Recently by subadei

Read this article, via ubiwar, about Israeli strategist Shimon Naveh. Naveh is a fascinating individual. Patton-esque (if that wasn't a word it is now) in his free wheeling use of vulgarities and arrogance. That he bases his systems theory on Russian strategy and the writings of two French philosophers is an impressive example of outside the box thinking.

His concepts in practice (if the following quote from the article is any indication) look, in my humblest of opinions, to be (too quote M1 in some commentary here) "Turbo 3GW:"

"This space that you look at, this room that you look at, is nothing but your interpretation of it. Now, you can stretch the boundaries of your interpretation, but not in an unlimited fashion, after all, it must be bound by physics, as it contains buildings and alleys. The question is, how do you interpret the alley? Do you interpret the alley as a place, like every architect and every town planner does, to walk through, or do you interpret the alley as a place forbidden to walk through? This depends only on interpretation. We interpreted the alley as a place forbidden to walk through, and the door as a place forbidden to pass through, and the window as a place forbidden to look through, because a weapon awaits us in the alley, and a booby trap awaits us behind the doors. This is because the enemy interprets space in a traditional, classical manner, and I do not want to obey this interpretation and fall into his traps. Not only do I not want to fall into his traps, I want to surprise him! This is the essence of war. I need to win. I need to emerge from an unexpected place ... This is why we opted for the methodology of moving through walls ... Like a worm that eats its way forward, emerging at points and then disappearing."

But the spinning gears inside Naveh's head seem to be entertaining some rather 5GW-ish principles.

(I originally posted this at Soob and thought it too generally interrogative and bit meandering for D5GW. A session in thinking aloud, perhaps. And then got to thinking D5GW is a long discussion of theory and theory involves uncertainty and thinking aloud so I had a change of mind and put it down here as well.)

At least in the terms that it's popularly discussed, visions of a "rise" of single human beings who through their actions wreak havoc or great change upon society. A brief look at some of my questions/thoughts regarding this concept:

1. It would seem to presume that super empowered individuals are some new and coming threat as opposed to a rather well documented phenomena that transcends the concepts of war theory, GMW, XGW or otherwise.

2. That the actions of these individuals will be encapsulated by both plurality and yet some method of viral coincidence. The mere concept suggests unilateral action that produces results on a massive scale and the indulgence of colorful adjectives suggests this phenomena will be numerous but not concerted (hence "individual.") Seems a bit like eating ones cake and having it too.

3. Zenpundit, some years ago, noted:

    Previously, such " empowered individuals" were forced to act through some kind of collectivity, be it a Mongol horde or a modern state. In the near future, perhaps today, that will not be the case.


In what context do we place this? Would the Mongol "horde" have succeeded to the extent that they did had Temujin not gone after his newlywed? Would Hitler have ascended without first penning Mein Kampf? Would Alexander have been great without Aristotle? In other words did the empires make the emperors or is it the other way around?

4. To what extent does one have to effect a society to earn such distinction? Certainly the above all acted on their own prior to their ascent to greatness and subsequent marks on both history and their own societies. Do we relegate these to super empowered ideas? Or super empowered luck? Super empowered situations?

5. How do you define super empowerment? Why is it often viewed as a theoretical addition (5GW) to the XGW or the GMW instead of a possible tool or element in the same sense of a tank or rifle? What's the threshold that divides it from, say, the simple criminality of the likes of John Hinckley or Jesse Timmendequas both of whom had a considerable effect on their societies? Are these two SEI's? What of Jim Jones? The DC snipers? Rosa Parks? Karl Marx? 50 Cent?

As many know the internet entails a largely (thankfully) uncontrolled and vast plain of information. Within this "lawless" land, ideas flow free. The internet is, arguably, the purest incarnation of America's First Amendment. The double edged sword is ; it entails a myriad of online platforms that are either sympathetic or instrumental or both in regards to al qaeda and other related rogue (jihadi) networks. Of course any online initiative is bound to an ISP's terms of agreement.

Recent events have seen my involvement in an initiative to take down these sites through various (not yet truly defined) means. We've realized recent success in what I suspect is a collaborative between our own PIST and the JAWA Report as they succeeded in rendering the demise of the "Lee Media Forum." The instrument of success was a swarming technique in which many fold complained to the host that the site violated the TOA of said host.

By now you've followed the "Lee" link and arrived at a "suspended" notice from the host. Follow this link for an idea as to what the forum and it's members entailed.

