Results tagged “Thomas P. M. Barnett”

Lo! and Behold!  a blog post on Thomas Barnett's blog caught me off-guard, because it was something I had never expected to see there:

The end times core teaching of Protestant fundamentalism.

"Dispensational" refers to dividing the faith's sacred history into distinct periods, called dispensations.

"Premillennialism" is the view that Jesus will soon return, defeat the Antichrist and establish a thousand-year reign of peace.

Put together, you have a package quite similar to the Shia faith concept of the 12th or "hidden imam" whose return signals a similar and universal period of violence followed by salvation.

-- TPMB, "Dispensational premillennialism", 9-14-2007

That is opening a can of worms for the vocal 5GWer.

I am a bit surprised for another reason, given that I'd recently linked a Barnett post in which he says 5GW must be explored -- and had said, "So, Tom, explore."  The surprise is in the fact that his very brief consideration of pre-trib theology recalled to mind one of my own blog posts on the subject called "5GW and Christianity":  that may be the only 5GW post from my blog Phatic Communion that I consciously avoided cross-posting to D5GW when I set up this blog.  A little too inflamatory, perhaps; a little too metaphorical or horizontal; a subject I did not want to become mired in.

Newt wants his Long War to be a shorter, Big War, but the reality is that the integration processed cannot be magically sped up. Globalization's spread and impact is way beyond our control at this point in history. We will deal with many small wars that it unleashes, but we can't bundle them all up into a single notion. We're no longer in that unitary state world, but a networked one that gets built one node at a time.

Petraeus effort is seminal and does show the way. There's just no shortcutting history with a rousing call to arms.

In short, we should be exploring what 5GW means, not adding 1GW + 2GW + 3GW = 4GW.

-- Thomas P.M. Barnett, September 11, 2007.

So, Tom, explore.  Perhaps it's time for another personal dream of 5GW...(or at least an update?)

I have been working on a new post for the series on "Super-Empowered Individuals and 5GW" begun by Arherring; but his post has inspired thoughts I thought I would break out as a follow-up within the series. I began a comment in response to his, but it has expanded beyond the length of a normal comment and may include ideas requiring exploration separate from those he put forth.

So this post will be in the form of an extended commentary on his.  All quotations not otherwise distinguished are directly from his post.

As globalization economically and socially connects the world , its citizens are paid in the metaphorical ‘coin’ of super-empowerment. However, like a coin, super-empowerment has two sides. You cannot enjoy the benefits of the positive side without the negative flip side. Super-empowerment exploited by the actions of Super-Empowered Angry Men.

From TPMB

Thomas Barnett responded to my post "On the Barnettian 5GW" with "Nice post by Curtis on 5GW."

Shane's right in his comment: I do agree with the vast majority of the post, to include its criticism that my vision to date has relied a lot on stock characters (nations, militaries, corporations).

The reason why I don't just elucidate the super-empowered masses is two-fold:

[TPMB]

Very thrilling to have a response like that, although I must admit I did not expect it.  I didn't expect any direct response, mostly because I know Tom is a very busy man and I'm just a blogger on the sidelines trying to make sense of things -- in my own peculiar way.  So it's also thrilling to have my "take" on Tom's vision validated.  I mean, I made some metaphorical, logical, and horizontal leaps in that post.

Tom's reason behind his lack of elucidation is two-fold.  You can go read it, if you like.  I left this response:

After writing that post, I began to realize my own paradox: Given the stress made at D5GW on secrecy in 5GW operations, my criticism that you haven't outlined the street-level 5GW approach seems a little silly. Of course you haven't. I've been contemplating the ways that much of that outline could be incorporated into your Book III -- even before your response here. In any case, I also realize that your primary audience has thus far matched your prior approach (as well as matching your experience) and that many seeds must be planted for any 5GW endeavor before the flowers can bloom. Anything I've written on the topic, even criticisms on your Core/Gap strategy, has been greatly informed by your work. If I'm co-opted, I would expect my criticisms to be part and parcel of your overall game plan!

BTW, I very much like "the tale of 5GW can only be told in mosaic." I'll probably have to steal that metaphor.

I'm also looking forward to your collaboration with Steve, even if I have to work my way there through #3.

