Agreed, ROI is extremely difficult to evaluate for programs such as this. The CNA report focused much more on management structures than ROI, even thought there was some limited interview data on field effectiveness (cf. Appendix B, page 149 ff).

I agree with you that the HTS is larger than the HTTs. The desktop research, and I assume you mean the Reachback facility, has some potential, but we already have much of the same in both the CF and in other federal departments (DFAIT, CIDA, etc.), and also have access via the NATO CIMIC efforts. The field research capability is, from all public reports, spotty ranging from excellent to abysmal. At any rate, most of the methodological skills are already in use in the Intelligence sections and/or CA.

On using civilians to gather the data that, I believe, is a double edged sword. HTT civilians wear uniforms and, while they certainly can be distinguished from combat troops, the distinction is not that great (green plush toy monkeys aside). I’m also not convinced that we can’t use CF soldiers to gather much of the data needed. BTW, part of the reason behind that is that our soldiers tend to be older on average and have more life experience than similar US forces which, IMHO, changes the equation. There are also some legal questions that may be different for the CF since we have signed the Additional Protocols which the US hasn’t completely. If we put civilians in uniform, does that mean that we are designating them as combatants?

I noticed you referred to the techniques as “basic market research” and, from what I have seen, that seems to be what the training is in (at least as of the Feb, 2010 training revisions). These, however, are the bread and butter of CA and, to a lessor extent, of DFAIT. I don’t see that the CF gains much if anything by getting these skills from HTTs. Again, force structure and composition differences between the CF and, say, and average US BCT would lead me to suspect that any potential advantages gained are probably not worth the cost.

Cheers,

Marc

Your piece is well thought out. On the RoI, I think it is fair to say that this is very difficult to establish. Has any work done by HTS led to decisions that have saved lives? Afghans or NATO? What monetary value do you put on a saved life? have they led to more successful operations? How do you value success? etc… I am aware of one study on the subject in the US when Congress mandated the Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) to undertake a review of the program. Based on interviews with people in the program and commanders who have used HTT in Iraq and Afghanistan. The report highlighted some major problems but could not reach a definite conclusion as to whether it is overall a good RoI. As Einstein once said: not everything that can be counted should be counted and not everything that counts can be counted! That does not mean it is not important.
I would also note that the HTS program is larger than the HTT attached to BTC. It includes other components that might be more useful to an Army like Canada, like a desktop research component and a field research capability that uses basic market research techniques (qualitative and quantitative) to gauge where the locals stand on issues of interest to the commands. The biggest advantage of this component is that it uses civilians to investigate what the population thinks/feels/wants instead of relying on soldiers to collect that information.

This is good for science. It is not a church – it is better when it is like the Italian parliament where people yell at each other and throw things! When all the scientists agree it is really boring and the kids decide to go to law school to find truth then. )

If you aren’t familiar with the 10:10 dust up, see the videos below.

While watching the first one, ask yourself if it’s sincere or if 10:10 is being pranked on by skeptics.

Keep watching until you’re sure, and then watch more.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7C79DEF1EE25E880

Note: the resignations of Chris Landsea and Roger A Pielke SR. both hint at conspiracy.

Landsea resigned because of an unethical press conference that was likely used by Al Gore as a green light to build his movie around Hurricane Katrina.

Pielke resigned because while lead author for a major climate report, scientists worked behind his back to undermine him. These incidents are well known and not hard to research.
———
Even if you are familiar with the 10:10 thing, there’s a variety of over the top eco stuff in the playlist.

I played with that for a while, but ended up rejecting it in favour of my current model simply because that particular system couldn’t account for as much as the current one can.

Funny you should mention the “belief” and “truth” line. I was just writing up the section dealing with that when your comment came in .

Part of it may be drawing the line between “Belief” and “Truth” Two very different things.

Another bit leads to Game Theory and the Nash Equilibrium:

“The strategy choice point where all players are making the best reply to strategy/choices made by everyone else in the game.”

In this case morals or moral choices are not a consideration at all. Players make choices of the best strategy for themselves and the equilibrium point is when all the choices have the highest utility for all the players.

Nash got his trip to Sweden proving that all games have this point. Morals and belief are not a factor.

Interesting stuff it is.