I'm a bit reticent to consider this initiative within the theoretical shell of 5GW. Is it a harbinger of 5G, a bellwether for an advent of such? Or is it simply a civil form of 4GW?

 

Over eight decades after the Ottoman slaughter of some one and one half million Armenians the US Congress has seen fit to introduce a bill that will define said Ottoman endeavor in a most accurate fashion applying the label genocide. Why the sudden interest in a near century old atrocity? According to Nancy Pelosi:

"because many of the survivors are very old."

One could toss that explanation into the category of political subterfuge. What's most interesting here is not the very obvious recognition of Armenian genocide but the timing of this sudden geo-political epiphany. Turkey has long struggled with the Kurdish/Marxist separatist group, the PKK and in recent months began amassing military power along the Turkish/Iraqi border in preparation for possible crossborder operations designed to repress or destroy the PKK network that exists (in much the same fashion of the Taliban in western Pakistan) within Kurdish Iraq. The interesting bit is this piece of legislation comes about (in a very publicized fashion) at the same time that the Turkish parliament is hashing out whether or not such military operations will take place.

The Democrats seem to be running what might well be defined as a very nascent 5GW operation against what will be the political 800 pound gorilla should they ascend to Executive power: The inheritance of the Iraq war.

Knowing full well that the most efficient route to ending the Iraq war (a strict redefinition of the funding) leads to political suicide the Democrats are increasingly more reliant on more subtle designs for usurping the increasingly flagging popular support, both domestic and geo-politically, for the Iraq war. Through a political stunt that has, on it's face, the compassionate recognition of travesty the Democrats might well deliver three mortal blows to the Bush administration's Iraq policy:

1. The effective severance of a very important strategic way point in terms of supplying the war effort. Turkish military leaders have promised military relations with the US will "never be the same again" and that America has, by proposing this bill, effectively "shot it's own foot."

2. The erasure of what is/was the only success of American policy in Iraq from Bush Sr. to Bush Jr. A stable, democratic, pro-American Iraqi Kurdistan.

3. Yet more ideological ammunition for al qaeda as another non-Arab military with an oppositional strategy to the current occupying non-Arab military enters en force into the fray. Political collapse within Iraq's rather tenuous "government."

The Bush administration and fellow Republicans are relegated to somehow denying the Democrat's initiative and at the same time showing a degree of recognition and compassion for what was genocide. In this respect one belligerent entails the moral message but with a destructive agenda (the collapse of current Iraq policy.) The other entails a morally repugnant (denying a very obvious genocide) message but with an agenda that hopes to maintain the hard fought for and built infrastructure for a war.

The anti-war crowd has handily mastered the media both through political spin and the unsung American idiom that Bad News is Good News in terms of marketability. By seizing this apparent axiom the Democrats have built a sound domestic framework for taking apart the Iraq war in terms of popular support. This latest piece of legislature might well prove to be the final blow as it very effectively concentrates on dissolving the strategic framework for much of the Iraq effort.

I've spent some hours digging around the cyber-sphere in an effort to find and define the many references to the fifth generation of warfare. The cause of this being Curtis's newest online endeavor, the 5GW Timeline. A wiki like initiative that seeks to chronologically map online references to 5GW.

In my travels across the vast expanse (vast beyond what I'd expected, certainly) that entails the online sources mentioning 5GW, this latest bit that struck me via The Patriot Post:

"In fact, the media has effectively become an altogether different sort of "non-state actor" on the world stage. The fact that the media can even entertain the notion of affecting political outcomes because it wields that much power, leads to the next concept: The weaponization of the media. This is a dangerous tool and one that our adversaries have mastered. Conceptually, this includes -- but is different from -- aspects of psychological operations; and includes -- but is separate from -- aspects of information warfare. There are times when it is difficult to distinguish between honest disagreement, and disloyalty; a different vision, and sedition. Indeed, our Founding Fathers well understood the value of the press, and used it to their purposes. Hitler's propagandists were at least as skilled as our current adversaries. Yet government involvement with the media for the express purpose of controlling a known center of gravity -- the hearts and minds of the people -- is inherently and extremely dangerous, if one wishes to preserve free speech. Yet this is something with which we must soon contend, because our adversaries have no such constraints."

Follow the link and at least skim the writings. You'll find that the author writes this in an effort to explore or espouse his own vision of what might well be into the 5th Generation of warfare.
In essence, this fellow is an intellectual kindred spirit as we both have delved into the mastery of the media and the importance of the media regarding a 5GW campaign.

