top of page

Military to Business Blog: 2020

Collection of all the military to business social-media posts that have helped build War Is My Business' audience during 2020.

moralization gap, peace treaty

Steven Pinker - "Moralization Gap"

November 21, 2020

“If revenge evolved as a deterrent, then why is it used so often in the real world? A major reason is the Moralization Gap. People consider the harms they inflict to be justified and forgettable, and the harms they themselves suffer to be unprovoked and grievous. This bookkeeping makes the two sides in an escalating fight count the number of strikes differently and weighs the inflicted harm differently as well.”

Have you ever felt justified by your actions while others condemn them, and they just don’t understand the context? Have you ever felt that when you make a mistake that others blow it way out of proportion? On the other hand, have you ever felt that others seem dismissive of the problems they caused you, and their lack of concern is infuriating? Then what you may be dealing with the Moralization Gap.

“The Moralization Gap is part of a larger phenomenon called self-serving biases. People try to look good. ‘Good’ can mean effective, potent, desirable, and competent, or it can mean virtuous, honest, generous, and altruistic… A social group is a marketplace of cooperators of differing degrees of generosity and trustworthiness, and people advertise themselves as being as generous and trustworthy as they can get away with, which may be a bit more generous and trustworthy than they are… Natural selection may have favored a degree of self-deception so as to suppress the [unconscious] tells at the source. We lie to ourselves so that we’re more believable when we lie to others.” <steven pinker

As Pinker and others suggest, this allows us to effectively argue our social positions by making us believe we and our compatriots hold the moral high ground. In a competition/conflict between nations, groups, and individuals, each side will see themselves more positively than those on the other side. When we do something good, it is because we care – when they do it, they have ulterior motives and are trying to manipulate you. When we harm others, it was a one-off accident, or it was only a minor offense – when they harm us, it is one in a long line of transgressions, and they mean it.

The problem is that we find it difficult to assess our own actions - and those we deal with - from an objective position. This is a benefit of having third-party arbitration to help put things into perspective. Many conflicts are settled with third-party support or by international forums. Getting the outside perspective allows people’s concerns to be heard and terms to be set without necessarily losing face. Without an objective perspective, or even just refusing to accept an objective perspective, we develop a situation where parties assume the other is devious and out to make you look like the bad guy. It happens all the time, to everyone, in every walk of life, because it is very much an aspect of human nature.

In business, some sides form as well: staff and customers, management and employees, between one company and another, between chief executives and shareholders, and between individual personnel. They all can suffer the façade produced by the Moralization Gap, a perspective that paints them a better picture from which to argue effectively. But the opposition suffers from this as well and will have their reality shaped by their perspective. This will lead to a scenario in which each side’s concerns will be brushed aside, and their violations brought to the forefront only to be downplayed anyway.

This is the value of having third-party arbitration to help settle disputes. Sometimes you need to get those involved out of the conflict resolution process and utilize that disinterested third-party asset to make any headway. Mediation may be needed to help counter the Moralization Gap and every human’s inherent self-biases.

For as Nietzsche once alluded, “There are no facts, only interpretations.”

civil war, reconstruction, reconciliation, peace

Steven Pinker - "Reconciliation"

November 10, 2020

“Since the only commodity at stake in contests of dominance is information, once the point has been made about who’s the boss, the violence can come to an end without setting off rounds of vendetta… The reason is that reconciliation occurs only among primates whose long-term interests are bound together… Among primates whose interests are not bound up in any of these ways, adversaries are unforgiving, and violence is likelier to escalate. Chimpanzees, for example, reconcile after a fight within their community, but they never reconcile after a battle or raid with members of a different community.”

During and after the American Civil War, the Union put in place various proclamations that it deemed necessary to begin mending the divide. One such offer made was to grant amnesty to those that had rebelled. President Lincoln had begun granting pardons as southern territory was brought back under the effective control of the federal government, but it was President Johnson that granted full pardon to all those that had rebelled. The idea is that if the nation wanted to come together in cooperation effectively, then reconciliation between the parties was necessary – not just subjection to the will of the victor. Issues of the Reconstruction aside, pardoning all involved showed the desire to bring former enemies back into the family.

“And whereas, the authority of the Federal Government having been reestablished in all the States and Territories within the jurisdiction of the United States, it is believed that such prudential reservations and expectations as at the date of said several proclamations were deemed necessary and proper may now be wisely and justly relinquished, and that a universal amnesty and pardon for participation in said rebellion extend to all who have borne any part therein will tend to secure permanent peace, order, and prosperity throughout the land, and to renew and fully restore confidence and fraternal feeling among the whole people, and their respect for and attachment to the National Government, designed by its patriotic founders for the general good.”

Naturally, if we are looking for cooperation after a conflict , then some form of reconciliation is required to gain their active, long-term support. There are still grievances that need to be addressed, and the defeated will need to feel that they have a say in how things are conducted – i.e., some form of autonomy. Further punishing a defeated foe – at least to the point that the defeated feel unjustly punished – can later lead to resentment and further conflict. Regardless of the human endeavor, our social nature shapes our conduct, and by understanding that nature, we can effectively shape current engagements for future cooperation.

In business, as it is within any organization, there are times in which conflict can arise. Like the other primates that Pinker discusses, we still have to cooperate with the people we disagree with or fight in many instances. We must find a resolution to the conflict as soon as possible to reduce potential damage to the organization’s climate. If reconciliation between two individuals or groups too difficult to achieve through mediation, but we can’t let go of either, then separating the parties into different departments is advisable.

Steven Pinker, bosnia war, serbian soldier

Steven Pinker - "Forward Panic"

November 3, 2020

“A forward panic is violence at its ugliest. It is the state of mind that causes genocides, massacres, deadly ethnic riots, and battles in which no prisoners are taken... No one has to be trained to carry out a rampage, and when they erupt in armies or police squads the commanders are often taken by surprise and have to take steps to quell them, since the overkill and atrocities serve no military or law-enforcement purpose. A rampage may be a primitive adaptation to seize a fleeting opportunity to decisively rout a dangerous enemy before it can remobilize and retaliate.”

Leaders can sometimes struggle with the most versatile and unpredictable assets they have – their people. There is no doubt that the average human being – soldier or otherwise – does not desire to harm or kill their fellow man, even if they posture that they indeed do. Under great stress, however, a person can experience specific responses that are less deliberate and more instinctual – much to the surprise of the individual and those around them.

