Deploying armed personnel to the MH17 crash site is not a good idea

http://michellemarieantellg.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/blackroses/

How did we get ourselves into this predicament?

I am certain this is the feeling that some of the Malaysian leaders in their security council are asking themselves as they mull over their most immediate concern of securing the crash site of MH17.

Tomorrow will mark the 10^th day since the Malaysian carrier met its end in the skies above a conflict zone where not a single person onboard the flight was a stakeholder to the parties in the conflict. Securing the crash site is vital in order to continue retrieving remnant body parts of passengers; to prevent looters and tampering of the crash site; to be able to carry out investigations into the cause of the plane crash; and to ensure the safety of investigators on site. These seemingly simple tasks have just gotten more difficult with the presence of armed rebels who have declared control over the site.

The Malaysians have won my respect with the successful negotiations with the separatist rebels that resulted in the handing over of the black boxes and the first round retrieval of the bodies. Such a negotiation exercise is unbelievably complicated with so many variables to consider. Things can go very wrong. The fact that it was concluded so quickly in such a short time without prior media knowledge shows the decisiveness, courage and resolve of those involved in the negotiations.

However, all is not well. The safety of investigators cannot be guaranteed with the presence of ill-disciplined, armed men who belong to the organization that are potential suspects to the crime. Body parts are still lying in the field. The longer the situation drags on, the greater the opportunity for the geopolitical mess between all parties to deteriorate. The Aussies are proposing a joint coalition force of armed Aussies, Dutch and Malaysian police and military personnel to secure the crash site.

 “They must be nuts,” says Joerg Forbig, senior program officer for central and eastern Europe, German Marshall Fund – a think tank based in Berlin (26 July 2014, Sydney Morning Herald).

Indeed, this idea of involving armed representatives from countries aligned with the west is highly risky and possibly unwise. Unless the governments involved have access to information that we do not know, such a decision can lead to unwanted outcomes with global impact. Why is this such a bad idea?

1) Raw emotions – The Dutch, Malaysians and Aussies lost the most number of people on the flight. The cover story is that regular police officers and token military personnel are sent there. In reality, the personnel sent there are usually highly trained individuals from the various special forces units. These are Type A personalities who are highly patriotic and devoted to their cause to protect their people. They will not be too impressed with the rebels and might be tempted to act out of revenge.

2) Opportunity to create blame – Should the rebels seek the upper hand in preparation for subsequent rounds of negotiation, they can easily create an incident that will make them look like the victim, especially if the coalition force is armed. For instance, a rebel could deliberately fire a rifle into the sky to antagonize the coalition. Instinctively, a coalition member fires back but hits a civilian passerby, a child, instead. This creates distraction from the key issue at hand – the investigation of the crash site; and gives the rebels the upper hand.

3) Aggressive perception – Imagine for a moment, if you observed a convoy of trucks coming your way. They stop to unload soldiers and police officers who are armed with rifles. Get the picture? It certainly is intimidating, even if all of them flashed smiles at you. The argument is for self-defence purposes - that if they are armed, you have to be armed, if not more armed. This does not portray neutrality in an already volatile situation. This shows aggression, something that is not necessary.

With the inability to access the information that is privy to the respective governments, we will have no idea about how the decision making process was carried out. However, I would like to offer a few suggestions – nothing earth shattering, but certainly worth considering:

1) Involve a United Nations peacekeeping force – Arms should not be used but observers should wear body armour. The Russians must contribute influential personnel and a sizable number to this team.

2) Get assistance from a neutral country – This is not an easy option but a possible one where a country that is deemed co-operative with Russia and the west can send personnel to secure the crash site. Whether they are armed or not depends on the type of agreement negotiated.  

3) Get privately contracted security personnel – This is not the most ideal option when it comes to cost. However it does reduce the potential geopolitical repercussions should things go wrong (if a paid security contractor is killed accidentally, it is not perceived as inflammatory as when a Dutch or Aussie soldier gets killed). The nationality of the mercenary does matter. As far as possible, they should be obtained from Asia or South America so as to portray neutrality. The gurkhas are a fine example of someone who should be hired for this role. From a business point of view, I am for arming mercenaries as this is a case of protecting one’s ‘business concern’ (it’s sad but true, money does trump common sense). Pistols for self defence might be ideal in this case as it defers to the AK-47 assault rifles the rebels are using.

I am reminded of how countries are warned of future security threats that we will face in the near future. Threats are expected to be irregular, catastrophic and disruptive. The MH17 crash in a conflict zone can fall into the category of an irregular threat. Countries are placing strong emphasis on funding, recruiting and training their military or para-military special forces to deal with the many unknowns that the world will encounter.

I am hopeful that this situation will be resolved soon. Practically speaking, this looks like it will be a long drawn affair that will be heavily politicised, with the threat of missteps from all sides.   