"Mastering the media means subverting and collecting it's will, tossing it into your virtual ideological corner and then exacting your cause through it in an effort that ends in the general populace, or mainstream, conforming to and accepting your cause as "reality."

This bit of research is arduous but also rewarding and fun.

Phil of Pacific Empire recently attended a talk given by Colonel Thomas X. Hammes.

Phil's participation in the Q and A phase:

My question was: in the generations-of-war framework, each generation should be able to defeat the preceding generation. How would a 5GW force defeat a 4GW force? The response wasn’t entirely satisfactory, I thought. If 4GW requires globalization, 5GW could basically make it impossible by ending globalization. Other than that, Hammes seemed to think that the goals were so mismatched that the two generations wouldn’t come into direct conflict (if I understood his response correctly).

Hamme's iteration, via Phil, on 5gw:

“The second part consisted of explaining his own view of 5GW, heavily influenced by his experiences commanding the response to the 2001 anthrax attacks. Some of the major points I got from this:

-The size of the group necessary to be a threat has decreased. Groups of 5-6 people, or even a super-empowered individual could do major damage, and are very difficult to track down (e.g. those responsible for the anthrax attacks).

-Virtually all potentially violent groups oppose globalization in some way. Anti-globalization activists are a potential threat.

-Militant environmentalists are another potential threat. As climate change increases and little action is taken, they will just get more frustrated, radical and violent.

-But on the other hand, motivation doesn’t matter that much, and even “squirrelly types,” social outcasts in a basement somewhere, could stir up mayhem for personal reasons.

-It is getting easier and cheaper to manufacture viruses - could be as little as $20,000 in a few years.

-Emerging threats include high-yield explosives, viruses, even nanotech. Targets could be unsecured fibre-optic cables to shut down Internet traffic, major ports to shut down world trade, or various other targets which are almost impossible to secure.

-It would be almost impossible to guard against a smallpox pandemic, which would be devastating to a disease-naive world population.

-The state is in decline - private military corporations, private militia in the US (i.e., security guards in gated communities), etc.

-The government can’t do much about 5GW on its own. Whereas 4GW required a “whole-of-government” response, 5GW requires a “whole-of-society” response. Analogous to how spam, viruses and other Internet threats require a response from all Internet users.”

What can drive a 5GW campaign? What’s it’s catalyst? What pumping engine hammers it out and spreads it forth? The Super Empowered Individual? Or the mastery of ideology?

I’ve talked before of mastering the media and how such mastery is divided from the influence we see in various 4GW efforts.

Now I’ll discuss the mastery of ideology and how those that could, hypothetically, master ideology are divided from those that are enslaved by ideology. That which divides the two is not so easily realized as it may seem.

What of Osama bin Laden? Certainly the argument could be made that he has, quite effectively, mastered the ideology he professes. From his early years as financial kingpin of a propaganda initiative to encourage and invite Arab individuals to join the Afghan Mujaheddin (I.e. the creation of the Arab Mujaheddin via the “Services Offices“) in Afghanistan to his fomentation of al Qaeda in the nascent form of al Masada (the Lions Den) to the spectacular attacks on America on 9/11 bin Laden has seemed to profess a mastery of his own ideology. What divides him from the 5GW actor beyond the obvious and overt?

He believes and identifies with the cause he puts forth. He is, like any follower of AQ’s counter geo-political cause, a fervent defender and acolyte of his own pious vision of Islam. In short, his own ideology enslaves not only the masses that follow his perverted course but also himself. His convictions and his ideology are one and the same. He has not mastered his ideology, rather been enslaved by his own fervent beliefs and so his ideological cause comes to be truth. He has, effectively, lashed himself to his own ideals.

I’ve tossed the fantastical idea (depending on which side of the Bible one stands) of the Anti-Christ as a 5GWarrior about before.

“For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,[a]' and will deceive many.” Matthew 24:5

“With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image.” Revelation 19:20

In effect what divides the 5GWarrior from the powerful (even super empowered) like of Osama bin Laden is not the effect but rather the cause. In short, Osama truly believes the rhetoric he espouses to be “holy” and absolute. Contrarily the Anti-Christ is quite comfortable managing a massive influence and set of beliefs that he propagates as “real” yet does not, in the least bit, believe. The 5GWarrior presents a convincing ideology from a perspective of absolute emotional detachment and disbelief. You believe, he decides.