[CGW]

When I mentioned in comments under the original post on D5GW that Tom often speaks in parables, I was not far off in my analysis, I see.  His experience, his connections, his audience, have gone to shape his message thus far; and the superempowered individuals are hidden behind the parabolic figures, "nations, militaries, corporations."  I knew that when I wrote that post.  As part of my own peculiar on-going effort here at D5GW, the analysis of those parables requires elucidation -- but as PurpleSlog once commented, Tom's effort to sell his vision may be 5GW even if the particulars he has thus far outlined are pre-5GW operations when considered in isolation.  That's something to keep in mind.  To the degree that others-who-are-not-Tom take his ideas and run with them, altering them, elucidating them, we might wonder if they are in fact co-opted without knowing they are.

From the ZenPundit

Mark Safranski highlighted my post and Tom's post with "Globalization's Superempowered Societies."

I don't think Curtis' use of " relative equalization of individual empowerment" is actually as oxymoronic as it seems. This is an astute normative economic observation on Week's part. Instead, it illustrates the aggregate effect of Schumpeter's creative destruction rippling across the globe as the spread of economic connectivity and information technology proceeds apace. The spread, of say, cell phone-based wifi internet access to states with sketchy (at best) landline telephone service, is a quantum leap forward for equalization of empowerment on the macro- scale even as certain small networks or individuals of those states on the micro- scale, possess the ability to leverage still greater levels of empowerment to become "more equal than others".

This seeming dichotomy are flip sides of the same coin in any true market action and is always ongoing to some degree, provided the market is permitted to function. Unless the comparative advantage is artificially locked in by force ( this is what tyrants of disconnectivity, like Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il, do - force everyone else to remain still in order to retain their own local "super empowerment"), any individual or entity's "super empowerment" is apt to be a fleeting condition unless constantly maintained by adaptive improvements.

[MS]

If my grasp on complex economics were as good as Mark implied in the first paragraph, I'd have an easier time addressing my uneasiness with his analysis.  On the surface, I understand this completely and somewhat agree; but I'm leery of the subject of 'free markets,' given the fact that even capitalism within democratic societies is certainly not 'free.'  It can't be free, or it wouldn't be capitalism.  For instance, the truly superempowered within a capitalistic society will by definition be the best at adapting to maintain that superempowerment.  Am I wrong?  Then again, the sort of inheritance system we have in America may enable an American bin Laden to emerge one day:  How much time should we give to "the system" to correct such an emergence, given the sort of destruction such an individual could wreak before we realize the nefarious turn?

I suppose I could rephrase those questions and ask:  What keeps the greatly empowered and, especially, the superempowered from tweaking the system in order to "lock in" their relative wealth/power?

And yet, to the degree that those superempowered rely on "the masses" for their power and give "bread and circuses" to the masses, the masses may remain content with the disparity. Something besides the "anti-lock-in" is at work.

Mark makes an excellent point in reference to Tom's "accent on [SEI's] positively remaking the world" --

Numerically speaking, most highly intelligent, energetic, creative and task persistent individuals who function as change agents are overwhelmingly positive actors.

[MS]

-- while cautioning us not to grow complacent given that fact. "Negative super empowered individuals" may emerge.  I particularly like Mark's addition of a potential third ingredient for building systemic resilience capable of surviving and even thriving despite the perturbations a superempowered actor might cause:

Steve's Development-in-a Box paradigm at Enterra is one effort to begin comprehensively addressing these deficits. Tom's Sys Admin is another. Building new, highly decentralized, "Wikinomic" mass-collaborative platforms from scratch, may be yet a third.

[MS]

Where's John Robb?

Ah, there he is.  Should've expected that.  Not exactly a response to my post, but...

Here's the latest entry on his personal blog, short and sweet:

Brave New Peace?

Working on the ideas for a second book (in the proposal stage) on superempowered individuals and their ability change things for the better. It picks up on the last section of BNW on rethinking security and runs with it.

[JR]

It also runs with Mark's and Tom's posts, right on cue.

My initial reaction was the above; then, I thought, Hmmmm...Maybe someone's 5GW is coming together.

And then I thought something even better:  We may one day in the not-too-distant future find Tom, John, and Mark operating in close harmony (with the occasional skeptical remark from CGW lobbed over the fence.)  Essentially, my post exploring the Barnettian 5GW, though it carried the familiar criticism of Robb's GG theory, was critical of Barnett's theory precisely where Robb takes up; that is, at the street level, far below the parabolic national, military, and corporate level.

We will see.

I'm bumping up a comment I left in another thread...

And this is where 5GW on a grand scale may diverge from the current Robb/Hammes approach, which emphasizes one superempowered individual as opposed to generating empowerment across an entire society.

[Steve, commenting on "Kilcullen on Narratives in Iraq."]

