4GW/5GW Game: “The Takedown of Sam Adams and John Hancock”

I suppose a historian of the British Empire could answer this question best, because, of course, London did just that. Considering the cataclysmic 1770s, when thirteen colonies declared independence, the the Crown’s delaying the 14th such unilateral declaration until 1965 is breathtaking.

Parliament’s strategy of co-opting local leaders, including liberal oversight and long-term strategies for phased withdrawal, was such a defensive 5GW.

P’log,

Of course the Crown had alternative methods for satiating the colonists — for instance, the King could have appointed someone to represent the colonies’ interests in Parliament (thereby vacating the “Taxation without Representation” charge). In fact, if King George had appointed a prominent businessman/politician like, say, Sam Adams, then he would have achieved two objectives: answer the predominant complaint of the colonies, while also keeping a key separatist busy — and close at hand. Besides, a lone representative could easily be contained in the legislative process, so the risk would have been minimal.

The irony of the occupation of Boston was the utter lack of strategic and cultural intelligence by Gage et al. I can imagine the Governor’s staff meeting on the 20th of April, 1775: “It seems that the colonists really don’t like us!” Despite instructions from London in early 1775 to arrest the leaders of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, none of Gen. Gage’s orders directed his forces to do so — rather, he was focused solely on the colonists’ capacity to wage conventional war.

So, less greed with regard to taxation, coupled with a subtle co-optation of the key separatist leaders (and associated Affaires de Court and soirées to keep them distracted), and the world would be a very different place. Oh, and not massacring Bostonians in 1770 would have helped too.

So, essentially, Britain could have formed a “united states” on its own, with the colonies as a separate state? Hah.

Many of the items in the last-half of your suggestion do appear to be the standard 5GW “create noise” type of activity: by which I mean, that some strains of 5GW thought focus on subversion through the creation of events/groups/movements that are hostile.

But other parts are a positive, co-optation sort of 5GW, in which the target is offered successes which just happen to leave the target some distance behind where it would be without the 5GW — although it would never know it.

Hmmm, interesting thought experiment.

I think the most important consideration is that the actions of the independence/equality movement has a de-facto goal of making it an ‘us and them’ scenario. If the Crown were to engage in a 5GW response, that us/them division is the aspect that needs to be addressed by the campaign. The redirection of will would be to turn that independence/equality effort toward a goal that in the end actually benefits the Crown. In other words, give them vicories of your choosing and in doing so, bind them closer to you. If there is no ‘us and them’ division there is no independence for the colonies. This would likely involve many concessions in taxation and representation but if the colonies are still contributing to the power and wealth of the Empire this is worth the cost.

Strategically speaking, the Crown should always have worked to bind its subjects in this manner as the Crown’s power is represented by its subjects. This may have required the vision for a movement for equality between religions, races and sexes much, much earlier than the historical reality, but can you imagine the potential? Granted, such a movement (5GW or otherwise) would have been an exceedingly delicate balancing act, perhaps an impossiblity, but again with the long view in mind well worth the effort and the cost. I imagine the world would be a very different place if the Crown had taken that sort of view.