Skinning the Gap

Hard Expansion of the Core

Mark Safranski at ZenPundit led me to the first, an exploration on Amendment Nine of some methods of concerted integration that many in our present world would find distasteful: “Maps versus Hands.”  In that post, Federalist X considered the colonial American method of integration of a then-Gap, the Native Americans, and compared it with Thomas Barnett’s PNM theory of integration.  In such a comparison, the genocide and relocation of Native Americans is to be considered a warning for contemporary Americans:  Forced integration of our own “Gap” might follow the same methods.

The motive behind Federalist X’s consideration seems to be to inspire terror of such “progress” as Thomas Barnett would promote:

And the practical implication of colonizing the third world is that America will need to once again be “ok” with burning villages, slaughtering women and children, and doing it all at night with no pretext.

In response to the post, I remarked at ZenPundit that Federalist X had entirely ignored the missionary work and economic integration which also served to integrate the colonial American Gap; to which, Federalist X responded that he intended to introduce those points in a later post, that he was only focusing on a dichotomy that existed then and a dichotomy of Gap/Core that exists now.  I.e., even the title of Federalist X’s post attempts to show up the dichotomy:  the difference between drawing maps in isolation and implementing those maps on the ground. Unfortunately, he used dichotomy and a similar withdrawal from ground realities to make his point, by entirely ignoring the other methods of integration utilized by colonial Americans.  This should be considered a rhetorical mistake, one to be avoided in the future unless he wants to be forever misunderstood. (Perhaps sensationalism, via gross simplification, was intended to increase reader response?)

But as I noted in my response at ZenPundit, Thomas Barnett’s theory of integration appears to rely on a very careful implementation of “hard expansion” [of the Core] and “soft expansion,” and I have no difficulty imagining that anything other than a careful balance of the two could lead to worst-case scenarios not unlike those proposed by Federalist X.  Barnett is an idealist whose ideals might actually prove successful, if followed and implemented; but as even I’ve said repeatedly, he seems to have ignored the reality of internal gaps of Core nations and general ground realities in his idealism.

Native Americans are Militant Muslims

Part of the problem of Federalist X’s approach centers on a desire to ignore concepts of progress altogether.  Another blogger has picked up the meme for exploration by snatching onto the comments of one of Federalist X’s readers: “4GW, Nation-Building as Soft-Colonization,Time Ranges in War/Conflict, and Meme Wars, at PurpleSlog.

By “ignoring progress altogether,” I mean the desire to view the past and the present as synonyms.  What we call Gap and Core have always existed, to some degree.  4th Generation War has always existed in some form, as has 5th Generation War and, well, pretty much everything being talked about by contemporary war-and-peace theorists.  Expansion of the Core today will be exactly like expansion of the Core yesterday, though we give it another name.  Etc.

In exploration of this meme, Purpleslog has snatched up the banner of “J Smith” who said, in part,

But that just makes it all the more plain don’t it? The only way to when a “4GW” war or a 5GW war or whatever the fuck they are calling it these days, the only way to win a war against an insurgent native population is, here’s the punch line, to colonize them!

And this country just doesn’t have the stomach for the grueling and vicious nature of colonization. We aren’t an empire because our people don’t want to be one. So let’s stop it with the warfare evolution mumbo jumbo and just be honest and acknowledge that fact. Certainly would make my life a lot easier. What we are witnessing is not 4GW. It is a failed “soft” colonization policy which over and over again throughout history has been shown to be completely worthless.

Many points exist to be examined in J Smith’s world view; but Purpleslog narrows it down to an agreement with the notion that time does not happen, nor that progress of any sort happens:

I am leaning toward the idea of 1GW thru 5GW have always existed (and dropping the Pre-Modern war idea, or re-characterizing it as 0GW). The way to think about them is not historical time periods or types of technologies, but general methods and the part of the OODA they center on.

This, interestingly enough for me, recalls to mind my recent comment here at P.C. that focusing on the larger schemes to the exclusion of a consideration of fundamental human natures might lead our theories astray.  It also reminds me of my attempt to consider Alexander the Great and Muhammad as early examples of 4GWarriors, in comments at ZenPundit. I.e., a consideration of fundamental human dynamics might lead us to realize that human interactions, and general social emergences — or, call them social emergencies — recur, throughout human history.  And this might lead us to assume that there really is nothing new under the sun.