Yes. I once included a consideration of the two types of superempowerment when contrasting Barnett with Robb. It would seem that Barnett's approach (which we at D5GW have often labeled "5GWish") requires the general superempowerment of individuals across the spectrum, as an antidote to the Robbian one-man-killing-crew. With regard to some recent considerations on the idea of kinetics, this means creating more routes for the channeling of powers, not only as a distracting maneuver ("jobs" vs "guns") but also as a method of equalizing the kinetics across the system, or forcing kinetics into indirection. It is a kind of perpetual, systemic, mass deflection.

[CGW, responding]

This is a long post, so I'm putting the rest below the fold......

Thomas P.M. Barnett gets it wrong building on Russia vs Estonia -- mostly by imagining such a thing as "non-kinetic" effects.

Shame on you, sir.

UPDATE: More on this topic at the Blorum: The Myth of "Non-Kinetic" Effect.

Plus, Sean Meade thinks I have been too harsh.

And, Baudrillard's Bastard also linked Thomas Barnett's article while suggesting that the cyberwar didn't actually happen. (Gotta love static!)

Saw this phrase on Tom Barnett's blog and it jumped out at me.

"Bush seems unable to define a victory, so he leaves it to the Dems to define a loss."

I have explored before the consideration that 5GW will in part be about context and more specifically about placing information in context that will lead to the emergence of specific memes. In fact, looking forward to a situation in which 5GW organizations will battle each other for memetic supremacy (Heh, that sounds pretty cool, eh?) the concept embodied by this short statement could very well be the battleground.

Just a bit of food for thought.

In a look at "4GW Christianity Around the Blogosphere" Dan recently highlighted some 5GW-related thoughts from Thomas P.M. Barnett's post "Why the yin disconnects from the yang" which are fertile ground for 5GW theorists.  I'm going to break apart the ideas and respond to each in turn with my own take.

An addendum/juxtaposition to my last post, on "Tying Loose Ends."

Toward the end of that post, I suggested what may seem utterly obvious but may often be overlooked.  An explosion of choices for determining the exact outlines of a life one is building for oneself -- one effect of globalization -- may

• lead to confusion or dread,


• reinforce one's loyalty to what one already knows (i.e. a tribe or other familiar, local group/milieu),


• or offer escapes from certain existing, stultifying and restrictive environments.

Arherring had already posted an excerpt from Neal Stephenson's The Big U which seemed to suggest what living in a world with a high degree of static might be like, for some people (even if others would rather call such a milieu an "open source" environment with generally utopian overtones.).

Interestingly, Stephen DeAngelis of Enterprise Resilience Management Blog has included a similar idea in the first part of an overview of the Breakthrough Ideas for 2007 isolated by the Harvard Business Review:

7. Living With Continuous Partial Attention. Linda Stone, who has been a senior executive with both Apple and Microsoft, writes about the new, below-the-table phenomenon of constantly checking cell phones, Blackberries, or PDAs during meetings or conferences.... Stone argues that personal bandwidth is not up to the task and, as a result, a backlash to continuous partial attention has already started. She also worries that information overload will burn people out much more quickly as they strain to keep up with an increasing number of information sources all screaming for attention.  ["HBR 2007 Breakthrough Ideas, Part 1"]

This "continuous partial attention", which results from an explosion of data sources, is one consequence of increasing levels of static, but may have different results for different people.  Three distinct results, or methods for dealing with static, may parallel what I wrote in my last post:

• Confusion or dread:  Essentially, an inability to act, in the case of confusion, but perhaps in the case of dread as well since the thought of altering one's environment and modes and methods may increase a sense of great risk, or may threaten a current relative stability (relative to whatever exterior data presents):

  Whereas relatively rigid modes of operating, strict guidelines and well-defined channels for expressing power, may have been stultifying, globalization by offering more choices may be confusing, particularly for those who have spent a lifetime building a life in the Old Ways™.
  
  An OODA process accustomed to a well-defined, rigid environment may not allow comprehension of alternative methods for building a life, may not even be able to see alternative modes and methods; or else, seeing them, may inspire dread at the prospect of the emergence of a system which appears to require alternative methods which have not been learned by the individual. ["Tying Loose Ends"]



• Reinforce one's loyalty to what one already knows. This relates to what DeAngelis called, "a backlash to continuous partial attention." The backlash from an increasing, confusing and dreadful sense of chaos, resulting from an increase in data sources and static, is simply a refocusing on a partial environment (a limited milieu, one's locality and familiar sights) while relegating everything outside that environment to partial observation.  One's group may be well-defined, thus relatively predictable, dependable; but members outside that group may appear to be demons or wraiths or potential threats:

  So there may be an initial “rush to the [not real] bottom.” This is really “going with what you know”, and to the degree that such a tribal system may support your most basic needs, it may be an attractive place to stay. Identification with a tribe also means being able to predict how other members of that tribe will act and react under particular circumstances, to the degree that common mental constructs have formed; this allows for some contractual assurance in general dealings with members of the tribe, or trust. [ibid.]

