and opinions may be accurate, they are not all soundly founded on fact. First, the military is not only capable of conducting SSTR, the military is directed to conduct such operations. For example, the 4th Geneva Convention obligates occupying powers to care for local populations. Articles 55 to 61 relate to assistance, obliging the occupying power OP to:

• Ensure adequate food and medical supplies for the population (art. 55);
• Maintain hospitals, public health and hygiene (art. 56);
• Agree to relief schemes where the population is inadequately supplied (art. 59). These relief schemes may be undertaken by states or by impartial humanitarian agencies such as the ICRC (art. 59). Such schemes cannot relieve the OP of its obligations under arts. 55, 56 and 59 (art. 60).[33] Furthermore, DODD 3000.05 is the new doctrine that mandates the US military to conduct SSTR (discussed later in chapter).

C. What Have Been the Effects of the Separation?

Having addressed the issue of a separation and some of its causes, we will now discuss the effects this gap has had on operations. Often, the military and NGOs have entered into operations midstream, ill prepared and incapable of properly completing their mission. They may have avoided this situation had the parties involved simply met with one another to share information. In his discussion on Somalia, Abiew contends that,

Many NGOs started operations [in Somalia] after the military intervention, [however, many were there beforehand as well] lacking both the experience and knowledge of the country, or even what had taken place before their arrival. The result was poor coordination partly stemming from the unwillingness to consult those with knowledge of the situation.[34]

Additionally, most service members receive very little cultural training, language training, or experience in operations other than war.[35] The military has deployed into theaters of operations, and yet its forces have failed to perform to their fullest potential because of their ignorance of local customs, beliefs, and traditions. Since military personnel quite often deploy to areas on short notice, and often for a limited amount of time, they stand to benefit greatly from NGOs and IOs already on the ground. Many of these humanitarian organizations work overseas for years at a time, and their representatives become regional experts. These NGOs and IOs are capable of providing the military with a plethora of information on local customs and tribal organizations or hierarchies without compromising their partiality.

D. A History of Increased Cooperation

Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. government, military, NGOs and IOs have worked together with an increased frequency and in more hostile and austere environments. An exhaustive compilation of examples is difficult to ascertain because, unlike the SIPRI Yearbook, there is no one organization that tracks NGO operations due to the amount of NGOs in existence. As Carey and Richardson try to explain, The sheer number of NGOs makes it difficult to have an overview of their activities.[36] However, there have been a number of individuals and groups that have presented partial information on the subject. For example, there is some literature on the presence of NGO operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq.[37] As we present these examples, we show how the proliferation of NGOs is a large cause of the overlapping of mission sets.

Part of the cause for the converging areas of operations between NGOs and the military is the fact that the number of NGOs have grown exponentially over the years. For example, in 1939, there were only 700 NGOs but by the mid 1990s UNDP estimated their number to be around 50,000 [in the US], this figure represented only those authorized to receive support from outside donors…[additionally] 16,000 registered in Bangladesh, 21,000 in the Philippines, 100,000 Christian-based ones in Brazil, and 27,000 in Chile.[38] (These figures include both domestic and international NGOs.) Furthermore, the Yearbook of International Organizations explains that there are, more than 26,000 international NGOs with an annual budget of over US$6 billion.[39]

That having been said, there are numerous examples of cooperation amongst these communities. For example, in the 1990s, the U.S. government and NGOs shared a great deal of information and cooperation in the Great Lakes region of East Africa during crises in Rwanda, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. As Laipson explains, the government was willing to share satellite imagery…and other intelligence-derived information. In turn, NGOs on the ground with satellite phones and other modern means of communication were often able to send back ‘ground truth' reporting.[40]

Some of the first modern-day examples of cooperation were seen right after the Persian Gulf War, or Operation Desert Storm. As Weiss explains, In OPC [Operation Provide Comfort], the military and NGOs were thrown together on a large scale for the first time outside of a natural disaster.[41] This teamwork would not stop here but continued into the Balkans.

NGOs were quite prevalent in the Balkans during the 1990s and into the 21st Century. As Carey and Richmond explain, the number of NGOs [in Bosnia] grew from a handful in the mid-1990s to around 1,500 half a decade later.[42] With these large numbers of NGOs also came instances of cooperation. According to a recent study published by the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, in some situations, NGOs have been useful to the implementation of peacekeeping operations. For example, in Bosnia, the NATO IFOR and SFOR troops were asked to promote cooperation on the ground by using the leverage of NGOs to create civilian supports to the General Framework Agreements for Peace.[43]

The attacks on September 11, 2001 initiated a new era of conflict, which also provided new opportunities for NGOs, IOs and militaries to work together. NGOs and IOs have had a long history of work in Afghanistan. However, when the Taliban usurped control of the country, they cracked down on NGO activities. Once the US-led coalition, along with the Northern Alliance, wrested control of the central government away from the Taliban, NGOs and IOs experienced more freedom to operate. According to the Center for Disaster and Humanitarian Assistance Medicine (CDHAM), by August 2003, over 150 international NGOs and over 300 local NGOs [were] present in Afghanistan.[44] These numbers do not give a complete understanding of the numbers of actual NGO workers, since some of the NGOs had robust staffs. For example, CARE International employs over 700 Afghans inside Afghanistan…[and] the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan (SCA), arguably the largest NGO in Afghanistan at this time, is said to employ over 6,000 Afghans.[45]

Having established the large numbers of NGOs in the country, CDHAM continues their discussion of collaboration, explaining that

Some NGOs [in Afghanistan] have coordinated some of their efforts with ISAF in Kabul or the US and Allied forces in the country. Such assistance can involve convoy protection, general security updates, land-mine removal coordination, or petitions for assistance in specific areas.[46]