A forward panic (rampage) is outside of the traditional discussions of behavioral and psychological responses that can result from high levels of stress that combat can produce. The reason for this is because the onset of it happens during the build up to a fight. The constant apprehension, anticipation, dread, and fear that a pending battle may elicit can instill such a powerful buildup of stress hormones in the brain that when the battle is finally opened –like a dam bursting – it propels the individual forward to a cacophony of uncontrollable violence.

“Ardant du Picq…called it ‘flight to the front’. It resembles a panic and indeed the physiological components are similar: instead of running away, caught up in a mood in which running and fear feed each other...fighters rush forward, toward the enemy...they are caught up in an overpowering emotional rhythm, carrying them on to actions they would normally not approve of in calm, reflective moments.”

In dealing with the stress by attacking the stressor, the attacker puts additional stress upon themselves in their action, which must be relieved by continuing the attack. Ultimately, relief to the individual only comes when all the threats are gone, they are neutralized or exhausted in the process, or they are able to be brought under control by someone with authority. Leaders must be aware of this and be prepared to reign in their people in order to prevent catastrophic adverse effects on their plans.

In business, we don’t necessarily see many instances in which people go into a rampage. We do see it to a lesser degree in many one-on-one engagements – i.e., road rage, arguments with angry customers, a Black Friday brawl, and interoffice drama. Over time, an innocuous disagreement can become heated to such a point that our people may be driven to lash out or attacked themselves. These overwhelming behavioral responses further inform us of the need to emphasize the conflict’s de-escalation in and out of the workplace; lest someone go postal. Additionally, we require leaders to keep situationally aware and understand the need to intervene before incidents becoming uncontrollably violent.

Steven Pinker

Steven Pinker - "Self-Sacrifice"

October 12, 2020

“Natural selection favors any genes that incline an organism toward making a sacrifice that helps a blood relative, as long as the benefit to the relative, discounted by the degree of relatedness, exceeds the cost to the organism… As with all aspects of our psychology that have been illuminated by evolutionary theory, what matters is not actual genetic relatedness but the perception of relatedness, as long as the perception was correlated with the reality over long enough spans of time. Military leaders use every trick in the book to make their soldiers feel like genetic relatives and take on the biologically predictable risks. Modern militaries take pains to group soldiers into bands of brothers – the fire teams, squads, and platoons of half a dozen to several dozen soldiers that serve as a crucible for the primary emotion that moves men to fight in armies, brotherly love.”

The bonds built during hardships, successes and failures, under shared leadership, and for a unified purpose have been stronger than those found in families - at least to those that have had the opportunity to experience it. The unit is very much another family, and for those that came from broken homes – it may be the only place they have felt any bonds at all. Regardless, the longer the duration and the greater the trials, the stronger the bond can become.

“The enduring emotion of war, when everything else has faded, is comradeship. A comrade in war is a man you can trust with anything, because you trust him with your life.”

“Brotherhood’s different from friendship. It’s a mutual agreement in a group that you will put the welfare of the group, you will put the safety of everyone in the group, above your own. In effect, you’re saying, I love these other people more than I love myself.” < Sebastian Junger

In the business world, you rarely experience this level of comradeship. Indeed, there is an argument to be made to avoid having employees having such closeness in order to prevent interoffice drama. That being said, smaller companies might benefit from having employees and managers feel they are in it together for the long-haul. Through recessions, projects, and audits, they strive to work for the betterment of the business and each other at their own expense.

The business family dynamic would never be an equivalent to jumping on a grenade or assaulting a machinegun nest to save their compatriots (except maybe in an active shooter incident). Still, it could take the form of “going that extra mile.” Depending on the type of work, staying in after most clock-out, taking work home, or even just covering each other’s shifts without expecting a return, could apply. Employees being honest with managers about problems - seeking to help find solutions rather than protecting their own skin - and managers looking out for employee issues – deconflicting work-life events and rewarding good work - is similar to what we see in close-knit military units.

Steven Pinker, humanitarian assistance

Steven Pinker - "Humanitarian Assistance"

September 25, 2020

“Amazingly, the HSRP has collected evidence that death rates from disease and hunger have tended to go down, not up, during the wars of the past three decades… When medical and food assistance is rushed to a war zone, where it is often administered during humanitarian cease-fires, the progress accelerates… Rather than just throwing money at a problem, aid organizations have adapted discoveries from the science of public health about which scourges kill the most people and which weapon against each one is the most cost-effective.”

At this time, in numerous parts of the developing world, there are people suffering from disease and malnutrition. Because of the lack of development, the eyes of the world tend to no focus on these areas unless there is some natural resource to be acquired or cheap labor to be hired. Human conflict, however, does draw the eye of international aid agencies. What results is a flood of food and medicine, ubiquitous to the global community, to impoverished people – improving their health and way of life. In these situations, war has saved more non-combatants in the long-run, through the support of international agencies, than otherwise would have survived had there been no war to draw the world’s attention.

The idea that a small problem can assist in discovering a bigger issue is also found within business. It isn’t unheard of that a small fire, a collapsed structured, broken machinery, or an injured employee can lead to audits that reveal some systemic issue – that left unchecked – would have led to a critical failure. Outdated fire suppression systems, lack of building and equipment services, and OSHA-violating safety procedures could have led to losses and lawsuits so heavy the business would not be able to recover. In this sense, small problems are a good thing since they make us aware of a larger problem that we may be able to fix, just as small wars bring our attention to other problems.

James Mattis, Jim Mattis, leadership, limits, war is my business

GEN James Mattis - "Kill/Causality  Radius"

September 12, 2020

“Once you get to be a high ranking officer, the kill/causality radius is whatever your Marines make it, and by the time I got up to the senior ranks, it was hundreds of miles.” General (RET) James Mattis

Mattis said this during a Q&A in response to a joke question, but there was an important principle within it. That principle is that it is the organization, and not the individual, that achieves desired ends.

Military leaders can guide an organization, set objectives, and possess genius levels of intellect, but are nothing without the many hands available to an organization and effective staffs to help direct and coordinate those many hands. While inspiring leaders and brilliant strategist can lead an army or navy to success and turn tides, they still need the warfighting apparatuses of their organization to achieve their ends. Without the capacity to direct the actions of large numbers of people in concert, tactics & strategies are pointless. Without sufficient logistical support, a military force would not sustain its operations and advance into enemy territory. Without warfighters to take action on a leader’s behalf, the leader’s vision is just that – a vision – never to be realized.

