Users of
Internet Explorer 6.x
or before should be aware
that this site works best in
Firefox (best choice) or
Internet Explorer 7.x.
Some helpful links:
 |
| IE 7 at Microsoft |
Disclaimers
The views expressed by contributors to Dreaming 5GW are entirely their own and may not reflect the views of other contributors or the general editor.
Site
I think the problem comes from the simple power of the word “war”. It immediately brings up images of uniformed soldiers with weapons hurting other soldiers (at best) or, more likely, innocent civilians. That concept of warfare is pretty solid in the minds of most Westerners and will need a long time to acquire a redefinition.
— Seán at Skilluminati Research
I agree 100% that 5GW is an event horizon for warfare theory—it’s where war merges with everything else, where things become so radically different that the old theory is more of a hinderance than a help.
— Thirtyseven at Skilluminati Research.
The conundrum is nothing new. October 12, 2006, I wrote a post to answer another blog’s commenter’s question, “Where is the ‘war’ part?” using a little hyperbole to vent a little frustration:
This manipulation of observation would appear to be non-war by traditional definitions. The glory of dismembering bodies and destroying infrastructure in the pursuit of ‘showing the enemy what’s what!’ would seem to be sidelined. In fact, the question seems almost to come from a 1GW perspective, and I have occasionally witnessed the greatest disdain for 5GW theory coming from soldiers and their officers in the field. They have after all been trained to dismember enemies and destroy battle placements, or to wipe out an enemy’s operational capability through a quite limited EBO which seems less limited simply because the devastation can be directed over large areas through targeted aerial bombings and missile strikes.
The conundrum will be new for everyone who must contend with unfolding circumstances in the future. As I concluded after the above statements, in reference to the traditional conceptualization of war I gave there, “We are witnessing the effectiveness of these strategies in Iraq and on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, are we not?”
To put it another way without drawing the whole picture for you dear reader, what sorts of bombs and EBO will work against the destructive super-empowered individual?
How does traditional warfare play on the little screen, as opposed to the big screen; and what hinders it’s efficacy? What else must be attacked which cannot be hit by soldiers in uniform or precision-guided missiles?
To put it another way, this one more “geeky” (a label I recently received from elsewhere) I will refer to a post I wrote in February 2007, “A Kinder, Gentler War?”, and these lines:
The belief that utter destruction of our foes is possible, or else that sufficient kinetic force will either force them to our way of thinking or fence them in, is founded upon the notion that what goes into the OODA loop of our foe comes out without interference from his reasoning. I.e., it is the grossest form of Objectivism possible, entirely entrenched in the assumption that what is done to the physical world will have a direct, predictable result in shaping the enemy’s activity (whether he dies or submits), as if all enemies are merely carbon copy constructs of our own imagining. It is a linear epistemology; and those with the most faith in kinetic force tend to be those who overlook complexity and confluential processes, preferring to eliminate complexity by obliterating whatever does not hold to their line of sight.
—but such people continue to exist, and will continue, which is why so much that is “unthinkable” will continue to shape the world around them in unexpected ways. Indeed, 5GWarriors — yes, I’m using warriors — will be especially grateful to those opponents who look linearly, or, that is, only straight down their noses at what lies directly in front of them. Then, the observation will continue to be something like this:
I.e., all those straight lines become static, as nothing makes sense; attacking each linear threat will cause them to dissipate themselves physically, operationally, materially, or despair of ever achieving victory.
The “invisibility” or the “Secret” in 5GW depends upon the inability, in their opponents, of making sense of the static. This does not mean that actual activities, occurrences, and so forth are entirely unwitnessed or invisible/Secret — but I’ve gone over that before as well (here and here)…
In fact, I began to wonder if an entirely secret SecretWar is possible, and I wondered if maybe the concept of an absolutely secret SecretWar has led some of our recent brainstorming on 5GW down the wrong path. If, indeed, absolute secrecy is impossible, then a SecretWarrior might need to shape the processes by which her opponent reacts to the effects of 5GW.Indeed, the 5GWarriors will want their foes to react to dangers, dangers that will need to be utterly apparent. What won’t be apparent, however, is the fact that a 5GWarrior is behind the events; that’s his secrecy.
Posted by Curtis Gale Weeks on May 23, 2008 07:21 PM
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Doing the Unthinkable.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://dreaming5gw.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/260.
5 Comments
I have been using the 5GW approach to warfare in my applications in the local and regional political scene, and it has worked very well.
One downside to this is that I am now prone to being paranoid about whether or not certain events are 5GW tactics being employed against us.
Thunder Pig,
I’d be interested in reading more about your approach. Have you written a blog post about your activities? Then again, once you reveal your activities, you might be jeopardizing them! Lol.
Paranoia of the sort you mention will probably play a significant role in a “5GW world”.
I haven’t written about my activities on my blog because it is read by those I am targeting. Sometimes, I think, more by my opposition than by my allies. I have written posts targeting them to dovetail with behind the scenes efforts to paint them a different picture than what is actually going on.
I maintain a number of electronic identities participating in their ideological activities, and have been engaged in an effort to peel off their level-headed members where I can’t get them to buy into the reality I am trying to sell them. I am trying to build them a reality where they think they have a large number of “fellow-travelers” in the GOP, while, at the same time, directing them into actions that lose them support with both the party leadership and the rank and file.