NGO presence in Iraq was no less remarkable. In August 2003, CDHAM reported over 219 NGOs in Iraq,[47] a number which has increased since that time. Thought the exception rather than the rule, CDHAM explains that, There [were] regular meetings hosted by the coalition military forces in Baghdad and other regions that have been established for the primary purposes of coordinating humanitarian and security efforts.[48]

E. Is Cooperation Needed or Wanted?

In the future, these communities will only continue to work more frequently together and rely on each other for mutual support to conduct SSTR. It is therefore vital that these agencies develop methods and systems to work more efficiently with one another. Jalovcic highlights this point by insisting that

New spaces for debate, learning and interaction should be created, and lessons from previous cooperative work recorded and analyzed [emphasis added]. Military and civil players should be involved in consultation at the strategic and operational levels, and appropriate ways of communication and working along established.[49]

Jalovcic is not the only one advocating change. Throughout our research, we have established that every part of the U.S. government, with which we have spoken during our research, is incredibly desirous and enthusiastic about becoming more involved with NGOs, IOs and interagency actors. This sentiment was best expressed by former Secretary of State Colin Powell when he exclaimed, NGOs are a multiplying force of our combat team.[50] This attitude may seem ironic, especially since President George W. Bush ran for president on a platform that advocated not involving the military in nation-building missions. This position was vocalized by Condoleezza Rice when she, in 2000, famously declared that, We don't need to have the 82nd Airborne escorting kids to kindergarten.[51] However, his administration has now implemented doctrine to the contrary.

As a result, the U.S. military has made a one hundred eighty degree turn in its policy on SSTR, which includes working with and sharing information with NGOs. Landon and Hayes explain: U.S. doctrine has increasingly recognized that military commanders must consider the presence and capabilities of NGOs and PVOs [Private Volunteer Organizations, a term no longer used, for the most part] and attempt to coordinate and cooperate with their efforts.[52]

Since the commencement of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the administration has published two important documents that have revolutionized military doctrine: DoD Directive 3000.05 (DODD 3000.05) and National Security Presidential Directive 44 (NSPD-44). DODD 3000.05 essentially puts SSTR on par with combat operations. The Directive states that, Stability operations are a core U.S. military mission that the Department of Defense shall be prepared to conduct and support. They shall be given priority comparable to combat operations.[53] Similarly, NSPD-44 outlines the job description of the position mentioned in 3000.05 as being responsible for, Develop[ing] strategies to build partnership security capacity abroad and seek to maximize nongovernmental and international resources for reconstruction and stabilization activities.[54]

NGOs have also expressed the need and desire, to cooperate and share information. Guttieri points out that many in the NGO community say Information sharing is a prominent concern, if simply to indicate who is doing what and why.[55] Furthermore, one participant in her survey remarked, better clarity and more systematic and focused effort to communicate purpose by all organizations operating in an emergency can help improve collaboration without abrogating the organization's key principles or protocols.[56]

F. How Do We Fix the Problem?

In our introduction, we asked the question: How can we develop a system to share information and lessons learned and collaborate on humanitarian activities within the international community? We further stated our hypothesis, which was information sharing and collaboration of lessons learned[57] can be accomplished through a web-based network. The impetus for this hypothesis comes from a web site that performed this type of function for the military. Two West Point professors, Tony Burgess and Nate Allen, created the website, which they named Company Command.[58] This idea took hold on the younger military officer population, was eventually purchased by the United States Military Academy (USMA) at West Point, and is now funded by the Army.[59]

Sharing information with the civilian sector is problematic, though. The Army conducts all web-based business on one of three portals, the Non-secure Internet Protocol Router Net or NIPR (for unclassified but official use), the Secure Internet Protocol Router Net or SIPR (for secret message traffic), and Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System or JWICS (for top-secret message traffic). All of these portals are closed within the Department of Defense; therefore, they cannot interact with the civilian sector. For this reason, Dr. Lin Wells, former acting Director of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks, Inter-operability, Integration (ASD-NII) recently commented that SSTR must include one or more ‘EXTRA-NETS' to engage with nontraditional partners like NGOs, aid organizations, indigenous security forces, commercial firms, etc.[60]

Another issue arises from the NGO and IO communities. Through much of our research, the civilian actors have emphasized repeatedly that if such a system is created, the civilian sector will not participate if it is on a government run site. Basically, if the web site URL contains .gov or .mil in the address, the NGOs and IOs will not utilize it. Therefore, we recommend the creation of a web-based network independent of any military or government organization. This web site or network is the focus of our thesis, which we have named the International Crisis Information Network or ICIN.

The operative goals of this network will be to reduce the separation between these communities (though that gap will most likely never be removed completely), capture lessons learned or TIPS, and jointly provide a more efficient service to our customer base, those adversely affected by natural and man-made disasters. As highlighted in the U.S. military's joint publication, Successful interagency, IGO [International Government Organizations], and NGO coordination enables the USG [U.S. Government] to build international support, conserve resources, and conduct coherent operations that efficiently achieve shared international goals.[61]

G. Is This Not Already Being Done?

Since we have begun our research, we have been asked the question; are there not existing sites on the web that do this already? The answer is both yes and no. There are web sites that do share information. The competitors are, for example, ReliefWeb[62], Humaninet[63], Aidworker[64], Development Gateway[65], Interaction[66], and over 200 other area specific – one-way sites. These sites offer Regional Overviews (Country Studies, Maps, Charts, and Links); one specific area of study or interest, specific organization related information, news, and current events. What makes ICIN different? It is designed for the On-The-Ground responder; it's collaborative, interactive, a one-stop-shop, and collates information from all other sites (to be discussed in more detail later in thesis).

Collaboration is a relatively new phenomenon on the web. With collaboration, the web has entered into a new stage of evolution in what experts now call Web 2.0. When the World Wide Web (WWW) was first created, it simply provided one-way communication; this was the first generation of the web. The second generation began when the web became a platform, whereby blogging and collaborative capabilities are prevalent.[67] An example between the first and second generation of the web is the difference between Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia.[68] The former is simply an on-line encyclopedia that provides information while the latter is collaborative.[69]

As we have already shown, NGOs and IOs need to maintain their neutrality. Failing to do so could jeopardize their work and quite possibly their lives. For this reason, ICIN would provide an excellent venue for share information and TIPS in a benign environment, without compromising any mandates, beliefs, or values.