In business, this principle is the same, or at least it is for big business with large consumer bases. Owners and executives need their mid-level managers and direct the workforce, and you need the force to provide your products and services. Without the functions of the business – operations, finance, training, logistics, etc. – that vision statement will never manifest.

Be it a military or business organization; it is the systems and processes that should lead the organization to success – as Peter Drucker once said: “No institution can possibly survive if it needs geniuses or supermen to manage it. It must be organized in such a way as to be able to get along under a leadership composed of average human beings.” < Peter Drucker

war of attrition, sunk-cost fallacy, war is my business, business, steven pinker, better angels of our nature

Steven Pinker - "Sunk-Costs"

August 30, 2020

“In the case of a war of attrition, one can imagine a leader who has a changing willingness to suffer a cost over time, increasing as the conflict proceeds and his resolve toughens. His motto would be: ‘We fight on so that our boys shall not have died in vain.’ This mindset, known as loss aversion, the sunk-cost fallacy, and throwing good money after bad, is patently irrational, but it is surprisingly pervasive in human decision-making.”

Wars can be costly human endeavors, not just in terms of capital and materiel – but in human lives. Not all conflicts go the way we intend, and making the decision to end a costly war can be as difficult as deciding to wage it. If a leader decides to call it quits they will lose their capacity to dictate terms, but will be able to see an end to the mounting costs. This is wise if desired ends are not able to be achieved, but warfare –with all its eccentricities- has a way of unfolding in dynamic and unforeseen ways.

At the start of WW1, the fighting was mobile and all the combatants were sure of swift victory –until the trenches. As the costs started mounting, it become increasingly difficult for some leaders to concede. They continue to fight, racking up the costs and making it even more difficult to justify yielding, and driving them on to say that “the dead shall not have died in vain.” It is difficult to tell whether just one more season, one more battle, or some new tech/strategy will bring about the necessary conditions for eventual success –a turning point– or whether everyone is just delaying the inevitable while stacking ever more bodies.

In business, projects and campaigns can take on the aura of a war of attrition in similar ways. Breaking into a market or kickstarting a new product/service requires persistence with the costs of capital and credibility on the line. Upstarts threatening your position can also compel you to stick with what worked or adjust your business model.

dueling, honor, war is my business, business, steven pinker, better angels of our nature

Steven Pinker - "Capping the Violence"

August 16, 2020

“Formal dueling was not, of course, an American Invention. It emerged during the Renaissance as a measure to curtail assassinations, vendettas, and street brawls among aristocrats and their retinues. When one man felt that his honor had been impugned, he could challenge the other to a duel and cap the violence at a single death, with no hard feelings among the defeated man’s clan or entourage.”

In contemporary society, dueling gets a bad rap as it is seen as a barbaric activity – an outdated mode of preserving honor thankfully left to the past. But as Pinker puts forth, dueling itself was a civilizing tool for the betterment of society. Honor was still as important during the age of dueling as it was during the dark ages, but the duel brought forth a mode that reduced the overall violence in society. No need for costly battles between clans and families, blood feuds spanning generations were reduced, and the state’s authority was increased as violence was more regulated. It was, therefore, a stepping stone to a more peaceful society.

Dueling would fall out of favor as forms of mediation through the courts, and eventually police at the scene, allowing the resolution of grievances in a more non-violent manner. Furthermore, as people’s socio-economic status improved these courses of action were more appealing as resorting to violence could result in a loss of that status and imprisonment, and the risk of injury or death just wasn’t worth the effort.

In business, most grievances have legal avenues that people can pursue. A disruptive/disrespectful customer can be escorted out by security or police. A person using defamation or libelous statements can be sued for damages. You can even have losses redressed through insurance if not through the courts. Needless to say, using the legal tools available is the better option than using force except when your life is directly threatened.

security dilemma, Yanomamo, war is my business, clorox, business, steven pinker, better angels of our nature

Steven Pinker - "The Security Dilemma"

August 11, 2020

“We are tired of fighting. We don’t want to kill anymore. But the others are treacherous and cannot be trusted.”

From tribes and chiefdoms to empires and superpowers, the Hobbesian Trap is argued to be a human condition. You never quite know what others are planning and the same goes for groups of people. Due to a lack of understanding of others, a concern for the well-being of your own, and finite resources - groups are constantly wary of threats from other groups.

Preemptive war, therefore, has been a reality in not just the biggest societies but also the smallest bands – as long as there have been other human groups in close proximity to compete over resources we look at each other with some suspicion.

“The security dilemma… is very much on their minds, and they may form an alliance with nearby villages if they fear they are too small, or launch a preemptive strike if they fear that an enemy alliance is getting too big.”

Small tribes and bands of nomads suffer the same paranoia-based concerns that we face in larger societies – that there are threats out there and they are working to hurt us in some capacity. It is a justified perspective. We develop alliances – not to nurture friendship – but to stand against common foes. Or we simply attack those foes first in order to get that edge in a fight we believe is inevitable. Regardless, we don’t know what anyone else will do, so we presume the worst and act accordingly.

In contemporary business, we also see this type of dilemma played out in various ways. In the ’80s, Clorox pre-emptively beat out P&G’s encroachment into the bleach market by giving free bleach to every household in Portland, MN – cutting demand. In real estate, brokerages will often seek to headhunt agents in order to deny the growth of competing firms or even go as far as to buy-out smaller firms to secure more access of the market.

combatives, violence, de-escalate, learning from violence, War Is My Business, Grossman

Tim Larkin - "Never Having to Fight"

July 28, 2020

“And even for those of us who are best prepared, who are able to fight for our lives and win, there’s something far better: never having to fight for our lives at all.” < Tim Larkin

Larkin identified two forms of societal violence – social and asocial violence.

Social violence is about social position; it follows the rules and involves a lot of posturing. Schoolyard fights, road rage, disrespectful attitudes, for example, can lead to arguments that compel them to fight to assert their position. “They are quasi-violent scenarios that stem from conflict and jockeying within the social hierarchy.” Making the other submit is a primary goal.

Asocial violence is about “wrecking the social order.” Killing and damaging a target to take what you need. This is the bully-victim who, rather than fighting-back (social violence), brings a gun to school and blasts them all away. This is the mugger who, rather than hold you up at gunpoint demanding your wallet (social violence), shoots you in the back of the head and takes your stuff.

