IS 5GW EVOLVED CONSPIRACY?
In the course of an exchange on my previous entry, Strategist raised an important point:
In the course of an exchange on my previous entry, Strategist raised an important point:
[I]s there much difference between the 5GW organizations you describe, and good old-fashioned conspiracies against the state? As I was reading your post I was thinking of the Nazi Party in the 1920s.This is what counterinsurgency and terrorism expert Bard O’ Neill calls “the conspiratorial strategy.” As Globalsecurity.org notes, the strategy involves
A small and well-disciplined conspiratorial group form a party to exploit grievances that have largely alienated elements of the population from the government. The insurgent does not seek to bring the general population against the government but it will mobilize segments for mass support in riots and demonstrations. When the government is no longer sure of the loyalty of the military and police, the government can be collapsed by terrorism and mass demonstrations.Although this mode of conflict shares some important similarities with 5GW, they are not interchangeable.
The conspiratorial strategy is essentially materialist, while 5GW is
idealist. Conspirators seek control of the state by overthrowing the
government through either a limited but swift use of force or a
campaign of sustained subversion. In contrast, 5GW’s center of gravity
is the perception of the decisionmakers and the general populace. The
5GW actor aims to compel a change in behavior through a series of
increasingly sophisticated manipulations—none of which the target is
ever aware of.
The modern conspiratorial organization is also a political party. Its essence is expressed through leaflets, marches, and selective terrorism and assassination. The 5GW organization is very small and derives its power from extreme secrecy. The point of defeat in 5GW is not when an opponent learns of your plans. Rather, it is when he discovers you exist.
MAOISM IN THE INFORMATION AGE
It may also be useful to conceptualize 5GW through a neo-classical insurgency framework. The conspiratorial strategy is in essence the Leninist vanguard, a strategy that largely failed. Leftists took on the full might of the state without the support of the people, and were usually crushed.
The Maoist protracted people’s war strategy solved this problem by hiding insurgents within the populace, shielding them from the wrath of state security forces. The mass conventional organizations built through cultivation of popular support eventually gave Maoists the ability to weaken loyalty to the state and defeat it in a force-on-force engagement.
5GW actors are also “fish swimming in a sea”—a sea of information. We are currently swamped in an excess of media, both print and electronic. Control of this information is an essential element of state power. The massive amount of this information, coupled with the increasing difficulty in distinguishing between reality and fiction, provides a secure base from within 5GW actors can safely execute their plans.
And just as Maoists built parallel political hierarchies that eventually enabled them to take on the state, 5GW actors’ control of information allows them to defeat vastly more powerful opponents. The 5GW equivalent to Maoist political organization is the vast network of false information, dummy organizations, and unwitting proxies deployed in an effort to control (and dictate the content of) the information consumed by the target.
An important difference, however, is that one can defend against the Maoist strategy by controlling the population. Doing so would “drain the sea” and isolate the guerrillas from their natural source of power. Draining the digital sea by completely shutting down all forms of media is not an option for all but the most despotic regimes. Additionally, the target would have to be aware of the 5GW campaign against them in order to begin planning countermeasures.
The modern conspiratorial organization is also a political party. Its essence is expressed through leaflets, marches, and selective terrorism and assassination. The 5GW organization is very small and derives its power from extreme secrecy. The point of defeat in 5GW is not when an opponent learns of your plans. Rather, it is when he discovers you exist.
MAOISM IN THE INFORMATION AGE
It may also be useful to conceptualize 5GW through a neo-classical insurgency framework. The conspiratorial strategy is in essence the Leninist vanguard, a strategy that largely failed. Leftists took on the full might of the state without the support of the people, and were usually crushed.
The Maoist protracted people’s war strategy solved this problem by hiding insurgents within the populace, shielding them from the wrath of state security forces. The mass conventional organizations built through cultivation of popular support eventually gave Maoists the ability to weaken loyalty to the state and defeat it in a force-on-force engagement.
5GW actors are also “fish swimming in a sea”—a sea of information. We are currently swamped in an excess of media, both print and electronic. Control of this information is an essential element of state power. The massive amount of this information, coupled with the increasing difficulty in distinguishing between reality and fiction, provides a secure base from within 5GW actors can safely execute their plans.
