Confrontation analysis

Last updated
Screenshot illustrating the use of confrontation analysis in a computer-aided role play depicting the Siege of Sarajevo. The software was written by Professor Nigel Howard for General Rupert Smith in 1996. BosnianSoap.jpg
Screenshot illustrating the use of confrontation analysis in a computer-aided role play depicting the Siege of Sarajevo. The software was written by Professor Nigel Howard for General Rupert Smith in 1996.

Confrontation analysis (also known as dilemma analysis) is an operational analysis technique used to structure, understand and think through multi-party interactions such as negotiations. It is the underpinning mathematical basis of drama theory.

Contents

It is derived from game theory but considers that instead of resolving the game, the players often redefine the game when interacting. Emotions triggered from the potential interaction play a large part in this redefinition. So whereas game theory looks on an interaction as a single decision matrix and resolves that, confrontation analysis looks on the interaction as a sequence of linked interactions, where the decision matrix changes under the influence of precisely defined emotional dilemmas. [1]

Derivation and use

Confrontation analysis was devised by Professor Nigel Howard in the early 1990s drawing from his work on game theory and metagame analysis. It has been turned to defence, [2] political, legal, financial [3] and commercial applications. [4]

Much of the theoretical background to General Rupert Smith's book The Utility of Force drew its inspiration from the theory of confrontation analysis.

I am in debt to Professor Nigel Howard, whose explanation of Confrontation Analysis and Game Theory at a seminar in 1998 excited my interest. Our subsequent discussions helped me to order my thoughts and the lessons I had learned into a coherent structure with the result that, for the first time, I was able to understand my experiences within a theoretical model which allowed me to use them further

— General Rupert Smith, The Utility of Force (p.xvi)

Confrontation analysis can also be used in a decision workshop as structure to support role-playing [3] for training, analysis and decision rehearsal.

Method

An interaction as a sequence of confrontations where the card table changes as the parties struggle to eliminate their dilemmas BosniaConfrontation0.JPG
An interaction as a sequence of confrontations where the card table changes as the parties struggle to eliminate their dilemmas

Confrontation analysis looks on an interaction as a sequence of confrontations. During each confrontation the parties communicate until they have made their positions [6] clear to one another. These positions can be expressed as a card table (also known as an options board [5] ) of yes/no decisions. For each decision each party communicates what they would like to happen (their position [6] ) and what will happen if they cannot agree (the threatened future). These interactions produce dilemmas [1] and the card table changes as players attempt to eliminate these.

Initial Card Table: The UN threatens to use air strikes, but is not believed by the Bosnian Serbs: The UN has three dilemmas The Bosnians have none BosniaConfrontation1.JPG
Initial Card Table: The UN threatens to use air strikes, but is not believed by the Bosnian Serbs: The UN has three dilemmas The Bosnians have none

Consider the example on the right (Initial Card Table), taken from the 1995 Bosnian Conflict. [7] This represents an interaction between the Bosnian Serbs and the United Nations forces over the safe areas. The Bosnian Serbs had Bosniak enclaves surrounded and were threatening to attack.

Each side had a position as to what they wanted to happen:

The Bosnian Serbs wanted (see 4th column):

The UN wanted (See 5th column):

If no further changes were made then what the sides were saying would happen was (see 1st column):

Confrontation analysis then specifies a number of precisely defined dilemmas [1] that occur to the parties following from the structure of the card tables. It states that motivated by the desire to eliminate these dilemmas, the parties involved will CHANGE THE CARD TABLE, to eliminate their problem.

In the situation at the start the Bosnian Serbs have no dilemmas, but the UN has four. It has three persuasion dilemmas [8] in that the Bosnian Serbs are not going to do the three things they want them to (not attack the enclaves, withdraw the heavy weapons and not take hostages). It also has a rejection dilemma [9] in that the Bosnian Serbs do not believe they will actually use the air strikes, as they think the UN will submit to their position, for fear of having hostages taken.