Larkin reminds us that we don’t know what another person is thinking and their history. While we may be offended, rear-ended in traffic, or some other social insult that damages our pride – we should de-escalate to avoid social violence, even if we are justified. You never know if the person you want to “throw hands” with will intend to kill and maim you – go asocial. You are alive now, and better to keep it that way by avoiding violence when possible.

In business, violence is a rarity, but we can learn from this. Belligerent and hostile customers are a much more common scenario. The Karens of society are themselves jockeying for social position. It can be aggravating and drive us furious, but we must not escalate. Being “in the right” isn’t as important as the long-term benefit of your business. It may not become violent, but it may, and it may not turn into a legal issue, but it could. Better to avoid it altogether.

combatives, violence, de-escalate, learning from violence, War Is My Business, Grossman

Tim Larkin - "Learning from Violence"

July 25, 2020

“We think that because violence is undesirable, to study it is to endorse it – to say that we think it is desirable… Ninety-nine times out of one hundred, the answer will not be violence. It will be avoidance or de-escalation. But that one time when violence is the answer, make no mistake, it will be the only answer… My message is a simple one: to avoid being a victim of violence, you need to learn from it.” < Tim Larkin

The world is a dangerous place for life, and humanity has evolved to handle those dangers in our own unique ways. These dangers come not only from our environments and other species but from within our own. We see humanity’s propensity for violence between various social groups (states, kingdoms, nations, gangs, etc.), as well as within our own groups in the form of social and asocial violence. In times, other than competition, violence is undesirable and against most laws as it threatens our social dynamic. That being said, Larkin warns of failing to make an effort to understand the nature of violence and preparing for its potentiality. You may not be a criminal, but to ensure you can defeat a violent criminal when they attack, you may need to learn how they do it and their mentality – and doing so wouldn’t be considered endorsing the use of violence in a criminal-manner.

In warfare, insurgencies, and counterinsurgencies, we study our adversaries to learn their organization and doctrine so that we can figure out how to defeat them. Similarly, in business, we study our competitors and learn new technology and services that threaten our market position. Not because we intend to adapt to their business model – that is one potential option – but to determine what, if any, change to our models, systems, processes, and offerings is required to succeed. This is an important aspect of market analysis (e.g., SWOT) in identifying how threats endanger your position and how to effectively deal with them.

authority, drill, submit, training, War Is My Business, Grossman

Dave Grossman - "Submission to Authority"

June 26, 2020

“The military does not dress young troops in uniforms, shave their heads and make them march just for the fun of it. They do these things because if the young warrior cannot submit his will to authority about inconsequential things, such as the way he dresses and how he wears his hair, then he cannot be trusted to submit his will to authority for important things, such as employing deadly force only when a situation calls for it, no matter how bad the provocation.” Lt. Col. Dave Grossman <

Small arms, artillery, tanks, attack helicopters, fighters, bomber, cruisers, submarines, and even nuclear weapons – by their destructive nature require greater levels of responsibility in their use than you would find in other sectors of society. In training, the warfighter only fires their weapon or engages their targets under direct control of an authority – i.e. the trainer or the tower. In combat, they take their cues from their immediate supervisors and the rules of engagement – when and how to engage the enemy and their posture.

The armed forces, therefore, place great emphasis on following orders, values, and codes of conduct at all times; even when not on duty. They do this, not because they want automatons that will simply do as they are told, but as a safeguard to control their actions and thus the effects they produce in society and on the battlefield. The military is a force to be reckoned with, but the nation must control that force without making it incapable. That is why discipline is vital for military training.

In business, discipline has it uses. It can benefit the customer, as we safeguard their information and paperwork. It can benefit the employee, as we ensure safety protocols are followed. And it can benefit the business, as failing in certain areas can create regulatory and legal ramifications. The greater the damage a business or employee can create, the more discipline is needed. Great power requires great responsibility.

operant conditioning, bad habits, training, War Is My Business, Grossman

Dave Grossman - "Bad Training Habits"

June 18, 2020

“If the trainee is conditioned to stop when he is hit (as if the scenario is over), he programs an undesirable and potentially self-destructive action into his mind.” Lt. Col. Dave Grossman

When people are stressed, pressured, or scared they begin to act relatively autonomously. They “sink” to the level of their training, and act on instinct based on what they have learned – through experience or through habit – in the past. This means that they may not be critically thinking of their actions – their forebrains are merely observers as their midbrains take over.

If one trains for these dangerous scenarios, when it becomes reality they act how they trained. Without thought of whether each action is appropriate, they will simply do what they have done before. This means that if there were steps conducted during training that shouldn’t be done in the real-world they might still do it.

For example, Grossman tells us in one instance a police officer was practicing how to disarm a perp by training with his wife. She would hold the handgun and he would skillfully disarm her. He would return the weapon to her each time so that he could drill those actions again until it was muscle memory. But in the future, when at a convenient store, he had to do the same thing to a robber:

“In the blink of an eye, the officer snatched the gun away, shocking the gunman with his speed and finesse. No doubt this criminal was surprised and confused even more when the officer handed the gun right back to him, just as he had practiced hundreds of times before.”

In business, just as in every profession, we must train through completion of our processes. It may seem good in training to rewind and redo a specific action, but drilling this way will invariably cause problems when the real-world is knocking. There are is redo-button when things get-go bad. Even when you fail to do something, keep working it, since “just stopping” won’t be an option.

operant conditioning, drilling, drills, training, War Is My Business, Grossman

Dave Grossman - "Operant Conditioning"

June 14, 2020

“You do not rise to the occasion in combat, you sink to the level of your training. Do not expect the combat fairy to come bonk you with the combat wand and suddenly make you capable of doing things that you never rehearsed before.” Lt. Col. Dave Grossman <

In our own section of The Human Domain we discussed the nature of human decision making – the brain’s inference of stimuli and its subsequent decision making reactions. Grossman hits on this system, when the forebrain – i.e. critical thought processing – is taken out of the equation, and humans act more instinctually to external and internal stimuli. The goal in understanding this is to shape our automated responses, so that in time-sensitive and stress-filled situations we respond in desirable ways.

Lt. Col. Dave Grossman says:

“By thinking through exactly what we want a warrior to do in combat, and training him to say or do exactly the right thing in training, we can insure that the right words and actions will be there when lives are on the line.”