• Offer escapes from certain existing, stultifying and restrictive environments.

  Multiple choices may also offer multiple escapes from such an environment, it’s just a matter of being able to do a cost-benefit analysis, which requires being able to see those choices and being able to understand them as well as being able to follow them without too great a risk. [ibid.]

That last reaction is the reaction which Thomas P.M. Barnett expects and makes a cornerstone of his Blueprint; I described the essential assumption of his theory in my last post, "individuals given greater opportunity for mobility will have less reason to act violently:  they’ll be too busy building their own lives to worry about destroying the lives of others."  I.e., with more potential pathways to personal success, people will not only be empowered -- the power of choice not least among the powers -- but, presumably, will be preoccupied in running a cost-benefit analysis of those choices, or choosing between the choices.

However, I also gave a criticism of Barnett's plan:

Missing from the vision and the blueprint is any definitive sight or plan for mitigating the confusion caused by a sudden explosion of choices offered to individuals living on the globe.  I.e., there is the assumption that most people will figure things out on their own, once the choices have been offered to them.  Well, the hypothetical ‘Global Guerrillas’ are figuring it out on their own, if we’re to believe John Robb.  Plus, in a world of static, so many competing visions may easily emerge and may mobilize large groups; people rarely see the Whole Picture visionaries claim to see, but make up whole pictures that just happen to be quite limited but self-serving. [ibid.]

Consider what else is needed for true empowerment: not mere increase of data, not merely a multiplication of potential but vague choices (non-contextualized means), but a method for understanding and utilizing those choices.  Stephen DeAngelis concluded his look at the idea developed by Linda Stone by addressing the need:

One of the things my company, Enterra Solutions, does is work with decision makers to determine exactly what information they need and when they need it. That data is then served up when, where, and in the format that makes it most useful. Stone says this is exactly what resilient companies will learn to do for their employees and customers, provide them with "discriminating choices and quality of life."

Can you imagine the backlash when the U.S. attempts to deliver 'democracy' and 'capitalism' to a Gap nation while telling the people of that nation that the U.S. will, "determine exactly what information they need and when they need it"?  Enterra's solution is something else, however, since Enterra  works "with decision makers"; but I suspect that such a method will not be enough for Barnett's plan, which appears to require a truly democratic and capitalistic approach:  accelerating the rush to the true "bottom".   That is, the people may not trust the authority of whatever decision makers have been elevated above them or have squirmed their way upward; rather, people must be able to wade through the static on their local level.  Barnett needs a system for simplifying the static for the individual undergoing the process of integration into the Core.  He needs to tie those loose ends.

---

See also:

• Static, Transparency, and Systemic Resilience: Part One
• Interlude: Static Visualized, Conceptualized

Also, a much older post on Phatic Communion:

• Flu(n)x

-- particularly for the concept of "ego-casting" first proposed by Christine Rosen in an article published in The New Atlantis, which quite relates; but also for considerations of resilience/consilience and conservative thinking.

A common theme, or call it a common question, frequently resurfaces in our little neck of the Blogospheric Woods, amazingly emergent wherever the discussion turns toward an examination of the future of humanity:  Shall there be tribes; if so, will they be networked or largely insular; or does globalization ultimately eliminate any sort of identifiable tribalism?  Discussions inspiring these question often range from topic to topic which themselves remain insular (they are not always considered together), and the definitions we use are often obscured or fuzzy.  We do not always agree on terms.  Unfortunately, our disagreement means that our attempts to come to some mutual understanding of the relevant issues are often also fuzzy, if not entirely hostile in an incoherent way.

One such fuzzy term requires further analysis: "primary loyalties."

Props to Arherring for provoking (and providing the illusion of choice to ?) Tom Barnett, in his description of this blog and 5GW:

My own sense is that 5GW will be all about fait accomplis and the illusion of choice, and that the real nature of debates will be purposefully disguised until relevant players (always tricky to define, because many will self-select, but few will be "chosen") have steered outcomes toward desired ends. In that sense, it's a form of corporatism (a specific poli sci term) on a global scale until such time as institutions arise for greater global pluralism (connectivity typically predates code, which is driven by scandals revealed in their "due course").