H. Conclusion

In the last few decades, the U.S. military, NGOs and IOs have operated in the same locations, conducting similar types of operations, and have sometimes helped one another to accomplish their respective missions. In spite of this, they have developed walls that separate them, often resulting in degraded efficiency of their capabilities. If these organizations continue to operate with this separation, they will struggle and falter as they attempt to meet the needs of local populations and accomplish their missions. However, if the military, NGOs, and IOs work together and cooperate by sharing information, TIPS, and resources, they cannot help but improve their performance. As Abiew argues, a well-planned and coordinated combination of civilian and military measures can create the conditions for long-term stability and peace in societies torn apart by war.[70]

There is a great requirement for all parties involved to recognize and address this need. Virtually no organization has yet to fill this need. For this reason, we have embarked on a mission to build ICIN and ultimately help the victims of various crises. Through the sharing and collaboration of TIPS, ICIN will empower these organizations to provide effective relief to those in need.

A. What is a Network?

If someone were to ask you, what is a network, how would you answer? Would you talk about computer networks in your office, a terrorist network, or business contacts? Are any of these correct? The answer is yes, networks are all of these things and much more. Networks can also be a social network of friends, sexual partners, religious affiliations, and the list goes on. As Williams explains, networks are the most common form of social organization.[72]

One of the most popular on-line dictionaries, Dictionary.com, provides, among other, the following definitions of the word network (these are a just a few examples):

net‧work –noun

1. Any netlike combination of filaments, lines, veins, passages, or the like: a network of arteries; a network of sewers under the city.

2. An association of individuals having a common interest, formed to provide mutual assistance, helpful information, or the like: a network of recent college graduates. –verb (used without object)

3. To cultivate people who can be helpful to one professionally, esp. in finding employment or moving to a higher position: His business lunches were taken up with networking.[73]

Since we are concerned with social networks, we will focus our attention on them vice computer networks, sewer networks or the like. However, regardless of the type of network, all networks are made up of the same components and are comprised of two main building blocks, nodes and links. Nodes may be a myriad of objects. As Arquilla and Ronfeldt explain, [A] node … may refer to an individual, a group, an organization, part of a group or organization, or even a state.[74] The link is that which connects the nodes together. For example, if we were talking about a person as a node, the link would be his or her relationship with other nodes in their network. As Scott explains,

The social field is seen as comprising points connected by paths. The points represent individual persons, their goals, or their actions, and the paths represent the interactional or causal sequences, which connect them.[75]

Although Scott uses the terms points and paths vice nodes and links (he is speaking specifically about social network analysis), the terms are synonymous. As depicted in Figure 4, each circle represents a node and each arrow represents a link.

Figure 4. A Simple Network.[76]

B. Network Topologies

A network topology refers to the configuration of the nodes and links within the network. While Arquilla and Ronfeldt define three main topologies, chain, star, and all channel[77], there are many more as illustrated in Figure 5. Each of these topologies has advantages and disadvantages. For example, a star group, or hub as some refer to it, is wholly dependent on the center node. If the center is removed, destroyed, or broken down, the entire network falls apart. In a fully connected network however, you can remove any one of the nodes and the network would continue to function.

Figure 5. Network Topologies.[78]

Networks may also exist on different levels. For instance, in turbulent societies there are networks in the general population, amongst the legitimate government, and in a subversive group or counter state. This concept is depicted in Figure 6 below. Notice that the links not only connect the nodes in the individual networks, but they also connect nodes from one network to another.

Figure 6. A multi-layered network.[79]

The topology of a network will depend on the network's purpose. A terrorist network will use communications that are more clandestine. Its topology will vary but may look like a series of interconnected star networks so that each person will know only one to three nodes in the network, thereby creating more security for the network. Other common terrorist topologies include a line or chain and hybrids of the all channel and hub.1

A hub is a centrally located node that is highly connected. Not only is it connected to many other nodes within its own network, but it is also connected to other clusters of nodes in different networks, though those clusters may not be connected to each other. An example is Osama bin Laden's global Salafi network. This network, as seen in Figure 7 below, depicts bin Laden's social network. As Sageman explains,

The Central Staff, Core Arab, Maghreb Arab, and Southeast Asian are large clusters built around hubs: Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Zein al-Abidin Mohammed Hussein (a.k.a. abu Zubaydah), and Abu Bakar (a.k.a. Usatz abu Somad), respectively.[80]

Figure 7. Osama in Laden's Social Network.[81]

A social network, however, may look more like a fully connected network whereby all nodes or friends know each other. If one friend should happen to move, have a falling out, or die, the network will continue to function.

We have already identified various types of networks, computer networks, sewer networks and social networks to name a few. Social networks are in themselves varied from one type to another. Social networks may include sexual partners (there have been many studies on social networks and sexual partners to analyze the spread of infectious diseases for example)[82], business networks, and finally, communities of interest or COIs, where we will now focus our attention.

According to Wikipedia, A community of interest is a community of people who share a common interest or passion, such as rugby fans on Rugby365.com, or music lovers on MP3.com. These people exchange ideas and thoughts about the given passion.[83] The DoD, for its part, defines COIs as such:

COI is a term used to describe any collaborative group of users who must exchange information in pursuit of their shared goals, interests, missions, or business processes, and who therefore must have shared vocabulary for the information they exchange.[84]

There is one main difference between these two definitions, that being compulsion. In the Wikipedia definition, no mention is made of an obligatory sharing of information; hence, it is voluntary. In the DoD version, however, the collaborative users must share information. This raises the question as to whether or not networks and COIs can be created, or whether they simply occur, or both.