We must focus on training all the actions that are required follow through a particular activity or event, as we may not have time to think about it. It is also important to avoid actions that doesn’t contribute to the desired process – such as pauses or resets in training – so that they aren’t unintentionally replicated. By drilling desirable actions during training, we can ensure an effective real-world response.

In business, there are scenarios in which time is critical and people are stressed. Developing a step-action process for issues, and drilling those steps constantly will ensure smooth and satisfactory responses. This will help prevent compounding problems. Responses to active shooters, natural disasters, building fires, public relations disasters, etc., should be drilled so that when they occur, everyone knows what to do and how to respond – even when they are pressured/scared.

sleep deprivation, well-rested, sleep, War Is My Business, Grossman

Dave Grossman - "Sleep Deprivation"

May 26, 2020

“No Man Knows But a Soldier, How Sweet Sleep Is.” -John Mosby

“Sleep deprivation is the best way to physically predispose yourself to become a stress casualty… As it relates to job performance, sleep deprivation impairs: reaction time, judgment, vision, information processing, short-term memory, performance, motivation, vigilance and patience.” -Lt. Col. Dave Grossman <

In combat, life and death decisions can happen in a matter of seconds. Processing information, developing plans, and utilizing critical thought can take great cognitive effort to accomplish. That being said, lack of sleep negatively impacts all of that. The amount of focus and forethought that has to occur for any tactical or operational decisions to be made, makes ensuring that everyone receives an appropriate amount the sleep every day, a military imperative.

In an experiment of artillery batteries, they discovered that after the first day of sleep deprivation any benefit gained from additional hours of waking work was lost due to bad performance. After the third day, the sleep-deprived batteries became progressively worse to the point that their performance was so bad that they were a danger to everyone.

In business, we have duties that warrant us and our employees receiving a full night’s rest every day. Bankers, tellers, and cashiers need to consistently perform arithmetic. Those working with power tools, heavy machinery, and driving trucks need their focus.

We have all probably met an individual or two that think they can function well on very little sleep. In instances in combat and business, where poor performance can be counterproductive – it may even be better to not work at all than to work while sleep-deprived.

The moral here is that those that consistently get an appropriate amount of sleep every night will perform consistently better than those that choose, or are forced to, sleep for much less.

vietnam memorial, honor, PTSD, Battle Fatigue, Shell Shock, War Is My Business, Grossman

Dave Grossman - "Need for Validation"

May 26, 2020

“Commanders, families, and society need to understand the soldier’s desperate need for recognition and acceptance, his vulnerability, and his desperate need to be constantly reassured that what [they] did was right and necessary, and the terrible social costs of failing to provide for these needs with the traditional acts of affirmation and acceptance. It is to our national shame that it has taken us almost twenty years to recognize and fulfill these needs with the Vietnam War Memorial and the veterans’ parades that have allowed our veterans to ‘wipe a little spit off their hearts.’” Dave Grossman <

In studies of PTSD, they discovered a direct correlation between the trauma experienced in battle and the social support a Soldier receives upon their return home -the lack of validation from the people, it saw, directly related to increases in cases of PTSD. So, in a situation in which troops returning from Vietnam may have experienced traumas on par with their WW2 fathers, the hostile reception that many experienced – and which all sensed – lead to an increased number of cases. For decades they would have to suffer until society at large became more accepting of honoring their service.

As social creatures, humans need confirmation that what they do is appreciated and desirable. And while the stress of work doesn’t share the same stressors as found in combat, there is an emotional toll that is still present even if just to a varying degree.

In business, we use monetary compensation for hard work, but more importantly public acknowledgment of a job well-done can work even more so. Imagine those times we have witnessed people working hard in thankless jobs finally receiving some form of appreciation for that hard work – they either tear up and/or have smiles that last for days. We must remember that those in our lives - our employees, colleagues, friends, and family – need to know that their work is appreciated by others.

blind men and the elephant, PTSD, Battle Fatigue, Shell Shock, War Is My Business, Grossman

Dave Grossman - "More Than the Sum of its Parts"

May 16, 2020

“Like the blind men of the proverb, each individual feels a piece of the elephant, and the enormity of what he has found is overwhelming enough to convince each blindly groping observer that he has found the essence of the beast. But the whole beast is far more enormous and vastly more terrifying than society as a whole is prepared to believe.” Dave Grossman <

The causes of post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, have been the subject of study for as long as military history has been written. The study of psychological trauma in soldiers - trying to ascertain from a very complex group of variables cause it - is diverse. Failing one’s comrades, killing fellow human beings, constant emotional fatigue, lack of food, lack of sleep, debilitating weather, and uncertainty of the future, have all been identified as having been primary causes in the breakdown of soldiers. What Grossman alludes to in the quote is that we shouldn’t be looking for individual variables as having the greatest weight, but to evaluate all holistically, and that the collective impact of these variables – good or bad – results in the emotional well-being of the warfighter.

I have mentioned this before in regards to humanity’s propensity to simplify complex things by reducing it to a few fundamental elements (reductionism), and that we see it in all aspects of human endeavors.

In business, we may reduce the causes of failure and success to a few key aspects. Just think about Dutch tulip mania, the Great Depression, the Japanese economic miracle, the Recession of 2008, etc. You may be able to rattle off a few cause and effect relationships that impact those events to a great extent. Still, similarly to what causes PTSD in warfighters, the cause and effects of booms and busts have their own unique set of variables at play – each with their weights – which can’t necessarily be used to explain the why’s and how’s of other events.

PTSD, Battle Fatigue, Shell Shock, War Is My Business, Grossman

Dave Grossman - "Posturing Mode"

April 15, 2020

“The weak link between the killing potential and the killing capability of these units was the soldier. The simple fact is that when faced with a living, breathing opponent instead of a target, a significant majority of soldiers revert to a posturing mode in which they fire over their enemy’s head.”

– Lt. Col. Dave Grossman from “On Killing”

What Hollywood and pop culture sometimes fail to capture in depictions of warfare is a human being’s natural aversion to killing fellow humans. People can posture, discussing the act of killing as both an act of aggression and self-defense – even training to do such acts – but when a real-life scenario presents itself, the great majority have found it difficult. The above quote from Grossman was alluding to the layman’s perspective that smooth-bore muskets were generally inaccurate, but in tests proved to not be the case. Combat stressors taken into account, most combatants find it difficult to kill – even in self-defense. Some purposefully miss while some don’t even fire, looking for other tasks to undertake – like running messages and caring for wounded. Personnel on the battlefield, when engaged in close-combat with an enemy, may underperform as a result of behavioral impulses.