It is the ultimate in horizontal global positioning ("conflict" suggesting too much kinetics) designed to stave off system-disrupting vertical perturbations/attacks.

This is where I think John [Robb] has it backwards: it's 4GW, not globalization, that spawns its own self-limitations/destruction (parasites never seek system destruction, hence their limits of influence). 5GWers will, for many useful reasons, declare the terrorists to be "in charge of the world," but that will only serve as the primary obfuscation in global security affairs. Others are already well in use in other sectors (like "peak oil" in energy).

The 5GWarrior will win.
The 4GWarrior will lose.
And the 3GWarrior will never know it.

The other day a friend of mine and I were talking politics and the conversation moved into a discussion about the U.S. military’s growing pains as it has shifted from the offensive force that brought down Saddam’s Iraq to the force that has had to fight the peace, what Tom Barnett calls the Sysadmin. We both agreed that this would take much more than different sets of equipment and that combinations of skills would be needed for the job. Then my buddy said,

"Yeah, but they don’t teach that way so nobody goes to school for that."

I was thinking about that statement all day long.

I am leaping ahead in this post to a summarizing look at John Robb's Global Guerrillas, fueled by my own thoughts concerning the recent Barnett-Robb 5GW debate as well as a bit by Mark Safranski's thoughts on the matter.  Mostly though, I see that some of my most recent characterizations had latent within them a possible answer to the debate, something I find intriguing enough to justify this leap.  Anyone who has not followed the debate is encouraged to read my last Barnett-Robb post and follow the links from there to the pertinent entries on either man's blog.

Perhaps it is the Zen in the ZenPundit that has led Mark Safranski to ask, "5GW Emergent -- But What is It?" while maintaining neutrality between the opposing views.  Neutrality is of course the wrong word, since he views both approaches with interest and not a little agreement either way.  However, it is Mark's addendum on system perturbations -- and addendum #2, linking to Arherring's consideration of system perturbations here on Dreaming 5GW -- that holds the first key for linking the opposing points of view under the heading "5GW"......

Short on time today and tomorrow.  Too bad, because 5GW discussion has been ratcheted up in our little neighborhood on the AllSpace.  Here are some links and a few remarks; but I will definitely be returning to these shortly, when I have the time to properly address them!

Thomas Barnett has posted his Own Personal 5GW Dream, in which he heavily references Dreaming 5GW!  So much is given in this build-it-as-you-go post, I feel almost ashamed offering only minor observations while I wait for the time (a day or two) I need to really dig into the post.  But that would be point #1:

1. So much is given in this build-it-as-you-go post.  Not very secret, is it?  Reading the post, I felt those intransigent but highly active fingertip feelings squirming within me.  This post is like Barnett throwing down the gauntlet, and it might have been too early.  The dream he gives will terrify enough people, if it were given in Congress (just imagine!  But I don't know his readership; it might already be!), the opposition to his dream would be mobilized.  (As it has been; but that's another blogger, whose recent activity I'll address in a moment.)
2. I do like Barnett's thinking, however, and he's far more right than wrong (something I've been saying a lot lately, about not only Barnett.)  The biggest problem with his dream may be seen in how various commenters around the web are responding to it:  Ok, so America assumes a false 'failing' in order to motivate China to become more active; that sounds 5GW, but Barnett's a little too blasé about this.  In order for America to emerge "fat, rich, and safe for the long haul," a country named 'America' needs to still exist by the end of things.  We were fortunate that we had time to readjust to our disillusionment after Vietnam; I doubt we have that luxury now.  So when he says,

   all this talk of winning-while-appearing-to-lose simply won't wash. You simply can't manipulate people and countries like that.

   I wish he would stop thinking about other countries for a bit and think about the American psyche.  This is not to say that it cannot be done, but only that it would need to be managed a little better than that.  America must be occupied in feeling quite successful, even as other nations -- China, in particular -- gain motivation from America's seeming failure in areas like the Middle East.  (Heh, side-thought that's been bouncing around in my head:  If we were to annex Mexico, or at least some Mexican states, the introspection required to turn eyes away from 'failure' in the Middle East, as well as a reinvigoration and a feeling of American worth -- i.e., expansion -- could both be achieved.  Hmmm.)