In Figure 5 above, we depicted a simple network of six nodes. The links were portrayed with arrows, some were unidirectional, and others were dual-headed. This simple diagram speaks volumes to the question at hand. Nodes D, E, and F may have been introduced to node A, but if A does not reciprocate, there will be no relationship. However, B and C may have been introduced to A, and if A likes both B and C, they will then begin to build a relationship, hence, a network. Denning explains this in more detail. According to Denning,

Al-Qa'ida, [sic] for example, did not set out to create a network, plan its structure (e.g., to be resilient), and then populate it with people and links. Their network just emerged from relationships that have come and gone over the years.[85]

Conversely, Williams gives an exception by explaining that, a network can be created and directed by a core of organizers who want to use it for specific purposes (a ‘directed network').[86] In agreement with Williams, Sageman argues that Osama bin Laden actively recruited members for al Qaeda. In his book Understanding Terror Networks, Sageman describes the process for joining, or rather, being invited to join al Qaeda. He explains that people do not simply join al Qaeda. You cannot go to the local mosque and sign up. Sageman continues,

No aggressive ‘publicity' campaigns targeted potential recruits; no dedicated recruitment committee had full time staff at al Qaeda headquarters (except a reception committee in Peshawar for people already on their way to the camps).[87]

Sageman adds that recruits are drawn from terror training camps around the Muslim world (Afghanistan, Malaysia, Sudan, and Muslim controlled areas in the Philippines for example). From this pool of trainees, al Qaeda offered the opportunity to join its ranks to only 10 to 30 percent of its trainees.[88] Denning does, however, somewhat agree by stating, There are some exceptions. If you look at the hierarchical network of ‘reports to' relations in an organization, it is something that is created from a plan.[89]

It is safe to say, though, that we can facilitate social networks and COIs. As Denning explains, [if you] put two work groups in the same physical location, relationships will be formed between people in the two groups. Or, introduce people to each other so that some new links will be established.[90]

One example of a COI comes from the Bradford, England, called BradfordInfo. This particular web site breaks down COIs into two different groups, communities who share an identity and communities who share an experience and concern.[91] They give examples of the first as people who share an identity like race or ethnicity, sexual orientation, or people with a disability. The second group they identify as refugees or asylum seekers, the homeless, people who care for the elderly or disabled.

C. Networks in History

Social networks are not new; they have existed throughout history. As Castells explains, Networks, however, are not specific to twenty-first century societies.[92]

Probably one of the most recorded examples of a social network in ancient times (though no one regards it as a social network) was that of the Apostle Paul. Paul was once a Pharisee, or Jewish priest, and a member of the Sanhedrin (a ruling body of priests and lay elders forming a council). After his conversion, he became one of the greatest Christian missionaries in history and, in a period of 35 years, created a social network that expanded throughout almost the entire Roman Empire, from Spain to Egypt. He did not accomplish this with the use of the Internet, telephone calls, or mass letter mailing vis-à-vis the post office. Paul created such a network through building personal relationships and by traveling the expanse of the Roman Empire and through hand delivered letters. The postal system of the Empire provided service for official business only. As Halley explains: There was no postal service in the Roman Empire except for official business. Public Postal Service [sic] as we know it is of modern origin. Then personal letters had to be carried by friends or chance travelers.[93]

Paul began his ministry in approximately AD 32 and continued until he was beheaded in 67 AD. In this 35-year history, he conducted three missionary journeys. During these journeys, Paul traveled from modern-day Israel to Syria, Turkey, Greece, Malta, Italy, and tradition says Spain, though the last is unconfirmed.[94] In each of these cities, as well as scores of others, Paul developed a social network remarkable even by today's standards.

Paul's social network is exemplified in his letters. In his book to the Romans, Paul sends greetings to 25 friends and relatives, each of whom he identifies by name.[95] In other letters, he identifies colleagues and associates further demonstrating his connectedness throughout the Roman Empire. In the book of Philippians, Paul even identifies fellow Christians in Caesar's household.[96]

Social networks have indeed evolved since the early church. Since the first century AD, the world has seen the development of numerous, incredible technological advances and innovations, thus aiding in communication. In the 1440s, Gutenberg invented the printing press. In the 1960s, we saw the beginnings of the Internet, which ultimately brought about unprecedented levels of worldwide communication. Hence, in today's society, people are able to develop social networks with others on the opposite side of the world without leaving their house. One example is a web site named LinkedIn. According to Wikipedia, LinkedIn is a business oriented [sic] social networking site, mainly used for professional networking. As of September 2006, it had more than 7 million registered users, representing 130 industries.[97] LinkedIn also provides users the ability to connect with colleagues and friends from past military assignments, colleges, or to connect with someone in another person's network. LinkedIn advertises five benefits for joining the web site:

• Get introduced to the people you need. When you need to reach a professional, LinkedIn will tell you who can introduce you to the person you need.
• Find professionals your friends can vouch for. Don't just search the web for people. Search the people your friends know and can recommend.
• Keep up with friends and colleagues. LinkedIn makes it easy to hear news about their careers, projects and professional lives.
• Don't miss professional opportunities. With LinkedIn, you hear about opportunities in your network, even if your friends don't tell you about them.
• Build your relationships. When a connection asks you to make an introduction, you build that relationship.[98]

We first joined LinkedIn at the invitation of NPS professor Dr Dorothy Denning, who teaches courses on networks for the Department of Defense Analysis. As of 7 November 2006, Major Catanzaro had 29 people in his network on LinkedIn (see Table 2). From those 29, he was able to connect to nearly 40,000 other people vis-à-vis the web site.