In business, we can see behavioral impulses impact the actions in consumers – making their decisions unpredictable and sometimes counter to their own interests. Behavioral Economics by Richard Thaler counters the concept of the “Econ” – a human that doesn’t throw good money after bad, doesn’t allow sunk costs to impact future decisions, and always makes the best financial decisions when they have complete information. Humans are prone to make mistakes and decisions because of emotions. Just like you can’t predict a soldier’s behavioral responses in close combat, we can’t predict a consumer’s behaviors when they are stressed and facing novel financial decisions – emotions can have great impact over logic and reason.

Napoleon, War Is My Business, Good Soldiers

Napoleon Bonaparte - "Having Good Soldiers"

April 15, 2020

“To have good soldiers, a nation must always be at war.” –Napoleon Bonaparte

It is easy to train soldiers to fire weapons, to march long distances with heavy loads, and to employ small unit tactics in a training environment. It becomes difficult when you add this to the uncertainty of combat environments, and the numerous functions of military and civilian organizations that have to work in tandem. The ability to do even the simplest of tasks becomes impossible when certain warfighting functions fail.

What Napoleon alludes to is the difference between merely having soldiers available and having soldiers capable of winning battles; more importantly, having organizations that can manage the training, deployment, and maintenance of military forces that can engage in combat. Soldiers, no matter how skilled, can achieve very little on empty stomachs and no ammunition. Militaries at war regularly exercise their warfighting capabilities, which can atrophy during times of peace – which is why modern militaries seek to make training as realistic and rigorous as possible. Realistic training can be costly, but that is what is needed if you want capable soldiers and competent staff.

In business, the scope and scale of operations and the market aren’t as complex or as zero-sum as war can be. Still, it nonetheless has its uncertainty with evolving and emerging markets and equally diverse functions. In this sense, how does a business continue to succeed if the various functions – human resources, operations, marketing, logistics, production, etc. – don’t understand how they fit into the bigger picture? By tackling new projects, by being engaged with capturing market share, by entering and engaging with new customers, and directing all the departments towards these efforts, a business can develop its own people and keep them skilled and competent. Better to be engaged in your craft then letting those skills atrophy.

George Patton, War Is My Business, Training, Leadership, Coronavirus, COVID19

George Patton - "A Pint of Sweat"

March 22, 2020

“A pint of sweat will save a gallon of blood.” -GEN George S. Patton Jr.

The concept that Patton speaks of, and to which we all endeavor now, is to provide rigorous and relevant training for our organizations so that we can more effectively achieve our objectives and bring our people home alive and in one piece. In combat, or with non-traditional missions, there will be many variables and pressures that we cannot effectively predict, and our systems and processes will be strained. It is the weaknesses, especially single points of failure, that can defeat an organization. By straining ourselves during training, we can identify and strengthen our weaknesses and improve upon our systems and processes so that when we are thrown into a real-world mission, we are better prepared.

That being said, the coronavirus, COVID19, is indeed a strain that is testing the systems and processes of every nation, local community, business, and family. But, other than those that will be directly hurt by the virus, as a society, there is a benefit that can be had. Here is why:

1) The pandemic ISN’T STRONG ENOUGH to destroy society. Things may change, but we will continue in the same way for the most part.

2) The pandemic IS STRONG ENOUGH to strain all our systems and processes. It is enough for everyone to identify their weaknesses and put in measures to mitigate or correct them.

Conclusion: If we treat this pandemic as we would a training opportunity we can learn from it and improve our plans so that we can be better prepared the next time such environmental strains occur. What we learn from this pandemic may save scores more people and help recovery efforts decades from now when something even more dangerous presents itself.

For business, we identified many weaknesses with more to come. How we engage our customers has been impacted. How we deal with logistics, especially global, in order for our supply chains to keep functioning has been impacted. Now is the time to learn!

Tank Destroyers, WWII, Patton, War Is My Business

General Board of 1946 - "Good Enough for the Job at Hand"

March 12, 2020

“Suffice it to say that the self-propelled tank destroyer proved to be a most versatile weapon on the battlefield, and although its use did not follow pre-combat doctrines, it did fill a need and became a very highly respected part of the successful infantry-armor-artillery team.” General Board - 1946 <

Leading to our entry into combat operation during WW2, the German Blitz had yet to be effectively defeated so America had to develop a solution untested on the battlefield. The tank destroyer forces were developed as a mobile defense, but the doctrine never panned out in practice. These weapon platforms (M10, M18, M36), however, provided commanders on the ground a flexible weapon and units geared towards seeking out enemy armor. The doctrine was imperfect, but it allowed the Army to move forward and get equipment and personnel in the field with something that was “good enough” to accomplish related tasks.

A good example of the saying the “best is the enemy of the good,” and Patton’s saying of “a good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.” Waiting for the best option to be developed instead of simply acting with what you got isn’t necessarily the best course of action. You may not have the luxury to time to spend to devise and employ the best options. You may also not be able to develop the “best” options without firsthand testing. So simply moving forward with something “good enough” is the best course of action in many cases.

In business, you can similarly wait to develop the best product or devise the best service options for your customers. You can wait until you have every revenue stream tapped, and every corner of your business plan fleshed out… but it may take you a long time. And by the time you do execute, someone may have already beaten you to the market. The “good enough” plan is a viable option for entrepreneurs, and just having some value to provide is better than waiting.

Zhou Dynasty, War Is My Business, Jiang Ziya

Rosa Brooks - "Suffering from Success"

March 02, 2020

“In many ways, the military is a victim of its own success; our conventional military dominance makes direct challenges nearly suicidal for other states, pushing adversaries toward asymmetric strategies designed to neutralize our strengths and play on our weaknesses.” –Rosa Brooks <

There are many ways to influence others, and in the case of nations – as it does with individuals – conflict is such a way. Because the consequence of conflict is so severe, nations invest heavily towards improving it, and sometimes at the expense of other avenues of influence – avenues that adversaries may exploit. Even within conflict there are many different tools and methods that can be either developed or atrophied, and some high-tech measures can have low-tech countermeasures.

