Recently in On the Battlefield Category

Via Danger Room:

Insurgents Intercept Drone Video in King-Size Security Breach

The 5GWish money quote:

If you think militants are going to be content to just observe spy drone feeds, it’s time to reconsider. “Folks are not merely going to listen/watch what we do when they intercept the feeds, but also start to conduct ‘battles of persuasion’; that is, hacking with the intent to disrupt or change the content, or even ‘persuade’ the system to do their own bidding,” Peter Singer, author of Wired for War, tells Danger Room.

This has long been the nightmare scenario within Pentagon cybersecurity circles: a hacker not looking to take down the military grid, but to exploit it for his own purposes. How does a soldier trust an order, if he doesn’t know who else is listening - or who gave the order, in the first place? “For a sophisticated adversary, it’s to his advantage to keep your network up and running. He can learn what you know. He can cause confusion, delay your response times - and shape your actions,” says one Defense Department cybersecurity official tells Danger Room.

 

These are just the sort of systemic vulnerabilities that 5GW actors seek to exploit.

 

(Cross-posted at Red Herrings)

Curtis highlighted my recent note on the Michael Jackson media spectacle and Iran. I agree very much with his characterization that "any info-war effort will need to be aware of the possibilities of an MJ-type black swan squashing that effort," despite the fact that the Iranian information campaign was not necessarily externally directed and thus wasn't substantially harmed by the MJ black swan.

I'd like to expand on this idea a bit in reference to the strategy of information campaigns. Media today is both incredibly pervasive and balkanized.

Cross Posted at Red Herrings.

 

When considering the use of torture within the framework of XGW it becomes clear that torture has real utility at only three gradients of doctrine.

 

0GW Torture:

0GW - Confrontation and Conflict at its most basic level is an expression of natural selection. This genetic imperative is the principle behind any doctrine that is essentially the projection of Force for the survival of an individual organism.

When considering torture from the most basic, survival, level consideration of morality has no bearing upon the use of any method that ensures survival. The imperative is the continuation of the line, therefore, so long as the subject of the torture isn't of that line any method of information extraction is justified.

 

4GW Torture:

4GW - Fourth gradient doctrines are based upon the principle of the attainment of a functional invulnerability that prevents the opponent from being able to orient upon a threat and creates a perception that saps the ability of the opponent to function effectively.

The use of torture at the fourth gradient is premised upon the creation of a sense of dread of the unknown in the minds of the opponent. Torture becomes a method not just of gathering information, but a weapon of fear. Used as an extreme, the opponent may have a fear of capture by the 4GW actor that prevents the opponent from orienting effectively, always considering most immediately the need to be able to escape rather than the most immediate method to execute their own doctrine. The morality of the use of torture at this gradient is ignored in the necessity of its utility to inspire fear.

 

5GW Torture:

5GW - Fifth gradient doctrines are based upon the principle of manipulation of the context of the observations of an opponent in order to achieve a specific effect.

Torture at the fifth gradient takes on a different aspect from the use of torture at 0GW and 4GW. At those gradients the negative moral aspect of torture is either irrelevant or used to give torture utility. For 5GW the moral aspect of torture is the most important aspect. In most  (if not all cases) 5GW is a warfare of competing ideas and ideals. At the fifth gradient the least desirable outcome is to have your ideology linked to an overwhelmingly negative meme like torture either  through your own actions, or by the manipulation of an opponent that links torture to your ideology.

 

Do the Ends Justify the Means?

Calling it torture or "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" makes no difference, if a method is seen to be torture it carries a negative moral connotation. As it is argued above, for two of the three gradients this is either irrelevant or desirable, however, for 5GW the moral aspect is paramount. At the risk of editorializing, the United States of America is at its very core an expression of an ideology, an expression of connectivity and freedom and the ideal that all good things are possible with enough hard work and determination. As such, The United States of America in spreading that ideal must always approach any conflict or confrontation from the fifth gradient mind-set.  Because of that, the USA must never engage in a method or doctrine that has a negative moral aspect, and must always guard against an opponent's attempt to manipulate the USA into a morally negative action,  lest that negative meme be linked to the positive ideological foundation of the country.

For 5GW the means justify the end.

Cross-posted at Red Herrings

 

Rule Set - System Perturbation - New Rule Set

Going back to some of my very first considerations of Fifth Gradient Warfare (Fifth Generation Warfare at the time), this very simple three part progression is the main concept that informs the process of the directed manipulation of systems that is at the heart of 5GW.  The attention that is being given to the Swine Flu outbreak offers a very good opportunity to explore the utility of this process.

 

The Bad:

The worst of all system perturbations is exemplified by the Black Swan scenario. This is a system perturbation that is completely unexpected and because there a no rule setsor few weak rule sets that have been established to deal with such situations, the chaos that is created is potentially massive. It may be so massive, in fact, that the system never recovers, that new rule sets aren't able to be created or are even weaker than before, making the system even more fragile. The H5N1 Bird Flu (or other pandemic illness) is sometimes talked about as such a system perturbation due to fears that no matter what preparations are made ahead of an outbreak, the health system will be quickly overwhelmed and cease to be effective regardless of the response. While the Swine Flu doesn't seem to be, at this point, as dangerous as Bird Flu, it is behaving in a manner that is consistent with how a Bird Flu type pandemic might begin.