Table 2. LinedIn Connections.[99]

D. Kevin Bacon?

Table 2 depicts these connections in a concept known as degrees of separation. This concept was popularized by the trivia game Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. The game presumes that every actor in Hollywood can be connected to the actor Kevin Bacon within six steps and its goal is to find the shortest path from that actor to Kevin Bacon. For example, Jennifer Lopez was in U Turn (1997) with Sean Penn and Sean Penn was in Mystic River (2003) with Kevin Bacon.

We tried to see if this concept worked from someone outside of Hollywood as well. We both know Major Catanzaro's sister, Domenica, who is married to a gentleman named Derek Pisani (1). Derek is cousins with the actor Stan Tucci (2). Stan Tucci was in Billy Bathgate (1991) with Nicole Kidman (3). Nicole Kidman was in Far and Away (1992) with Tom Cruise (4). Tom Cruise was in A Few Good Men (1992) with Kevin Bacon (5); it worked!

We tried it another way. We both attend NPS with a Major Cameron Sellers (1). Major Sellers worked as a Congressional Aide for Senator John McCain of Arizona (2). Senator McCain knows Californian Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (3). Governor Schwarzenegger was in Batman Legacy (2000) with Jack Nicholson (4). Jack Nicholson was in A Few Good Men (1992) with Kevin Bacon (5); worked again!

A Harvard psychologist, Stanley Milgram, conducted a similar experiment in 1967 based on the concept of six degrees of separation. Milgram sent hundreds of letters to people in Nebraska, asking them to forward the correspondence to acquaintances who might be able to shepherd it closer to a target recipient: a stockbroker in Boston.[100] Of the letters that arrived, Milgram found the average letter went through six individuals.

E. The World is Flat

We will now transition from a discussion of networks and COIs to the advancement of technologies, the popularity of the Internet and why it is a suitable place for ICIN. In his book The World is Flat, Thomas Friedman argues that the world has gone through three stages of globalization, culminating in the flattening of the world. The result is that world is now connecting all the knowledge centers on the planet together in a single global network.[101]

Friedman explains that the first phase, Globalization 1.0, covered the era from 1492 through 1800, thus shrinking the world from large to medium. The significance of this period lays in the fact that Columbus paved the way for the old world to open trade with the new world. In Globalization 2.0, which lasted from 1800 to 2000, the world then became small. The factor in this epoch was that multinational companies brought about global integration. Finally, in Globalization 3.0, which began in 2000, the world became flat. The impetus behind 3.0 was that individuals found power to compete through global collaboration.[102]

The seams between each of these periods might seem strange to some. Some would think that the creation of the Internet or the World Wide Web (WWW) would provide a good transition from Globalization 2.0 to 3.0. However, the real change was with the advent of what experts call Web 2.0 (as previously discussed in chapter 2). We will now address this evolution.

The Internet had its beginnings as a DoD project as far back as the 1960s. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) created a network, called ARPANET, which was meant to counteract a Soviet disruption or destruction of our communications.[103] The first public use was not until the mid 1970s, however. While the first stages of the Internet were, by today's standards, quite basic, they had unprecedented effects. As Castells offers, ultimately ARPANET…became the foundation of a global, horizontal communication network of thousands of computer networks…that has been appropriated for all kinds of purposes.[104] Then came the WWW.

Many people today often mistakenly refer interchangeably to the Internet and the WWW; but they are different. In fact, the WWW, or simply the Web, is a component of the Internet that provides access to documents. As Friedman explains, the WWW is a system for creating, organizing, and linking documents so that they can be easily browsed over the Internet.[105] Wikipedia further explains that the Web,

Is a global, read-write information space. Text documents, images, multimedia and many other items of information, referred to as resources, are identified by short, unique, global identifiers called Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) so that each can be found, accessed and cross referenced in the simplest possible way.[106]

Tim Berners-Lee, a British computer scientist, developed the concept of the WWW and posted the very first Web site on the Internet in 1991.

The WWW grew in popularity almost overnight. As Friedman continues, Within five years, the number of Internet users jumped from 400,000 to 40 million. At one point, it was doubling every 53 days.[107] Today, as depicted in Figure 8, there are over one billion users of the Internet located throughout the entire world.[108] In discussing a free software program called Linux, Friedman discusses that even the remotest countries in the developing world have the Internet. He explains that Malians in Timbuktu make antennas out of plastic soda bottles and mesh from window screens[109] to create wireless networks via satellite. Though more prevalent in some parts of the world, as depicted in Figure 8, the Internet is virtually everywhere. This does not mean, however, that Africa is on par with the more developed world. Africa still lags far behind others on the information superhighway.

Figure 8. Number of Internet Users Worldwide.

To understand why Globalization 3.0 did not start until 2000, we need explain the difference between the Internet and the WWW of the 20th Century and the advent of Web 2.0. We addressed this briefly in Chapter 2, but we will now go in to more detail. In its infancy, the Internet simply linked together computers and provided a means to transfer information like e-mails or documents. While the precursor of the Internet, ARPANET, was established for the DoD, it quickly became a venue for educational and research institutions to communicate as well. As Castells explains,

Scientists started to use it [ARPANET] for all kinds of communications purposes. At one point it became difficult to separate military-oriented research from scientific communications and from personal chatting.[110]

Many other groups became involved in ARPANET, and by the 1980s, it was called the ARPANET-INTERNET. Finally, it was simply INTERNET.

F. The Dot-Coms

In the 1990s, many businesses and organizations began to see the potential of the Internet. This realization occurred nearly at the time when Berners-Lee created the WWW and the first Web site. Castells highlights this evolution by relating the following:

The peaceful coexistence of various interests and cultures in the net took the form of the World Wide Web (WWW), a flexible network of networks within the Internet where institutions, businesses, associations, and the individuals create their own ‘sites' on the basis of which everybody with access can produce her/his/its ‘homepage,' made of a variable collage of text and images.[111]

As the 20th Century and Globalization 2.0 began to wane, the world saw a new stage in the advancement of the WWW, the dot-com bubble. Dot-com refers to the Web address that Web sites used on the WWW, for example www.Amazon.com. With popularization of the WWW, businesses quickly began to see the profit potential in selling on the WWW. These businesses were called the dot-coms. As these companies began to make money, the stock market increased creating the dot-com bubble. Overinvestment in the Internet soon began to spread fears that the bubble was soon to burst.