In antiquity, the military dominance of the Shang dynasty (1600-1046 BCE) was not sufficient to counter the plotting and intrigue of the Zhou kings and their strategist - Jiang Ziya. By endearing themselves to the Shang to throw off suspicious and undermining the trust between the other kings while building the strength of the Zhou military they were eventually able to overthrow the Shang and establish the Zhou dynasty. It is a lesson that would be emphasized by other great military leaders – avoiding an enemy where they are strong while attacking where they are weak, destroying their alliances while building your own.

In business, you must always be aware of those that threaten your position. Even the greatest businesses can fall as market conditions change and competition develops new tech and services that put yours into obsolescence. Maintain strengths while seeking out your weaknesses and improving upon them. Finding new innovations and being the first to promote them.

To quote Gary Vaynerchuk, “If you are not making long term decisions you will be vulnerable, because somewhere out there someone is hungry and working to put you out of business themselves.”

military technology, military, business, theory, PRT, high-tech, low-tech, war is my business

Rosa Brooks - "Military Technological Evolution"

February 19, 2020

“Here’s what we seem eager to forget: military technological evolution can go in both directions. In biological evolution, there’s no technology: the simple doesn’t inevitably become more complex, and while life-forms change and evolve in response both to random mutation and environmental conditions, they don’t inevitably “advance.” In modern warfare, the same is true. High-tech measures aren’t inevitably countered by more high-tech measures. Sometimes, the opposite is true: the most successful countermeasures are low-tech – and historically, this has been demonstrated just as often as has the opposite.” – Rosa Brooks <

In warfare, while technology may advance along certain branches – i.e., more complex and capable weapons systems or communications – warfare as a social endeavor evolves.

Evolution is about finding efficiencies related to current conditions, and a military will seek to achieve its objectives in the most efficient way possible. Therefore, war may emphasize less advanced methods if they provide more effective results. Expected results should dictate what tools you use, not just using tools for their sake alone.

Within any profession, there is a perspective that the “advanced” is inherently better than previous forms. While within real-life tech trees, that is the case, it doesn’t naturally translate to best or better results – the environmental conditions will determine that. So, for example, Gary Vaynerchuk once replied to a digital business that asked about the importance of physical meetings as opposed to digital.

“Real life meetings matter because there is just so much context that can be done in human interaction that doesn’t happen over digital… That is the part that matters so much in the equation of real-life… Digital is the gateway drug to human interaction.” In his case, the more advanced digital meeting doesn’t necessarily produce better results.

It is the results that matter, not the ways they are produced.

JIIM, military, joint operations, integration, definition of war, military theory, business theory, war is my business

Rosa Brooks - "Definition of War"

February 11, 2020

"Scholars and lawyers can argue until they're blue in the face about the proper theoretical definition of war, but for all practical purposes, war is whatever powerful states say it is. From an institutional perspective, it is the state, through the apparatus of government, that decides which tasks to assign to civilian entities and which tasks to assign to the military. And from a legal perspective, it is the state that defines what will be considered a war and what will not." -Rosa Brooks <

War is a nebulous concept, and there is no real universal definition for it. The most accepted definitions revolve around the mutual employment of force between two or more states. But there are instances when force is used against each other without being in a state of war - think US vs. Iran. There are also times when war exists, and force is not used - think the still technically ongoing Korean War. There are also efforts that we call "war" but don't constitute our understanding of war, like the "war on terror," which represents a promise to utilize force against those that use terrorism as a method of influence.

What matters is how we define a relationship between a government and some other state, organization, or environmental condition (like a famine or crime) as this will - as Brooks alludes to - determine which resources a state will use to deal with it and who takes control of those resources. How we call something will impact how to treat it, and who takes the lead.

In business organizations, most plans involve many different departments working in tandem to achieve objectives. Imagine an effort to improve a business' brand image. Who would take the lead? Marketing, customer services, or operations? If you called it a "campaign" then operations may take the reigns since campaigning is an operation. If you called it an "engagement plan," then marketing or customer services may take it since engagements are in their domain.

hollywood, military assistance, rosa brooks, business theory, pepsi, military theory

Rosa Brooks - "Hollywood"

February 6, 2020

“Hollywood doesn’t make movies about soldiers providing technical assistance to Iraqi parliament, or sailors operating mobile health clinics in coastal Africa. The news too is dominated by stories of firefights, missile strikes, and IEDs, not stories of the countless military personnel whose jobs have little to do with traditional forms of combat.” -Rosa Brooks <

For those that don’t have constant exposure to those in the military, they have two ways they generally glean the nature of the military, 1) media avenues and 2) self-study of military history and organization. While most would get exposure through the first way in mediums such as movies, video games, and news platforms, the media's focus is on drawing in and retaining audience attention. As a result, they portray what audiences would find most interesting, and not necessarily what is most realistic. If you based military service on what you saw in the movies, you would presume that all we did was fight. If all you saw was what was in the news, then you may think something similar.

But for most military organizations, just as is for many large businesses, the bulk of its people are engaged in support of the organization - not necessarily in the prosecution of its most distinguishable purpose. The military may dispense force, and Pepsi Co. may dispense beverages, but most people in those organizations simply keep them operating. They have personnel in human resources, financing, training, operations, logistics, legal sections, marketing, etc.. Still, it is easy for us to forget that organizations in any human endeavor have more in common than we would typically think - they are, after all, formed and filled by human beings.

Odierno, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Raymond Odierno, military theory, technology, business

Raymond Odierno - "Human Interaction"

February 4, 2020

“There are many people that believe that through technology advancement, we can solve all of the issues of warfare, I absolutely reject that concept... Human interaction in a complex environment is key to our success in the future.” -General Raymond Odierno

Warfare, as is business, is a human endeavor. Seeking to attain objectives through the influencing of other human beings. We develop new technologies in order to improve our abilities to engage other human beings towards our ends. But occasionally, our pursuit for the newest and fanciful tech leads us to forget that fundamentally we are supposed to be engaging humans, and that the tech is merely a means to an end - not the end itself.

In Business, we focus on the acquisition of tech in order to optimize our work. We look to improve our systems and processes so that our people work more effectively and provide greater quality to the consumer. As a result, it is the consumer - how the tech impacts engagements with that consumer - that should be dictating policy.

Peter F. Drucker discussed the importance for businesses to shape their underlying operations based on the needs of the consumer over the systems that facilitate the development and acquisition of tech. Meaning that, it shouldn't be the newest and most advanced that dictates the tech you acquire, but the potential benefits to the consumer that should dictate which is best for your to have.