 

The Not Quite as Bad:

While a Fifth Gradient actor might well engineer a Black Swan type system perturbation scenario in order to influence the creation of new rule sets, there is an alternate approach known as 'Boiling the Frog'. In this sort of scenario the system perturbation is very controlled in scope in order to place calculated stresses on a system. The point of this may be to cause a collapse of systems much like a Black Swan event, but it can also serve a different agenda that highlights the ability of Fifth Gradient doctrines to be used on multiple sides of a confrontation or conflict. In this kind of situation 5GW doctrine may be used in order to strengthen as much as weaken rule sets. Swine Flu offers an opportunity for this kind of 5GW manipulation.

An Interesting puzzle for 5GW thinking. (Hat tip: Zenpundit)

Blog Tank: National Strategy for a Few Nuclear Weapons - Expanded

by Cheryl Rofer

"Andy at Nuclear Mangoes reminded me over the weekend of my irritation that nobody has addressed the strategy of one to a few nuclear weapons. That’s a different problem than something in the range of 5-10, which is a different problem from a higher number. None of these have been addressed systematically for today’s world.

So let’s have a blog tank. Anyone who wants to participate should post a scenario (or scenarios) on their blog or, if you don’t have a blog, in the comments to this post. Here is the problem I want to address:

What strategies are available to a country with fissionable material sufficient for 1-5 nuclear weapons, some of which may be assembled? Take into account probable responses, and assume some sort of rationality on the holders of these weapons and material. You may specifically refer to Iran and North Korea, or any other nation, or make the scenario(s) more general. Flesh out the scenario with some support."

 

My thinking is that it really isn't very cost effective for a country to build a nuclear program that provided only a few useable weapons, Once the infrastructure is in place an arsenal of a few dozen weapons would likely be possible as a country plays for time, betting that the program will reach maturity before international sanctions could ruin the country. From there it just becomes a question of the range of the possible delivery vehicles. In the event of military preemption before the program reaches its production goal, the existing weapons, if used, would most likely be used tactically, a situation that already has a well developed doctrine.

A more interesting scenario to me is what would happen if a nation or organization without a nuclear arms program should happen to find itself in possession of one to five nuclear weapons, a few former Soviet nuclear artillery shells for example. Perhaps through some sort of logistical error a few of these rounds made it into circulation in the Caucasus. Several countries militarily active in the region, including Russia, have 2S7 Pion self-propelled guns and / or 2S4 Tulip self-propelled mortars capable of firing 203mm and 240mm nuclear shells respectively. The yield of a slightly larger US weapon, the W19,  was 15-20 kilotons. Reportedly, Russian weapons had higher yields than their U. S. counterparts so this range seems a good ballpark for comparison and places it in approximately the same range as Little Boy and Fat Man, the bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This gives these devices a very respectable amount of potential destruction to compliment the greatest possible asset for these weapons, their portability and size. Yes, these weapons are intended to be used tactically, but is it possible to craft a scenario to use them strategically?

This situation also suggests four different types of players (aside from the pure terrorist).

Recent discussions of Operational Check (such as at tdaxp and WSJ) have talked about many aspects of the hostage rescue, but now from the perspective of xGW theory. Was the rescue an example of tactical 5GW operations?

Consider the Operative Actions of 5GW:

5GW Operative Action: Manipulation and influence in order to define and shape outcomes and effects.

5GW embodies an overwhelming focus on positional manipulation and shaping of the battlefield so that when kinetic action or the threat of kinetic action occurs the outcome is essentially predetermined. The opponent is, as a result, without resistance because the response is by the target’s own choice or follows a previously established pattern that is familiar to the target. This places 5GW far to the left of 3GW, 1GW and the Boom on the timeline.

While Operational: Check was subsumed under the larger Plan Colombia, Check still seems to be a tactical 5GW operation. The rescuers could have easily been killed if the FARC's observations were better. Indeed, the rescuers impersonated a a nonexistent NGO (h/t tdaxp), hidingg in the static of the rise and fall of pro-FARC NGOs.

Operation: Check did not rely on killing the FARC (so not 0GW).
Operation: Check did not rely on overwhemling FARC with men (so not 1GW).
Operation: Check did not rely on overwhemling FARC with fire (so not 2GW)
Operation: Check did not rely on breaking through fluid lines (so not 3GW)
Operation: Check did not rely on collapsing FARC's will to resist (4GW).

Rather, Operation: Check relied on manipulating FARC's observations.

It was a 5GW operation.

As Snowden wrote:

I think the defining characteristic of 5GW operations will be surprise declarations of victory, without any indications hostilities had commenced.

We - and for that matter, the FARC - did not know about Operation: Check until it was over.