In response to the media's prodding, Bill Gates, of Microsoft, confirmed their fears by stating the dot-com bubble would indeed burst, but that did not matter. Friedman explained Bill Gates perspective: Gates compared the Internet to the gold rush, the idea being that more money was made selling Levi's, picks, shovels, and hotel rooms to the gold diggers than from digging up gold from the earth.[112] In mid-2000, the bubble did burst and the market dropped nearly 2000 points, as depicted in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Graph of Dot-com Burst.[113]

Castells above description is exactly why the Internet and the WWW are not a part of Friedman's Globalization 3.0. The Internet, although it may have changed the history of technology, and the WWW, although was a dramatic improvement on the Internet, simply put information out for all to see. Web sites provided information, they offered up text and images, but it was all one-way communication. The real change came with Web 2.0.

G. Web 2.0

O'Reilly Media first coined the phrase Web 2.0 in 2004, although the era started in 2001 with the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Incidentally, the dawn of Globalization 3.0 and Web 2.0 roughly coincide with each other. O'Reilly Media gathered a number of experts of the Internet, to include Media Live International, in an attempt to brainstorm on the future direction of the Internet. They concluded that rather than crashing after the dot-com burst, the Internet actually reached some type of a turning point. Since then, the term Web 2.0 has become increasingly popular. For example, we Googled[114] the term Web 2.0 and came up with the following results: Results 1 - 10 of about 667,000,000 for web 2.0. (0.06 seconds), that is over half a billion references to Web 2.0.

So how does Web 2.0 differ from Web 1.0?[115] Three main factors distinguish these two generations of the Web. First, the Web has evolved from pulling information to pushing it. Second, users went from readers to editors. Finally, the Web morphed from a high-speed post office to on-line communities.

In Web 1.0, people had to look for information and pull it off the Internet. With the advent of Web 2.0, information is pushed to the user. The best example of pushing information is the new technology call rich site summary or RSS. RSS works in two ways. First, any Web site can set up an RSS feed to draw information into the web site to update it. For example, the Naval Postgraduate School's Cebrowski Institute has built a Web site, which is a COI for energy enthusiasts. On the web site, they have an RSS feed, based on certain key words, which searches the Internet for any news, articles or information dealing with energy. Once it is found, it draws that information into the Web site.

Additionally, RSS will work for individual users as well. Any user may go onto the Web site and sign up for a RSS feed. By submitting certain key words, the user is then able to have the site notify them vis-à-vis their e-mail of any updates. Web 2.0 changed the Web from a centrally run entity to a flat or non-hierarchical entity. Under Web 1.0, anyone could set up his or her own web site, in this respect everyone was on equal footing. At that time, bandwidth was not the same for uploading as was for downloading. As Friedman explains, the bandwidth on cable phone lines was asymmetrical; download rates far exceeded upload rates. The dogma of the age held that ordinary people had no need to upload; they were consumers, not producers.[116] However, with Web 2.0, anyone is now able to edit, alter, or add to these Web sites as well.

With this evolution, everyone can be an editor. This is done through many technologies like Wikis and Blogs. The Pew Internet and American Life project found that 44% of adult American Internet users – more than 53 million people – have contributed material to the online world.[117]

Finally, Web 2.0 changed the Web from a better method of communicating with others to facilitating virtual communities and social networks. When the Internet was in its infancy, people could send out e-mail, which was nothing more than high-speed mail service. Today, however, the Web is populated with countless COIs dedicated to enriching social networks.

H. Why Use the Internet for ICIN?

The Internet provides numerous advantages for virtual communities. Three advantages we will focus on here are that forming a COI on the Internet saves resources (time and money); the Internet is increasingly popular, especially with the younger generations; and finally, the Internet is increasingly popular for communications, Wikis, Blogs, and the like.

A facet of Web 2.0 is that social networks can form and exist in the virtual world. In the past, social organizations met at a certain time and space. People traveled to meet each other, whether it was to a palace court, the town pub, or the local meeting hall. In today's environment, people can build social networks on the Web from the comfort of their living rooms, at the airport while traveling, or from the local library. This saves both time and money.

When compared with running an actual event where these people could meet, virtual communities are far more efficient. As Mr Nick Tomb from the Center for Stabilization and Reconstruction Studies explains;

It is very expensive to run a conference/workshop. My experience from conducting a variety of events in Monterey is that they run from $25,000 - $100,000 for a 4 – 5 day event, depending on the labor costs (volunteer vs. paid staff) the venue (hotels here are pricey), participant accommodations (who pays), event development, etc.[118]

In addition to fees, participants must also take time out of their busy schedules to attend these workshops. Attendance is also limited as well. The CSRS workshops for example, are usually limited to 30-40 participants. Virtual communities are limitless on members, though.

Since its inception, the Internet and the Web have increased in popularity exponentially, and interest and participation will not wane any time soon. As stated previously, there are currently over one billions Internet users worldwide. Of those users, a large percentage are spending their time Online engaged in some type of communication. According to Cymfony.com, people spend over a third of their time involved in communicating (see Figure 10 below).

Figure 10. Percent of Time Spent on Online Activities.[119]

The popularity of the Internet does not rest solely with professionals or the dot.coms. In fact, it is quite trendy for teens and even pre-teens. For kids, the Internet is second nature, much like television was for us and radio for our parents. Friedman explains how the next generation is growing up online. He explains that more than 2 million children aged 6-17 have their own Web site… [and] twenty-nine percent of kids in grades K-3 have their own e-mail address.[120] Why do we care about kids? They are the next generation of service men and women, as well as NGO, IO, and government workers. If ICIN does not provide a medium that is relevant and technologically advanced, it will be useless and passé. Hence, the next generation will not use it. ICIN must be forward looking.