Speaking of naturally motivating opposition... This talk of 5GW has motivated John Robb to rechristen his Global Guerrillas as 5GWarriors: "THE CHANGING FACE OF WAR: Into the 5th Generation (5GW)".  He let slip the 'GG as 5GW' meme in the post before that post, which I addressed here in my last D5GW entry.  His method is disingenuous, to say the least, since he has previously:

1. Argued that GG is 4GW; because 'Lind said so'.
2. Argued that it's just too, too early to call 5GW.  (And this less than a week ago!)  Even worse, he usually says such things while saying, in effect, I agree with Lind: too early to call 'er!
3. And now, he pulls a Lind, steals a title, and his destruction-oriented mythical creatures have become 5GW Warriors -- because, I think, the idea of 5GW must be coopted since much 5GW discussion concerns building order, and Robb sees that such a framework will shut his forthcoming book out.  Any theory of perpetual, unstoppable chaos & violence must necessary disregard any notion of emergent order.

On that second point and link:  If you follow the comments, you can see how clearly Robb has been motivated to do #3.  After a consideration of 'prematurity', given by Mark Safranski of ZenPundit, Robb comments,

Zen, then we are likely seeing it in some of the evolutionary behavior I have documented on GGs.

You see the wheels turning, there.

But, as I've said I've said a lot lately, Robb may be more right than wrong, at least on some particulars; and I can see how his wheels have been greased.  I've addressed the GG debate before -- "Lind, Robb, Dan, PurpleSlog, CGW" -- and come now to the same conclusions.  Robb appears to have a fairly good grasp on a phenomenon we may face in the future, but he is describing an environment more than a generation of warfare or any coherent operational dynamic (i.e., if you take the GG in toto; however, some methods of GG are clear and coherent, if taken piecemeal.)  He may not be seeing the entire dynamic; but clearly seeing some aspects of it, he's taking those aspects and drawing logical conclusions.

Robb actually responds directly to Barnett's dream -- by calling it "Totally unreal" -- and Barnett has responded with a field of flowers and weeds.  I wrote a comment on Barnett's response, which has not posted yet (it's in moderation; for some reason, my Typekey login did not click from the preview page), which I'll repost here.  After another commenter questions Barnett's statement, that he "[doesn't] see nonstate actors, nor their networks, becoming stronger over time," I wrote this:

I don't know what Barnett sees, but perhaps 'stronger' for these specific non-state actors is relative to the forces of stability. In GG and similar theories, there appears to be an assumption that approx. 99.9% of the world population (or more!) will just sit back and let the forces of chaos reign, that even the kind of devastation possible by a superempowered individual will outweigh any kind of potential response to such devastation. Chaos is assumed to emerge, but order is not.

The biggest problem with such a theory (of many) is this assumption of passivity for the vast majority of the human population. Whereas, every single bit of technology, from the low-tech to the futuristic high-tech, will also be available to those 99.9%. Methods of social organization (e.g., open source) will also be available to those 99.9%. In fact, many of those 99.9% will also be 'superempowered,' just like Robb's mythical GG's. So a better vision of the future would take these factors into account: From a Wild West perspective, the chaos will not only be about 'bestial strangers' (demons) appearing from nowhere to destroy all the hard-built homesteads, leading to perpetual wilderness, but also about the efforts of those building their livelihood amidst the chaos.

And that metaphor, btw, makes no difference whether you take a nativist or a homesteader p.o.v., since either group worked hard to establish their own particular sense of order. Despite all the chaos that came from conflict, an order emerged. So when Robb will argue on the one hand that these demons popping up all over the place will have no common motivation but destruction, and on the other hand that they will somehow manage to work together in a stable 'bazaar of violence' funded by a stable 'black globalization' and developing into 'virtual states' -- first they are disconnected 4GWarriors he says, then when 5GW discussion kicks in, his GG are somehow suddenly 5GWarriors rather than 4GW -- I think he is only trying to work around the fact that even these pseudo-demons will have tendencies toward order: i.e., establishing their own sort of order. They are not endless chaos generators.

Barnett's far too easy on John Robb. GG, in order for it to actually become a reality, has been twisted into a self-sustaining prophesy powered by selective but obstinate ignorance -- i.e., by ignoring large realities. If you believe real demons exist, and moreover that they are entirely unstoppable because no real angels exist, you'll buy into the prophecy being given by Robb.