6 paradoxes that get students ahead in school…and life

https://www.business-strategy-innovation.com

Like many teachers, I have taught hundreds of students over the years. Given the small classes that define the institutions I am based at, I have relatively intimate interaction with my students. Over the years, I have observed certain traits that make some students stand out over the others. These students may not necessarily be the top students but they do come close. In some of them, you can see highly visible improvements when you chart their progress from day one to the last day of class. They started the class as perceived dark horses but ended up close to the front when the final grades are released.

What makes these students so different from the rest of the cohort? My observation has shown that specific gender, educational and financial backgrounds have no direct influence on their traits. These are a special breed of students whom I feel every student has the potential to emulate. These are traits that can be learned if one possesses the attitude to follow through with it. The following traits are paradoxes – seemingly contradictory but strong in harmony. Allow me to explain:   

1) They listen but ask questions

When I mean listen, I mean that they both hear what I have to say in class (or instructions in my handouts) and can repeat to me exactly what I said to them. After listening, they digest and then ask questions based on the instructions I had provided. Such questions tend to be of high quality and a reflection of a well thought through process. To me, this is true intelligence. Interestingly, leadership guru and professor Warren Bennis is quoted as saying that failure to listen is the most common reason why CEOs fail. (http://iveybusinessjournal.com/departments/from-the-editor/in-conversation-warren-bennis#.U8FPifmSzT8)

2) They are persistent but know when to let go

Some years back, I have an reliable source who related a story of a group of military commandos from a certain Asian country who decided to participate in the Langkawi Ironman triathlon competition. These hardened soldiers were determined to complete the race in good time. However, the group was divided into two camps – those who believed in pushing through regardless of whatever their body was signalling to them; versus those who trained smart and gave themselves self-imposed checkpoints along the route both slow down into a lower gear and to measure their heart rate. Guess who posed the better time? Worse still, the former group ended up crossing the finish line totally exhausted and rather unglamorously.

Students can be very driven – and that is a great trait. However, one must know when to step back and either re-group or let go so that they can focus on more important issues. So you messed up on a project. Forget about the grades lost and look towards the next one. Students who are not able to let go end up bitter and hurt themselves and those around them.

3) They pay attention to detail but focus on the big picture

Very few people pay attention to detail. In the real world, this can cause the loss of profits or even life itself. And then there are those who pay too much attention on the details that they miss the woods for the trees. This takes some practice, but one must first pay attention to detail. Once the details are acknowledged and digested, the student must pull him or herself back and question whether the details make sense and where they fit in the bigger scale of things. This is by no means easy and is a concerted effort on the part of the individual. I have seen students do this, especially in times of stress. Observing from the side, it can be quite a joy to watch such leadership in action.

4) They are comfortable being different but are team players

In a university, you get all kinds of students. But very few are comfortable in their own skin. Many try to emulate others just because others are doing it. For instance, Sally sees that Mary is heading towards the library. Mary tells Sally that she is heading there to study. Sally feels insecure and loudly declares that she is going there later to do the same. The problem? Final exams have just ended last week!

And then there are those who are just rebels without a cause, wanting to be different, just because. While it takes some courage to overcome peer pressure, there are those who are able to do it in a way that is neither offensive nor snobbish. In fact, these students are great motivators and encouragers in their teams, helping the rest overcome their insecurities but yet not succumbing to them.

5) Confident but not complacent

I have come across many confident students. They are truly confident and not putting on a show. But my observation shows that confidence can many times lead to complacency. This is the reason why groups who do well in assignments early in the semester usually do worse towards the end. The converse is also quite true. Groups who are consistent throughout the semester always check themselves and keep each other on their toes. They are high self-monitors and regularly approach me to find out if they are on the right track – despite their good performance earlier on. This shows humility, knowing that they cannot let their guard down. If you find such students, treasure them – they are gems.

6) They take risks but hedge against setbacks

Part of my grading allows for some liberty in taking risks. Students are encouraged to think big and go big and success means rewards. But they must watch their step lest they fail spectacularly. There are those who recklessly take risks, ending up incurring my rebuke. “But you asked us to take risks,” they refrain. In such a case, I suggest they duck before my flying shoe hits their head.

The art to taking risk is to protect your downside as what Sir Richard Branson advocates. Using the simple example of investing, you set aside some money from your salary to invest in whatever instrument you desire. But you protect your downside (which in this case means losing all of your investment money) by first making sure you pay off all debts; cover expenses; and budget for savings. This is when you start making investments and you can do so without losing sleep should all of your investment is lost in a worst case scenario.

As an educator, I wish the very best for my students and hope they be more successful than me in life. Times are a changing though and it is essential that students learn skills to adapt while they are in school before they make it out there into what can be a very unforgiving world. If I may, here’s a framework for those who are keen on creating a foundation to fulfil all the above traits. I recommend the Boyd Loop, also known as the OODA Loop; and Warren Bennis’ ALA Loop.

OODA – Observe, Orient, Decide, Act

ALA – Act, Learn, Adapt

Integrating them, we have the OODALA Loop:

Observe, Orient, Decide, Act, Learn, Adapt

Here’s to the start of a great university journey!