Finally, individuals and communities are not attracted to the Internet for simply sending e-mails and reading web sites; rather, people are gravitating to technologies from the Web 2.0 era like Wikis and blogs. For instance, according to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, 44% of American Internet users post on blogs, discussion boards or engage in other social media outlets.[121] Furthermore, Cymfony.com explains that:

The dramatic growth of social media sites shows that while the form may change, participatory content is a powerful draw: comScore reports that MySpace grew 318% and broke into the top ten Web sites (measured by unique visitors) in 2005. Wikipedia grew 275% to surpass popular sites like ESPN.com and in May 2006 ranked just behind The Weather Channel. YouTube, which wasn't even around a year ago, now attracts 12.6 million users.[122]

I. Conclusion

As explained in Chapter I, our research has shown that those in the humanitarian assistance and disaster relief communities can conduct information sharing and collaboration on lessons learned through a web-based network. Therefore, in this chapter we have defined networks, discussed various types of networks, including COIs, and network topologies. We have provided examples of networks in history, thereby showing that they are not new phenomena. Finally, we have provided a synopsis of the evolution of technologies, how they have affected networks, specifically through the development of the Internet and the WWW, culminating in why the Internet is most suitable for ICIN. In the next chapter, we will advance a business model of how to implement a web-based information-sharing network.

A. Organizational Model

The model in Figure11 illustrates the network form of management and structure that we envision for ICIN. It will be used throughout the discussion of Chapter 4.

Figure 11. ICIN Organizational Model.

B. Throughput and Component Attributes

This section of the thesis will focus on the throughputs that the thesis team anticipates will need to occur in order for the website to provide the requisite information to the user.

Figure 12 (page 62) illustrates the flow of information from the global community, through the technology (Internet), utilizing the website (ICIN), the validation by human counterparts and the return to the website for user interface.

C. Inputs

Proceed to:
1. Environments

D. Conclusion

Numerous organizations in the world are trying to provide aid and relief to those who are suffering from natural and man-made disasters. While this is an extremely noble effort, there are countless occasions when these efforts have been futile because agencies will not cooperate or collaborate. The result has been the duplication of effort, aid or relief not being delivered, or the loss of time and resources because organizations are reinventing the wheel. For these reasons, it is imperative that militaries, government agencies, NGOs, IOs, and FRs come together and share information.

There is a great requirement for all parties involved to recognize and address this need. The thesis team has embarked on a mission to build ICIN and ultimately help the victims of various crises. Through the sharing and collaboration of TIPS, ICIN will empower these organizations to provide effective relief to those in need.

A. Purpose Revisited

Throughout the thesis, we have endeavored to answer the question: How can we develop a system for the sharing of lessons learned between the military, NGOs, IOs and government agencies? ICIN provides that answer in the form of a viable prototype which can be used to test our theory and meet our goals of: establishing a network that will allow military and civilian organizations to collaborate on lessons learned from operations in the civilian sector and areas of conflict in order to break down the cultural and stereotypical barriers between them that currently exist. ICIN will also achieve the goal of empowering individuals from the military and NGO/civilian community to conduct effective humanitarian operations in a cooperative manner.

B. Research Questions Revisited

We began this thesis by asking four questions that were established to guide us throughout the thesis process. The answers to those questions are as follows:

• Can a web site bridge the gap between the military and other agencies? Yes it can. ICIN has the ability to bridge the separation between the military and other relief agencies by establishing a clearing house of information that can be easily accessed, searched, and edited for the humanitarian community.
• How has this separation inhibited operations? The separation commonly occurring in areas of relief is caused by the lack of information sharing. NGOs and the military see each other as competitors, enemies, and the root cause for their lack of mission accomplishment rather than as partners in the situation. ICIN can facilitate communication and span the boundaries between these communities.
• Can we develop a system by which CA soldiers and the international community share lessons learned and collaborate on humanitarian missions? Yes. ICIN would be the first site that would be a repository for lessons learned or TIPS in the area of humanitarian relief specifically tailored for both military and civilian agencies.
• Who will maintain and fund the site, once we have created it? The courses of action presented in the thesis outline possibilities for a number of entities (educational, private sector) that would be excellent sponsors of the ICIN project.

C. Conclusion

Throughout this journey, we have discussed and presented evidence on the issue of civilian-military relations. We addressed the history of civilian and military relations and determined that there is a separation between these communities. We identified the effects of the separation and determined that there was a need for increased cooperation between civilian and military agencies. ICIN was proposed as a solution to the problem. The thesis illustrated the effectiveness of networks in history, identified network topologies, and described the rapid expansion of networks due to the increase of information technology and globalization. Other areas presented were communities of interest and Web 2.0, both crucial to the next generation of ICIN. In the fourth chapter, a complete description of the components of the web site was discussed in finite detail and an organizational model was presented that illustrated the internal flow of information in and through ICIN. This flow of information facilitates the self-regulating aspect of ICIN.

In conclusion, we both have learned a tremendous amount about the possible uses of technology, the interaction between military and civilian agencies and the limitations on effectiveness when information is not shared. Throughout our discussions with multiple agencies, entities and personnel it has been overwhelmingly agreed upon that a system like ICIN needs and should be used by the community as a whole. The questions remain: Will ICIN be used when created? Will ICIN be effective? Who will use it? These questions cannot be answered in the timeframe available for this thesis, but they lend themselves very well to the next level of research.

A. Background

Historically, there has been a separation between military personnel and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO). Both of these communities are stigmatized by misconceptions, biases, and stereotypical perceptions of each other. Ironically, these communities have been working in the same areas on the same type of operations. The result has been a breakdown of communications, repetitive work, loss of lessons learned and ultimately the non-facilitated assistance to those in need. It is in this frame of reference that we ask the following question: Given a country in conflict with intertwined combat and humanitarian assistance needs, what is the best way, using game theory, for military and NGO entities to maximize the information shared and preserve their individual interests. This game will be based on the personal experiences and accounts from the field of humanitarian aide workers and volunteers.