Faced with these dilemmas, the UN modified the card table to eliminate its dilemmas. It took two actions:

Firstly, it withdrew its forces from the positions where they were vulnerable to being taken hostage. This action eliminated the Bosnian Serbs' option (card) of taking hostages.

Second Card Table: The UN eliminated the Bosnian "hostage" card and brought in an additional, credible "Artillery" card, changing the situation in their favour: The Bosnian Serbs now have two persuasion dilemmas and two rejection dilemmas BosniaConfrontation2.JPG
Second Card Table: The UN eliminated the Bosnian "hostage" card and brought in an additional, credible "Artillery" card, changing the situation in their favour: The Bosnian Serbs now have two persuasion dilemmas and two rejection dilemmas

Secondly, with the addition of the Rapid Reaction Force, and in particular its artillery the UN had an additional capability to engage Bosnian Serb weapons; they added the card "Use artillery against Bosnian Serbs". Because of this, the UN's threat of air strikes became more credible. The situation changed to that of the Second Card Table:

The Bosnian Serbs wanted (see 4th column):

The UN wanted (See 5th column):

If no further changes were made then what the sides were saying would happen was (see 1st column):

Final Card Table: The final situation. The Bosnian Serbs modified their position to eliminate their dilemmas. This involved accepting their initial goals as unobtainable BosniaConfrontation3.JPG
Final Card Table: The final situation. The Bosnian Serbs modified their position to eliminate their dilemmas. This involved accepting their initial goals as unobtainable

Faced with this new situation, the Bosnian Serbs modified their position to accept the UN proposal. The final table was an agreement as shown in the Final Card table (see thumbnail and picture).

Confrontation analysis does not necessarily produce a win-win solution (although end states are more likely to remain stable if they do); however, the word confrontation should not necessarily imply that any negotiations should be carried out in an aggressive way.

The card tables are isomorphic to game theory models, but are not built with the aim of finding a solution. Instead, the aim is to find the dilemmas facing characters and so help to predict how they will change the table itself. Such prediction requires not only analysis of the model and its dilemmas, but also exploration of the reality outside the model; without this it is impossible to decide which ways of changing the model in order to eliminate dilemmas might be rationalized by the characters.

Sometimes analysis of the ticks and crosses can be supported by values showing the payoff to each of the parties. [10]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Siege of Sarajevo</span> Battle of the Bosnian War (1992–1996)

The Siege of Sarajevo was a prolonged blockade of Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina, during the Bosnian War. After it was initially besieged by the forces of the Yugoslav People's Army, the city was then besieged by the Army of Republika Srpska. Lasting from 5 April 1992 to 29 February 1996, it was three times longer than the Battle of Stalingrad, more than a year longer than the siege of Leningrad, and was the longest siege of a capital city in the history of modern warfare.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bosnian War</span> 1992–1995 armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina

The Bosnian War was an international armed conflict that took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995. The war is commonly seen as having started on 6 April 1992, following several earlier violent incidents. It ended on 14 December 1995 when the Dayton Accords were signed. The main belligerents were the forces of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia, and the Republika Srpska, the latter two entities being proto-states led and supplied by Croatia and Serbia, respectively.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Srebrenica massacre</span> 1995 mass murder by the Bosnian Serb Army

The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocidal killing of more than 8,000 Bosniak Muslim men and boys in and around the town of Srebrenica during the Bosnian War. It was mainly perpetrated by units of the Bosnian Serb Army of Republika Srpska under Ratko Mladić, though the Serb paramilitary unit Scorpions also participated. The massacre was the first legally recognised genocide in Europe since the end of World War II.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations Protection Force</span> Military unit

The United Nations Protection Force was the first United Nations peacekeeping force in Croatia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Yugoslav Wars. The force was formed in February 1992 and its mandate ended in March 1995, with the peacekeeping mission restructuring into three other forces.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Operation Deliberate Force</span> 1995 campaign by NATO and UN forces against Republika Srpska during the Bosnian War