For several hours yesterday the news networks were captivated by a hostage situation at one of Hillary Clinton’s New Hampshire campaign offices. A news reporter on the Fox News Network speculated on a sympathetic surge of good-will toward the ‘victim’ of the situation, (sadly no, not the people trapped inside the building with the man claiming to be wearing a bomb) Hillary Clinton. He noted this might have an affect on her popularity as it is only a few short weeks before the start of primary elections. As the hostage taker demanded to speak to the Senator and campaign offices for other candidates across the state were evacuated, this notion that the event may positionally change the race sent the 5GW / Conspiracy Theory wheels turning.

The 5GW conspiracy theory begins with the consideration of an organization that would engineer a hostage taking, or multiple hostage takings, prior to an election in order to ride the sympathetic ‘surge.’ The 5GW aspect is in the process of causing an affect in order to effect a systemic change in the relative positions of the candidates. The target of the operation is not the candidates or the organizations of the candidates, but rather the voting public.

It sounds like the USGOV discovered a 5GWorg operating from the inside for the benefit of the state and against the state's enemies, but without the permission or knowledge of the state. Once discovered, that state took it down.

Did a group of experienced military officers, comprised of intelligence analysts, Iraq war veterans, and reservists, some who are also police officers in Los Angeles, form their own "vigilance committee" to hunt down al Qaeda suspects operating inside the U.S.?
[...]
he San Diego Union-Tribune newspaper is uncovering some details from a secretive military court-martial that occurred in July:

"Marine Gunnery Sgt. Gary Maziarz said patriotism motivated him to join a spy ring, smuggle secret files from Camp Pendleton and give them to law enforcement officers for anti-terrorism work in Southern California.

"He knew his group was violating national security laws. But he said bureaucratic walls erected by the military and civilian agencies were hampering intelligence sharing and coordination, making the nation more vulnerable to terrorists.
[...]
mong the alleged conspirators are two colonels in the Marine Corps Reserve, one a detective for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and the other a veteran in the LAPD. A commander in the Naval Reserve who worked as an intelligence analyst at U.S. Northern Command headquarters is also an alleged conspirator.
[...]
The conspirators, experienced veterans in their fields and with much to lose, decided to do something effective, i.e. act outside the accepted system.
[...]
But those government officials responsible for protecting the country against terrorist attack have a responsibility to perform their jobs diligently and competently. Rogue "vigilance committees" can form whenever this is not the case.
[Reference: TCS Daily]

So, Is this a 5GW/near-5GW? How could they have done things differently/better?

[Cross Posted to PurpleSlog]

Reviewing my last post, "X vs X: Boom and the Generations in Conflict", (which Dan tdaxp linked with kind words; thanks!), I wonder if the diagram ought to be updated.

I had used this diagram to show the generational conflict and general progression of generations, relating them to each other and to Boom:

Now I wonder if I should have tweaked the diagram one step further to better show the dispersal of kinetics/centers of gravity with the generational progression; like this:

This re-visioning has the added benefit of showing, to the left of Boom, the general progression leftward of each generation, so that the left/right relationship between the generations also appears vertically.  Where 3GW is "left of Boom" when in conflict with 2GW, it is also further left on the Left in relationship to 2GW.

This revised diagram also gives a visual representation to "dispersal."

In Dan's post, he offered a summarization of part of my previous post:

The tug of gravity weakens exponentially with the addition of each new dimension through which it may propagate.*

I wonder if we might use this revision of the diagram to add new dimensions to our understanding of the xGW model.  Specifically, I wonder if we might use the horizontal distance between competing generational strategies, as displayed in the diagram -- the increased dispersal of kinetics -- to come to a better understanding of the necessary time frames required for each new generational approach to win over the previous generational approach.

I.e., with the dispersal of kinetics and the multiplication of points of attack, perhaps "the tug of gravity" indeed weakens, necessitating longer time frames for victory.  No single kinetic attack can create victory, but many, many are required for the cumulative effect.  Then, we might see how a 4GW approach requires much longer to reach victory over 3GW forces than a 3GW force requires for defeating a 2GW force, for example.  5GW strategies, then, might indeed require a "Long War" when used to combat 4GW forces.




* edited to correct typos!

Arherring's intriguing reconceptualization of the xGW framework, "XGW: Left of Boom - Right of Boom", has inspired me to take my own route tying the concept of "Boom" to the generational model.

The term Boom, as I see it, describes the kinetics which occur during conflict.  We might borrow Arherring's phrasing and consider only the operative kinetics for each generation -- i.e., the type of kinetic activity which defines each generation, generation by generation, and through which each generation succeeds (or attempts to succeed), although many other kinetic activities may also occur -- because it is a valuable way of contemplating the generations and kinetic activity; but what if we simply lump all kinetic activity together and call it "Boom"?

Hidden within Arherring's diagram of the generations in relationship to Boom,

is another which may describe each generation in relationship to the generation which precedes it and to the generation which follows it.  Arherring's approach may seem to leave the question of these relationships to the side; he has considered each generation in relationship to the Boom, and only from that consideration do we find some type of relationship between them.  I have attempted to include these intergenerational relationships in a revisioning of the diagram, or a redrawing, to add new dimensions.