While I find these notions persuasive, I am not convinced.  I myself will no doubt continue to dissolve new theories in my attempt to find the common themes behind them and behind human history, but at the same time, I think that the tendency to dissolve all into one may also lead us astray.  I had mentioned, in response to Federalist X’s assertions, that I would rather view hard expansion and soft expansion (of Core and/or Gap) as a continuum, which I would also do when considering 4GW and 5GW and other human dynamics.  I.e., in the case of expansion of the Core, I might look at it like this

10% Hard / 90% Soft
20% Hard / 80% Soft
30% Hard / 70% Soft
40% Hard / 60% Soft
50% Hard / 50% Soft
60% Hard / 40% Soft
70% Hard / 30% Soft
80% Hard / 20% Soft
90% Hard / 10% Soft

—only, time has produced a tendency, in human dynamics, for resolution of friction in an opposite direction to the list above, from more Hard to more Soft, in the Barnettian theory, for various reasons related to what we might call “progress” or can call, if we do not like metaphorical use of that word, a change in capabilities, ground realities, etc.

For instance, I once remarked that future ground realities may make Hard Expansion a much less effective tactic for states, simply because the advance in weaponry technology all around might mean that hard warfare would lead to successes which could hardly be called successes:

The present question is whether we are approaching a time when the costs of pre-5GW types of wars will far outweigh any potential benefits. If so, pre-5GW wars will not disappear — because madmen, idiots, and egomaniacs don’t always do a cost analysis before initiating violent conflicts! — but perhaps democratic nations (at least) have more checks on such madmen, and advances in technology and knowledge in general would unearth the net loss which high-tech pre-5GW wars promise.

For instance, wars over the control of natural resources might offer a good payback, but not if infrastructure is too destroyed to make use of those natural resources! (Not to mention the possibility that the loser in any such conflict would almost certainly engage in industrial sabotage, terrorist activity, etc., further increasing the cost of such a war for the “victor.”)

Another example, more closely related with Core-Gap dynamics, would be the attempted use of genocide to wipe out that Gap:

1. The Gap has many more people, spread further over designated targets, than it had in colonial America; these people are better able to move out of the line of fire, thanks to modern locomotion;
   
2. While Core powers have nuclear weapons capable of true “mass” murder, some Gap nations might also have these or biological and chemical weaponry capable of a return-mass-murder.  The Native Americans, on the other hand, did not have such a capability, which made the idea of the destruction of villages, women and children, etc., much more cost effective for colonial Americans than they would be for the modern-day Core;
3. And, what’s more, many of the Gap populace already reside deeply placed in today’s Core, as either immigrants or sleeper cells, unlike the Gap populace of colonial America.  Thus, today’s Core may find they cannot utilize genocide, etc., etc., on the Gap without reaping much destruction of the Core as well.

There are of course other factors, such as “world opinion” and the existence of New Core players, which were not so much a factor in colonial America.

Thus, “soft expansion” might actually be more effective, today, even than “hard expansion” was in colonial America or any other time in the past.  (Of course, at other places, in other times, the mix might have been closer to 40% Hard / 60% Soft, or 70% Hard / 30% Soft, or some other mix.)

On the issue of 5GW and what Purpleslog called “Meme-Based networks” and MBN vs MBN warfare, I would have no difficulty equating them, since both are paradigmatic conflicts, except that they are not the same thing.  Yes, I do think that certain tactics of 4GW and 5GW have always been utilized.  The difference between now and then, however, would be in

1.  the degree to which these methods are utilized, based on
2. the change in ground realities influenced by technology, science, and present general knowledge and social structures, and
3. vis-a-vis general knowledge, the degree to which these methods are consciously utilized, now, rather than merely supplemental tactics that may have been utilized before.

That last point is particularly pertinent.  To say that now is then is to say that human knowledge has not increased whatsoever in the interim:  a blatantly false assumption.  I am sympathetic to the notion that human wisdom is no better off now than it has ever been, and possibly even suffering more now than in previous times; but knowledge has certainly increased, including the knowledge of previous attempts at warfare, previous battles, historical models, etc., etc., which were not available to the revolting classes in Rome or the invading Mongol hordes of China.  One might even say that the explosion of knowledge has gone far to limit human wisdom or our ability to choose between multifarious tactics; but this, also, would be a sign that now is not then.

Hard, Soft, Core, Gap

Something I want to explore in more depth later, notes I made after reading the Federalist X post:

Three scenarios:
1. Hard expansion of the Core
2. Soft expansion of the Core
3. Failing these, the expansion of the Gap into the Core.
   

Three corresponding outcomes:
1. Mostly Old Core homogeneity worldwide
2. Mostly Core homogeneity worldwide, but this is New Core rather than Old Core
3. Something else not quite the other two; a synthesis of Core and Gap.  (Think: the American Revolutionary’s incorporation of Gap warfare and Gap social structure — opposing the Old Core hierarchical structures of Britain, France, and Spain.)

I.e, frictions have a way of dampening energy, over time.  These scenarios are just addenda to this post, things to be explored later, a bit of fingertip feeling expressed in barest manner.