I do not know if it is a true form of 5GW, or it it is just old-fashioned counter-espionage using techniques gleaned from 5GW theory.
One thing I will relay, is that shaping people’s perception of reality is not as easy as it seems, and I have gained a whole new perspective on society as battlespace, seeing eddy currents just waiting to be put to work for or against me, and wondering how much vital information I am missing, and how much of what I know isn’t true, or useful.
One perceptive individual opposed to my efforts could destroy everything in minutes, if he or she had the right information.
There are twelve (plus whatever number reads this) who know what I am attempting, and three of them are active participants, one of them has taken a public position against me in an attempt to position himself in their meatspace, so we can get a better picture of the offline meetings and interactions.
I suppose I could “burn” myself in such a way to cause them to feel I was only part of a national effort to monitor their movement, and set in motion a series of purges at least regionally, if not nation-wide.
This also eats into my time, and may be reaching the point of diminishing returns. I have been actively pursuing this strategy since the middle of August in 2007. I think I can claim responsibility for the sacking of two of their leaders, the marginalization of three effective voices, and an unknown number of resignations due to the internal conflicts generated. I have no way of measuring what I am doing. Am I just providing slight amplification that just speeds up the interactions in the group (within and without)? Would it have all happened anyway if we weren’t tinkering? I seem to have more questions than answers, and feel like I am in over my head.
So, is this just a counter-espionage effort designed to blunt the effect of a minor political movement? Am I thinking too grandiose?
I’m open to criticism, and thoughts.
TP,
“One thing I will relay, is that shaping people’s perception of reality is not as easy as it seems, and I have gained a whole new perspective on society as battlespace, seeing eddy currents just waiting to be put to work for or against me, and wondering how much vital information I am missing, and how much of what I know isn’t true, or useful.”
I would love to read a more detailed discussion of the above…noting that you don’t want to expose your effort.
“I do not know if it is a true form of 5GW, or it it is just old-fashioned counter-espionage using techniques gleaned from 5GW theory.”
It kinda of sounds like Puppet Master 5GW with some Memetic Engineering.
“This also eats into my time, and may be reaching the point of diminishing returns.”
The above is an important topic - The Economics of 5GW - that we have never discussed at Dreaming 5GW. It is ripe for further elaboration.
“I have no way of measuring what I am doing. Am I just providing slight amplification that just speeds up the interactions in the group (within and without)? Would it have all happened anyway if we weren’t tinkering?”
Great comment! Since 5GW will often be small steps or knudges and relies upon 2nd and 3rd level effects…how can you measure your 5GW. SO, there we have another topic that needs elaboration: “Measuring 5GW Results”.
“slight amplification that just speeds up the interactions”
This is a completely valid technique. Speeding up actions to get to the results you want isn’t a bad way to operate. The participants will feel natural - if they were inclined to do the actions anyways - and thus not feel manipulated.
“So, is this just a counter-espionage effort designed to blunt the effect of a minor political movement? Am I thinking too grandiose?”
A 5GW doesn’t need to me global dramatic gigantic effort. A small 5GW can be more focused. Being smaller makes discovery less likely.
“I seem to have more questions than answers, and feel like I am in over my head.”
I certainly like to know more. But I don’t want you to expose your 5GW.
I would like to know more about:
- how picked your target
- what made you try 5GW
- how did you plan your actions
- how much did you plan vary or get updated over time
- did you create a plan upfront and just follow it?
- did any techniques you tried turn out to jut be useless of not very effective?
- have you every felt that you were on the verge of being discovered?
- among the target, did any of those people start to seem paranoid or suspicious of conspiracies?
- Has your 5GW manipulated any institutions of government of government officials?
- has anybody from the target every reached out to you to also target the same group (not realizing you where already doing so)
- How many real people are part of you 5GWer?
- How did you meet or recruit them? What the relationship between you all?
- How do you maintain security among the group?
Thunder Pig,
&
The issue of co-opting targets, as often described on Dreaming 5GW, seems to be missing from what you are doing or at least not fully utilized. If some of your opponents read your blog and know your name, they could easily search Google and probably find this very post. Of course, if you are posting under other names, and have other helpers doing some of the psuedonymal posting, reading this post might only exacerbate the paranoia etc. of your opponents, who would begin to suspect one another (and even innocents)! However, as hard as shaping realities might be, the ultimate goal would be to get others to do most of the work for you.
This reminded me of Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game, in which Ender Wiggins’ brother and sister assumed online identities that fought each other (with words/essays) in order to promote one single outcome.
It seems, from your description, that the 5GW maneuver of creating discord and inter-fighting within an organization in order to defeat it has been one of the effects you have achieved. With respect to co-option, an ideal effort might include not only getting the group to reject some members, or getting those members to leave, but in getting some of those members to begin working against the group themselves. This would also benefit you, and help to keep you from getting burned out.
If, rather than co-option, you continue as you have, but utilize primarily efforts which demoralize the group causing it to disentegrate, you may be fighting more in the realm of 4GW than 5GW. It may be that you are on the line between them.
A useful metric might be your own sense of getting burned out or not. If you continue as you have, and get discovered or burned out while the group you oppose continues (albeit a little weakened), chances are good that you haven’t fully transitioned to 5GW.