Operation Deliberate Force was a sustained air campaign conducted by NATO, in concert with the UNPROFOR ground operations, to undermine the military capability of the Army of Republika Srpska, which had threatened and attacked UN-designated "safe areas" in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Bosnian War with the Srebrenica genocide and Markale massacres, precipitating the intervention. The shelling of the Sarajevo marketplace on 28 August 1995 by the VRS is considered to be the immediate instigating factor behind NATO's decision to launch the operation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Operation Deny Flight</span> 1993–95 NATO operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Operation Deny Flight was a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) operation that began on 12 April 1993 as the enforcement of a United Nations (UN) no-fly zone over Bosnia and Herzegovina. The United Nations and NATO later expanded the mission of the operation to include providing close air support for UN troops in Bosnia and carrying out coercive air strikes against targets in Bosnia. Twelve NATO members contributed forces to the operation and, by its end on 20 December 1995, NATO pilots had flown 100,420 sorties.

<i>Safe Area Goražde</i> Journalistic comic book about the Bosnian War by Joe Sacco

Safe Area Goražde is a journalistic comic book about the Bosnian War, written and drawn by Joe Sacco. It was published in 2000.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dutchbat</span> United Nations battalion in the Bosnian war

Dutchbat was a Dutch battalion under the command of the United Nations in operation UNPROFOR. It was hastily formed out of the emerging 11th Airmobile Brigade between February 1994 and November 1995 to participate in peacekeeping operations. It was tasked to execute United Nations Security Council Resolution 819 in the Bosnian Muslim enclaves and the designated UN "safe havens" of Srebrenica and Žepa during the Bosnian War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Siege of Srebrenica</span> 1992 - 1995 siege during the Bosnian War

The siege of Srebrenica was a three-year siege of the town of Srebrenica in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina which lasted from April 1992 to July 1995 during the Bosnian War. Initially assaulted by the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) and the Serbian Volunteer Guard (SDG), the town was encircled by the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) in May 1992, starting a brutal siege which was to last for the majority of the Bosnian War. In June 1995, the commander of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH) in the enclave, Naser Orić, left Srebrenica and fled to the town of Tuzla. He was subsequently replaced by his deputy, Major Ramiz Bećirović.

Operation Vrbas '92 was a military offensive undertaken by the Army of Republika Srpska in June–October 1992, during the Bosnian War. The goal of the operation was the destruction of a salient around the central Bosnian town of Jajce, which was held by the Croatian Defence Council and the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The intensity of fighting varied considerably and involved several major VRS offensive efforts interspersed by relative lulls in fighting. Jajce fell to the VRS on 29 October 1992, and the town's capture was followed by the destruction of all its mosques and Roman Catholic churches.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">12 April 1993 Srebrenica shelling</span>

On 12 April 1993, the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) launched an artillery attack against the town of Srebrenica. The attack left 56 dead, and 73 seriously wounded. The attack followed the suspension of cease-fire talks, and only hours before NATO would implement a no-fly zone in accordance to an UN resolution. VRS officials had previously told UNHCR representatives that unless the town surrendered within two days, the VRS would shell it.

The Kravica massacre was one of the mass executions of Bosniaks by the Army of Republika Srpska during the Srebrenica massacre. It was committed on 14 July, 1995. It is estimated that between 1,000 and 1,500 men were killed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Siege of Bihać (1992–1995)</span> Three-year-long siege of the northwestern Bosnian town of Bihać during the Bosnian War

The siege of Bihać was a three-year-long siege of the northwestern Bosnian town of Bihać by the Army of the Republika Srpska, the Army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina and Bosnian Muslim dissenters led by Fikret Abdić during the 1992–95 Bosnian War. The siege lasted for three years, from June 1992 until 4–5 August 1995, when Operation Storm ended it after the Croatian Army (HV) overran the rebel Serbs in Croatia and northwest of the besieged town.