B. Situation

In country X, a conflict rages with both combat and humanitarian areas. The military and NGOs both have mandates to assist the host nation populace. Both groups have instructions from superiors regarding what information can and cannot be shared. The military has been instructed by Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 3000.05 to work with the NGO community in order to assist the effected population. The NGO entities have strict instructions not to interact with the military directly as they may be viewed by hostile groups as sympathetic towards the military and therefore, may become targets as well. NGOs are commonly instructed, by their donors, not to interact with military personnel.

C. Assumptions

• Both the military and NGO entities are rational actors.
• Both entities are attempting to maximize their information position while minimizing the other player's information position in accordance with their instructions in a zero-sum situation. In a partial-conflict situation, both players maximize their individual positions.
• Information shared will be of an unclassified / open-source nature.
• Information sharing takes place in a safe area of Country X.

D. The Analysis

The analysis will utilize a Partial Conflict game, and a breakdown of each player's Strategic Moves in order to determine the best situation for each entity and when both sides can equally share information.

E. The Actors

The scale values listed below (Figure 15) are ordinal[150] in nature and represent a Worst being 1 and Best being 4.

Figure 15. Ordinal Scale Rankings

F. The Games

The matrix is designed to reflect the SHARE or HOLD positions of both players according to their specific choices, best to worst. Figure 16 illustrates the matrix template that will be used throughout the discussion.

Figure 16. Game Matrix Template

Referring to Figure 17, the security position of the military is identified as 2, and the security position of the NGO is identified as 3. This result is reached by maximizing the position of one player while minimizing the opponent's position. The Security Position indicates the worst that each player can do given the Partial Conflict game.

Figure 17. Matrix Security Positions

In the partial conflict game, both players attempt to maximize their own position. This combination illustrates what can happen when both players elect to make the most of the situation. Figure 18 illustrates the results of a Partial Conflict game where both players attempt to maximize their individual positions.

Figure 18. Partial Conflict

• Analysis of military game: The military player maximizes from 3 to 4 and from 1 to 2 in each prospective columns. The best resulting quadrant, is therefore, BC where the military player achieves the best amount of 4.
• Analysis of NGO game: The NGO player maximizes from 2 to 4 and from 1 to 3. However, in this case, the location that is most likely to be chosen has a value of 3 for the NGO, as the military is most likely to choose row B if the NGO chooses column C.

The partial conflict Game results in a Nash Equilibrium existing in quadrant BC with a value of (4 Military, 3 NGO). The military shares all unclassified information with the NGO and the NGO in return also shares all related humanitarian information with the military in order to successfully attend to the crisis and population in need. In this Partial Conflict game, the players reach a Nash Equilibrium in quadrant BC (4,3). This is an example of what Philip Straffin in his book, Game Theory and Strategy, defines as a two-person game that is Solvable in the Strict Sense or SSS.[151] This game is SSS because one equilibrium is Pareto optimal,[152] and if there is more than one Pareto optimal equilibrium, all of them are equivalent and interchangeable. A graphic representation of the Partial Conflict game is illustrated in Figure 19.

Figure 19. Nash Equilibrium Outcome

By intersecting the Nash Equilibrium of (4,3) with the respective axis of the players [military at x and NGO at y], the maximum sharing levels are evident. The military exhibits a maximum sharing level of 4 and the NGO exhibits a maximum of 3, intersecting at (4,3). The line that is created from (4,3) to (3,4) illustrates the Pareto Optimal Line. This line graphically represents the coordinates from which both players have the best results without degrading the outcome of the other player. In this case, (4,3) represents the best that both players can achieve.

It is crucial to understand that the above games involved simultaneous moves by each player without communication. In that respect it is necessary to evaluate the game from the perspective of each player independently. This evaluation will demonstrate dominant strategies, Nash equilibriums, likely outcomes, and whether the player should elect to go first or second, given the opportunity for communication.

Figure 20. Strategic Moves

• Analysis of military game: The partial conflict game shows evidence that the military has the ability to reach its best outcome of the game by choosing B and sharing all but Classified information with NGOs.
• Analysis of NGO Game: The NGOs can improve both of their positions by choosing to share their information with the military. The most likely result is BC. The NGOs have a dominant strategy in that both positions improve in the C column.
• Analysis of Strategic Moves: Since the NGOs are dominant to C, it is in the interest of the military to choose their best position in row B. This strategy is used without communication and simultaneously by both players. Movement to BC has been predetermined by both players to be their best move. For example, referring to Figure 20, if the military chooses row A, then the NGO will choose column C. If the military chooses row B, then the NGO will again choose column C and vice versa. Both players wish to improve their individual positions. The last option occurs when the NGO chooses column D. The military attempts to maximize its position by moving to row A.

G. Summary

Throughout the process, the game has indicated that both players had the opportunity to adequately and effectively share information with the other player according to their individual criteria. The best option for both players was a situation where the military would share all but Classified information and would maintain close contact with the NGO. Conversely, the NGO would freely receive and share information with the military and would maintain direct contact through the CMOC, HOC or HIC.

The sharing of humanitarian information between respondents is critical to fulfilling the needs of the affected population. An example of this is illustrated in the works of Robert Axelrod.[153] In his book, The Evolution of Cooperation, he found that by performing multiple iterations of the Prisoners Dilemma, that the game actually produced a long-term incentive for cooperation, while a short-term game provided an incentive to defect. Theoretical models of human behavior and actions can assist in determining the best outcome for a plausible situation. The misperceptions, attitudes and biases of one organization to another need to be put on hold and all parties must work together in order to accomplish the mission at hand…saving lives.