On the other hand: and this is important: as I've argued before, Robb's outlining a phenomenon rather than a generation of warfare or any type of coherent operational methodology. When I read GG, I pay close attention to what Robb is saying, because he is in large part describing a significant aspect of the environment that will face us (who are the 99.9% he generally disregards.) There is of course the possibility, I think, that some one GG faction or handful of superempowered individuals will succeed in a major strike at order, fueled by destructive high technology, causing everything to collapse globally; a particularly vicious virus might do it. So there is that to keep in mind. Organizations like Lifeboat (and many others) are keeping that in mind, however.

---------------

More will come, when I have more time!

---

UPDATE: Corrected link to John Robb's CHANGING FACE OF WAR post.

Also, TDAXP takes a look at GG with "5GW is Closed Source (and Global Guerillas Theory is Incoherent)"

System Perturbation: A situation that causes a break down in, or invalidation of, a system level rule-set

Rule-Set: The underlying principles (groups of rules) that define and govern norms of behavior and conduct.

Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW): The strategic mindset premised upon creating or manipulating a system perturbation in order to change an existing rule-set or replace an obsolete rule-set. (10/14/06 Arherring)

As 5GW is an emerging and developing theory, trying to carve it in stone at this point would be foolish. For the purposes of this discussion, however, I am going to stick the above definition as my working definition. The definitions of system perturbation and rule-set are taken from Tom Barnett among others but reflect my personal understanding of the concepts.

As I wrote previously in Welcome to the World of 5GW, there are multitudes of ways people are approaching the theory of 5GW. These approaches are mostly focusing on the execution of 5GW rather than its underlying principles, what it will look like more than why it looks like that. I can understand the reasoning for this approach though I notice that what people see in 5GW execution seems to reflect a great deal of their previous theories. The three example scenarios I used in Welcome to the World of 5GW were; memetic engineering, the super-empowered individual, and Sysadmin. I will confess that in the interests of appealing to as many readers as possible I was attempting to make them sound as different as possible.

They are not. In reality they are virtually identical...

Lots of interesting commentary on 5GW over the last day.  It is this type of chatter, more than anything, that led me to question Dan's assessment that "The American System of Government is as brilliant at defending itself from 5GWs as from 4GWs." -- as well as the idealized version of Thomas Barnett's paradigm-shifting strategies for preempting opposition within the Gap, questioned in yesterday's post.  How much 'democratization' of the OODA 'observe' will be allowed by grand strategists and grand paradigm builders?  As social systems move away from concrete totalitarian structures and the decision-making process becomes more democratized, more complex, the field for 5GW ripens; the board becomes set by becoming perpetually unsettled.  The OODA is not merely the O; no, it involves other levels of cognition and reasoning, reasoning is always from a limited observational capability which removes it from the strict lines of cause & effect, and although the World may be the same for everyone, individual assessments of it will differ.  Complexity introduces perplexity.

Thomas Barnett considered this in another recent post, "Fifth Generation (political) warfare," in which he considered the plight of Conrad Burns from Montana:

Constant observation of the foe. Unrelenting surveillance. Every gaffe exposed and then run ad nauseum on the web. His ability to orient himself as desired in the race is disrupted.

Conrad Burns, the incumbent, is trailed everywhere on the campaign by a young operative for the Dems who videotapes him non-stop every chance he gets, waiting for the screw-up.

Why does this sort of preemption of the OODA work?  Because one set of possible observations -- Conrad Burns' legislative history, his political epistemology in action; and his family interactions, etc. -- is usurped by the constant introduction of new data sliced quite separate from that history.  I've discussed this sort of thing before, in my posts on the Revised OODA; in a way, it is a 3GW cognition attack on the undecided voters, who, being offered a constant stream of new data, are being forced to make snap judgments impulsively.  Or else, for the Democratic party faithful, it is the 4GW reinforcement of an old assessment of Burns, leading to yet more habitual assessments.  (And actually, what starts as a 3GWish attack on orientation may over time become a 4GW reinforcement of assessments, if the data is sliced along the same parameters regularly enough.)

Ad agencies do it, and the process is none too new for political parties.  Ministers and weblog pundits do it as well.  (Can anyone say, "Ms. Malkin"?)  It is so old, we have the example of Cato: "Delenda est Carthago!"

One might attempt the same in a totalitarian system; but the populace, lacking power to do much to change the status quo, are not as apt to act on their assessments, and the head of the totalitarian state is not as apt to follow whatever popular assessment is being whispered on the streets.  In a democracy, things work differently.

Notice how Mark Safranski picks up on the importance of surveillance for a state wishing to defend itself from 5GW:

The state in turn, is vulnerable to a proliferation of such superempowered individuals and will have to defend itself with a combination of surveillance and active cultivation of primary loyalties ( reducing the motivation for such individuals to act out in antisocial ways).