In operations research, drama theory is one of several problem structuring methods. It is based on game theory and adapts the use of games to complex organisational situations, accounting for emotional responses that can provoke irrational reactions and lead the players to redefine the game. In a drama, emotions trigger rationalizations that create changes in the game, and so change follows change until either all conflicts are resolved or action becomes necessary. The game as redefined is then played.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Battle of Vrbanja Bridge</span> 1995 Bosnian War confrontation

The Battle of Vrbanja Bridge was an armed confrontation which took place on 27 May 1995, between United Nations (UN) peacekeepers from the French Army and elements of the Bosnian Serb Army of Republika Srpska (VRS). The fighting occurred at the Vrbanja Bridge crossing of the Miljacka river in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, during the Bosnian War. The VRS seized the French-manned United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) observation posts on both ends of the bridge, taking hostage 12 French peacekeepers. Ten were taken away, and two were kept at the bridge as human shields.

The Battle of Orašje was fought during the Bosnian War, from 5 May to 10 June 1995, between the Bosnian Serb Army of Republika Srpska and the Bosnian Croat Croatian Defence Council for control of the town of Orašje and its surrounding area on the south bank of the Sava River. The offensive codenamed Operation Flame-95 and referred to by Croatian sources as Operation Revenge was actually fought with varying intensity, with periods of combat interspersed by lulls lasting two to seven days. The heaviest fighting was reported on 15 May, when the VRS managed to break through a portion of the HVO defences near the village of Vidovice, but the breach was successfully contained and the lost ground was recovered by the HVO.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Siege of Goražde</span> Siege during the Bosnian War

The siege of Goražde refers to engagements during the Bosnian War (1992–95) in and around the town of Goražde in eastern Bosnia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1995 Pale air strikes</span> NATO air strikes on Army of Republika Srpska in May 1995

On 25 and 26 May 1995, NATO conducted air strikes against positions of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) at Pale, as part of Operation Deny Flight, during the Bosnian War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Airstrike on Udbina Air Base</span>

On 21 November 1994, NATO aircraft taking part of Operation Deny Flight carried out an airstrike on the airbase of Udbina, Croatia, then part of the self-proclaimed Serbian Republic of Krajina. The Serbian Army of Krajina, through its 105th Aviation Brigade, had been launching air attacks on neighbour Bosnia and Herzegovina from the base in support of allied Serbian forces there, especially during the siege of Bihać. NATO forces intervened in order to deter further attacks. Two anti-aircraft SA-2 missile sites that the Serbs had used to attack Bihac in the ground-to-ground mode and to engage NATO aircraft were also destroyed in the following days. The bombing of Udbina was the largest air combat operation in Europe since World War II, and the largest combat operation in NATO's history up to that time.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Operation Tekbir '95</span>

The Bosnian offensive on Sarajevo in 1995 was a military offensive executed by Bosnian Muslim forces (ARBiH) against Serb forces (VRS) in an attempt to break the Siege of Sarajevo during the Bosnian War. The Bosnian Muslim forces were superior in manpower, but not in heavy weapons, key items for Trench Warfare. This lack of weapons eventually led to commander Rasim Delić to stop the offensive due to heavy losses.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 See definition of Dilemma
  2. ↑ See The future of Libya
  3. 1 2 "role playing... can also be used by investors in the form of "confrontation analysis' such as that organised by former military analyst Mike Young's " – Greek Dungeons and German Dragons, James Macintosh, Financial Times , 9 November 2011.
  4. ↑ See Letting agency case study Archived 2019-09-15 at the Wayback Machine
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 See definition of Options Board/Card table
  6. 1 2 See definition of Position
  7. ↑ This example developed from that described in Smith R, Tait A, Howard N (1999) Confrontations in War and Peace. Proceedings of the 6th international Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, 19–20 June 2001
  8. 1 2 See definition of Persuasion Dilemma
  9. 1 2 See definition of Rejection Dilemma
  10. ↑ See understanding the tables used in confrontation analysis Archived 2019-09-15 at the Wayback Machine

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.