"The foundations have to be consumer values and consumer decisions on the distribution of their disposable income. It is with those that management policy and management strategy increasingly will have to start." -Peter F. Drucker <

eisenhower, ike, wwii, war is my business, military theory, business theory

Dwight D. Eisenhower - "Planning is Indispensable"

January 19, 2020

“In preparing for battle, I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.” –Dwight D. Eisenhower

What Eisenhower’s quote alludes to, in a sense, is that in the complexity of warfare, with its numerous variables and an enemy actively trying to disrupt your plans, that your plan is unlikely to remain intact. “The enemy has a vote” is a common saying in regards to this. Planning, however, is still necessary for multiple reasons.

1) It allows you to begin executing in a unified manner with others - so even if you have to adapt, you are all working from the same document.

2) It helps you understand the nature of the variables of your environment, and will help inform you of what you need to adapt when new information is discovered in order to generate the desired results.

3) Networks, like communications and logistics, may be necessary for change to occur once in operation, and they will be established as a result of the original plan.

In marketing for a business, most will develop a marketing plan that will help them build and engage a customer base. They need it to help determine what the target audiences are for specific niches, where they hang out, and how best to engage them. It enables you to identify, through specific metrics, whether your efforts are successful or whether you need to change up your plan. The plan may not work as intended, but without it, you can’t be sure whether you are having any success within your market.

"The 1-Page Marketing Plan" by Allan Dib offers a nice single-page document that allows you to develop a comprehensive, yet simple marketing plan for your business to move forward. Its simplicity and ease-of-use make it something that can be shared and updated as needed. So when you inevitably need to adapt, you have a plan that allows for it. Click on the link here to check it out >

quds force, iran, terrorists, soleimani, war is my business, military theory, business theory

Eliot A. Cohen - "Intellectual Inertia"

January 12, 2020

“It is the nature of sub-conventional conflict that it usually provides no conclusive victories, that it lasts a long time, and that it is obfuscated by denials and misrepresentation. It is therefore easy for the United States to ignore it, as it did in Iraq, when Iran’s Quds Force persistently supported groups attacking American forces with ever more lethal improvised explosive devices (IEDs)… Those who wage sub-conventional war do so chiefly because they hope to achieve gains on the cheap, and because they know they cannot prevail in conventional conflict. All the more reason to respond forcefully, to make the gains more expensive, and to confront opponents with risks that they do not wish to bear.” -Eliot A. Cohen <

This quote was written a few years ago but has significant importance given recent events, especially in regards to the targeted attack on Soleimani. Now that we have actually responded with force, and have had some noted benefit, we will see how all subsequent actions begin to unfold.

The military to business comparison here is that the allure of the use other non-conventional forces over your own military allows for two benefits.

1) It has a great return on investment potential. Small efforts here and there, when unified towards an overarching strategy, can produce a slow change in the environment. The funding and resourcing of external militias mean a minimal requirement for your own people to be involved and all the trappings that come with it - it is a type of outsourcing, but for violence, which allows for the second benefit.

2) It can be treated as a sunken cost. If a particular effort fails, they can move onto another one. They can be abandoned as necessary or further supported if they have successes. Plus, they can leave the whole endeavor if it suits them. It's easier, and there are fewer ramifications for giving up support of external militias than it is trying to withdraw regular military forces.

clausewitz, theory, entrepreneurs, deming

Carl von Clausewitz - "Aid of Theory"

January 8, 2020

“So long as no acceptable theory, no intelligent analysis of the conduct of war exists, routine methods will tend to take over even at the highest levels.” -Carl von Clausewitz <

For many in the military, as it is with complex human endeavors, like businesses, if we don’t understand the reasons for why something works – the variables that make specific courses of action successful or not – we are prone to simply rehash what has worked in the past. There is comfort in following well-tried and established processes, as the expected results give us ease in chaotic times. David Ben-Gurion would call this “intellectual inertia.” Sticking with what works even when unknowing changes in the environment occur, or in spite of  those changes right in front of them. We may cling to our ways, or follow the ways of others that were successful, even if those conditions that made them successful are no longer the same.

“Theory is a window into the world. Theory leads to prediction. Without prediction, experience and examples teach nothing. To copy an example of success, without understanding it with the aid of theory, may lead to disaster.” -W. Edwards Deming <

In business, we seek out models for us to emulate. Great pioneers, business gurus, and entrepreneurs, and try to do what they did. We follow their guidelines, business plans, and motivation in order to achieve success in our own way, but sometimes we do this without comparing and contrasting our environments. Do we have similar strengthens and weaknesses? Do we have similar opportunities and threats? Is this model even the most apt one for our situation? You will never really know unless you have a grasp of business theory and concepts, and how it impacts your particular business and your specific market.

gary vaynerchuk, vaynerchuk, war is my business, GDP, military spending

Eliot A. Cohen - "Top-Line Numbers"

January 2, 2020

“These top-line numbers do not take into account the calculations of American resolve that foreign leaders make when considering US threats and promises; they do not capture the ability of small but disciplined powers to inflict damage disproportionate to their economic might; they don’t measure reliance. Nor do they measure experience, strategic or tactical skill, and adaptability. Perhaps most important of all, these measures do not take into account whether a state’s military expenditure is growing or remaining steady, or the edge that can be gained by having the latest and best technology in the field.” -Eliot A. Cohen <

The number helps you understand total spending in regards to other government sectors – energy, education, etc. – but it doesn’t inform you into how the money translates into military capabilities. A nation with a conscript force doesn’t utilize a sizable portion of its defense budget on its people (America, however, uses 25% of it) and can redirect it elsewhere. You need to dig into the numbers to understand how exactly it may translate into capabilities. The Chinese can equip eleven soldiers for every one US Soldier, but the US Soldier has greater capabilities with their loadouts.

In business, or specifically in #ASKGARYVEE, it stated,

“I don’t care about width metrics. Any brand start-up using the number of views it receives to gauge its success doesn’t realize that tech can game that game. I’m looking at the engagements, the comments, the click-throughs to the product… It depends on what you’re trying to accomplish.” -Gary Vaynerchuk <

If you are spending capital to market and advertise your business, there is a difference between building it through likes, subscribers, followers, etc. and that of actually using it to engage with people. You could have a broad audience with little substance or a small community that is deeply involved.

bottom of page