The Military-Industrial Complex and 5GW

Dan,

After pondering your post, I am left wondering if our Keynesian approach is adequate in a 5GW campaign. Personally, I fear that the “iron triangle” only induces a sense of entitlement among its participants that lags far behind the market OODAs. The result is not a fundamental change in perspective (and investment flows), but rather more of the same. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose….

Tom Barnett’s recent post on Africa (citing the article by Africans that implored Bono to stop with the “aid” campaign) underscored the importance of self-induced corrective measures to achieve lasting success. A DoEE/MISC that imposes ideals from afar is destined to fail unless it is truly masterful in 5GW — in changing the very perception by its objects of the ultimate intent.

This raises the notion of a “just 5th gen. war”: Is it possible to be a “benevolent despot”, seeking the betterment of the Gap’s posterity, though lulling its present-day denizens into accepting Foreign Direct Investment on Core terms? This presupposes that there can be a reconciliation between the culturally Bedouin foundation in Islam and the more-static propensities in Core cultures, or between the West’s perception of Islam as non-integrating and humiliated vs. the perception of the Core as overbearing and callous.

Any model that starts with “Big-M Military” is likely to be perceived in the Gap as U.S. imperialism cloaked in the soothing blanket of “security, stability and reconstruction”.

sf/ shane

Shane — an amazingly good comment.

You’re right that the MISC will create a lot of waste. Think of the Military-Industrial-Leviathan-Complex we currently have — its only real purpose is to knock off third-rate despots once and a while, plus deter a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. These are both worthy goal, but the MILC was designed for a Cold War that no longer exists.

Similarly, we can expect the MISC to continue functioning decades if not generations after it is no longer needed.

The reality we seek to impose is marketization. Every ghetto community in history fight this, because it destroys the old order and the old certaintinties. (Witness indigienous Jewish opposition to Zionist migration, for example. The local elite was alarmed that their flock suddenyl saw that it was possible to be Jewish and worldly successful.)

Indeed, Judaism is a good analogy for the “Bedouin” problems we face with Islam. Islam does not need a “reformation” like Christianity’s (God save us from another one of those), but a powerful “Reform” sect like Reform Judaism. The text of the Torah, like the text of the Koran, does not have to be applied how it is — but as long as the the Talmud, like the Hadiths, hold sway, the structure cannot be easily modified.

The humiliation of Islam is a function of the weakness of the Islamic community. It is vital feedback.

Any model that starts with “Big-M Military” is likely to be perceived in the Gap as U.S. imperialism cloaked in the soothing blanket of “security, stability and reconstruction”.

What did Marx say about capitalism? That it liquidates all previous regimes?

That’s what not just US intervention, but any form of globalization, will be correctly perceived as. Our enemies are not stupid, and they are willing to fight.

That means we need to have a structure strong enough to withstand both them, and those ideological activists are actually are stupid and actually unwilling to fight.

[This is a comment I previously wrote hastily, edited.]

“In shrinking the gap, as in most of politics, principles are fine, but steady cash flows are better.”

As I see your MISC, it’s really just another name for the current Iron Triangle. To differentiate it, or make it really something new, you would need to greatly reorganize 1) the Bureaucracy to make it really a functioning (and not uselessly bloated) Department of Everything Else, and 2) the Interest Groups to make them actual SysAdmins. Either task will be great; but both would be necessary; and the restructuring that is required might actually lead to changes which you have not outlined here. Primarily, I’m thinking that the SysAdmin forces will have to be made much stronger than they are even now (as current Special Interests), before they will be willing to accept the risk involved in focusing more on SysAdmin work.

This idea really requires much more thought, and I’m sure I’ll need to return to it to better outline my thinking.

As a starter: I do not believe you can summarily dismiss “principles” or ideology from the equation, since these will be required to shore up the SysAdmin, although rather than thinking in terms of principles and ideology you might think in terms of worldviews.

Even if the Superempowered — advantaged — board members of these corporations are more than willing to line their own pockets, reducing the blowback from internal (domestic) 4GW kneejerk reactions as well as keeping the workforce at the lower rungs engaged and motivated, to the degree that will be necessary for moving those behemoths where they most need to go, will probably require some fancy ideological footwork. (Not to mention continuing to fund them — and, the costs will be great — through taxation if the majority of America begins to prefer a semi-isolationist, or at least a minimalist, approach.) Movies such as the terribly bad Syriana already point at a major distrust of corporate motivations; and then there’s Halliburton. Also, as Shane commented, the Gap view of these activities will need to be managed, probably as an extension of domestic views which lead to the types of activities that will help to construct the Gap and other international views.

It seems to me that your utilization of the principle of co-optation in the MISC relies upon a simplistic belief that decent wages and product/service supplies will be enough to co-opt societies into supporting the efforts of the MISC. I agree that bread and circuses work well to “subdue” populaces, or to keep them preoccupied; but I think that a little more co-optation will be necessary, co-optation that will motivate support in all areas of the effort. At present, current relative consumer happiness and contentment, etc., will likely continue to promote a semi-isolationist point of view, within which much 4GW-style domestic blowback, from contented and perhaps arrogant — complacent — domestic populations, will continue to surface; these already-content Americans have plenty of free time to engage in counterproductive 4GW activities, or distractions.

So I see your MISC as a perhaps-useful tool for the Long War, but one that may only develop as a result of 5GW efforts which precede it. Much within our society will need to be prepped before the MISC can take place and accomplish what you wish to accomplish with it. This does not mean that I think the MISC is a bad idea, however.

Incidentally…an addendum to that comment.

The activities of ‘Global Guerrillas’ and terrorists may upset the economic contentment of the majority of Americans, I concede. This in turn might help to motivate America, and so it might provide an “in” for domestic co-optation and support for either an MILC or MISC.

But then you run into the question of “Who is leading the dance?” And the answer to that question would have profound effects on the shape of MILC/MISC.

Curtis,

Your comments deserve a fuller reply, but for now here are my reactions to the original version of your comment:

The Military-Industrial-Sysadmin-Complex (MISC) operates very
similarly to the current Military-Industrial-Leviathan-Complex (MILC).
The difference is the specific incentives. Actual war is bad for the
MILC, because hot-shot congressmen start demanding less money be spent
on high-tech futuristic jet fighters and more be spend on body-armor.
At the least, the MISC should be strong enough to apply
counterpressure when the MILC agitates for an early peace.

(I think Barnett quiped something to the effect that war in 20 years
is great for the Pentagon, but war tomorrow is a disaster.,)

I agree we can’t write off ideology outright. That said, though, the
practical pressure of the hundreds of workers in sysadmin enterprises
in every congressional district is constant and strong, as opposed to
ideological fluctuations, which are more like waves in a sea..

As a starter: I do not believe you can summarily dismiss “principles” or ideology from the equation, since these will be required to shore up the SysAdmin, although rather than thinking in terms of principles and ideology you might think in terms of worldviews.

You’re right.

I need to integrate this with my earlier work on PISRR waves. The correlation of forces in a shrink-the-gap 4GW will go forward and back. The 5GW has to help speed the 4GW when it is strong, and keep the 4GW above water when it is weak.