And just as Maoists built parallel political hierarchies that eventually enabled them to take on the state, 5GW actors’ control of information allows them to defeat vastly more powerful opponents. The 5GW equivalent to Maoist political organization is the vast network of false information, dummy organizations, and unwitting proxies deployed in an effort to control (and dictate the content of) the information consumed by the target.
An important difference, however, is that one can defend against the Maoist strategy by controlling the population. Doing so would “drain the sea” and isolate the guerrillas from their natural source of power. Draining the digital sea by completely shutting down all forms of media is not an option for all but the most despotic regimes. Additionally, the target would have to be aware of the 5GW campaign against them in order to begin planning countermeasures.
Thanks, that addresses my question. So, is the intent of a 5GW organization not to take down a political system or a government, and substitute another for it, but to work within the existing system but to change it in ways that benefit the group, e.g., a shift in ideology, policy...
On people's war, one of the key practices of the CCP in China was to develop their parallel political structures and power bases in sanctuaries - areas that were remote, hard to get to by the security forces, and fell at the intersection of several state administrative boundaries, such as provincial boundaries (thus complicating counterinsurgency initiatives). The Jinggang Mountains in Jiangxi, then after the Long March far more successfully in Yan'an, were the two key bases.
In essence, yes.
Also, if you have some time, you might also want to check out the 5GW Theory Timeline, which has a chronological listing of all major references to 5GW in both print and online media. You can see the debate over it and how a consensus eventually developed on the nature, intent, and strategies of 5GW organizations. Of course, given that this form of conflict is still entirely speculative, we still each have our own interpretations.
Does this mean (in either the "materialist" or "idealist" sense) that the state can not wage 5GW warfare? Personally, I believe the state has the most to gain from a 5GW, context-manipulating campaign...
Shane,
I don't think 5GW is exclusively non-state. I do think, however, that non-state actors will probably be the first adopters. I am actually in the midst of putting together a post on a state-based 5GW tactic that has actually been used in the past.
Shane,
Both State-without and State-within styles of 5GW are compatible with AE's analysis.
Where's arherring? I posited a similar question regarding propaganda a while back. I'll have to dig that bit up.
That aside, I agree that 5GW is applicable to both state and non-state actors. However, given the need for secrecy I'd say the non-state actor, presumably a smaller collective and not subject to as much scrutiny, holds the advantage. Best bet for a state 5gw would be to very discretely use a third party that could easily be disavowed. A bit similar (tactically) to the 19th century British use of clandestine Indian agents for recon missions into Afghanistan.
Consider the Russian cyber warfare conducted against Estonia or a hypothetical Chinese attack on the US in similar fashion. Officially it's a non-state aggression. Realistically no breathing human being that can tie his own shoes would buy such. And yet the fact that a third party conducted the operation and the inability to draw a damning connection between it and the state it acted for prohibits any overt retaliation. Yes this is much more 4GW than 5, but the essence remains the same.
I'm Here!
"So, is the intent of a 5GW organization not to take down a political system or a government, and substitute another for it, but to work within the existing system but to change it in ways that benefit the group, e.g., a shift in ideology, policy…"
This is a very good description, although, if the ends justified the means a 5GW organiztion may execute the systemic take-down of a government. The idea is to accomplish the goal.
As for the consideration of state vs. non-state actors I don't see any reason why a state can't wage 5GW. Secrecy and plausibly deniable proxies are the keys. However, there are some 'types' of states that will probably be better at it than others.
At least initially.
Adam:
"The 5GW equivalent to Maoist political organization is the vast network of false information, dummy organizations, and unwitting proxies deployed in an effort to control (and dictate the content of) the information consumed by the target. "
Yes yes yes! Excellent!
--
deichmans:
"Does this mean (in either the “materialist” or “idealist” sense) that the state can not wage 5GW warfare? "
I agree that it might be tough for the state (as a large collection of actors) to do 5GW. However, there is no reason that a smaller group, perhaps normally employed by the state itself, could not practice 5GW on the behalf of the state of the whole, even if the so-called leaders and the citizens of the state were not aware of the the 5GW,