This may actually be true of any state, if we are to think of state-citizen interactions in terms of social contracts.  In any case, the totalitarian state certainly wishes to defend itself from 'superempowered individuals' -- i.e., from individuals empowered by rights to privacy, the right to vote and demonstrate and meet, the right to carry arms, and so forth.  So this too is nothing new.  The 5GW trick has been to give the populace the belief that it is the state, although Mark appears to separate the two in offering his prescription for 'the state's' consideration.  (In a perhaps not-too-well considered post on Christianity and 5GW, I once suggested that the founders of America had pulled off a 5GW coup.  I also suggested that 'dispensational premillennialism' was introduced into Christianity in order to combat the socialist tendencies of amillenialist Christianity:  Give people the power to assess the level of their own personal salvation, the power to achieve it on their own while disregarding the spiritual welfare of others, and you have 'superempowered' people who will believe they act entirely of their own free will, and that they may act powerfully.  I.e., you set the 5GW chessboard.)

These things are why I say that Thomas Barnett's system for change in the Gap and the world is more likely to lead to 5GW opposition than squelch it.  John Robb's more right than wrong when he contemplates perpetual chaos for the future, which he usually does.  However, as I contemplated yesterday, some shadow lies over the exact shape that the future will take, and this constant lack of settling -- this chaos -- may not be perpetual violence.  I.e., Barnett would introduce the sort of political chaos he has described for America into the Gap: remove totalitarianism and insert 'democratized' OODA loops, and you therefore remove totalitarian methods (concerted violence) while introducing democratic conflict (mass and constant chatter.)  If 3GW and 4GW always threaten world destruction, particularly as technology advances, then even 5GWarriors may be more inclined to find non-violent methods for domination.

Shloky has in fact postulated post-5GW conflict that results from the 'technological singularity' predicted by Kurzweil et al.  My first impression is that all the bets of current 5GW theory are off once such a major change occurs; this includes the advent of advanced nanotechnology.  I.e., if I'm alive when these things occur, I'm quite certain I'll revise my assessment of the fifth generation of warfare.  However, until humans stop being humans, the process of observe - orient -decide - act will continue to shape human activity, and I expect 5GW to adapt & grow with these changes.


UPDATE: Speaking of democracy, it would appear (and has appeared for some time) that advocates of democracy work into their designs 5GW methods as a matter of course; check out "Developing a Strategy for Fifth Generation Warfare" on Democracy Project. (HT: ZenPundit.) I.e., using commercial advertising and focused messages to insert members of one's own party into key positions...is fundamental to the operation of democracy as currently practiced.

First, I would like to welcome visitors to Dreaming 5GW, a new cooperative blog focusing on various theories of fifth generation warfare.

Over the course of the last year and a half, I've been both, intrigued by various blogospheric discussions concerning 5GW and often inspired to address the subject myself on my blog Phatic Communion: inspired by bloggers Dan of tdaxp, Mark Safranski of ZenPundit, and Younghusband of Coming Anarchy.  Discussions of 5GW have ranged between these excellent blogs and have led to conversations on Phatic Communion as well, through which I have had the good fortune to engage in related discussion with others who have also discovered the subject -- in much the same way I did -- and found it fascinating.

Lately, however, I have felt the need to consolidate the conversations in whatever way I could.  Perhaps this was a result of seeing so many searches for "5GW" in my blog's stats which never developed beyond the quick hit on my weblog by strangers who may -- or may not? -- have found what they were looking for; but I think the desire to find a home for 5GW theory has come from my own wish to explore the topic in more detail without having to constantly travel the Blogospheric Highway piecing together the conversations.  (Or, indeed, without needing to search Phatic Communion for the 5GW-related posts and conversations every time I wanted to revisit the topic!)

At the same time, the conversations on 5GW which had inspired me...inspired me greatly because they approached the topic from angles I had not considered.

Trying to suss out what the next generation of warfare will be is like trying to predict exactly what some future language will be after who knows how many cultures, geopolitical and geologic events, and technological innovations have first occurred:  it will probably have some relation to modern English but is unlikely to be exactly like the English I am now using.  (Indeed, who knows how much of a typical conversation from the year 2340 would be intelligible to a 21st century American?)

Thus, I recognized the need to maintain the diversity represented by cross-blog conversations on the topic, and I decided that a similar approach would be valuable for Dreaming 5GW.  It is my hope that the different angles provided by the contributors to Dreaming 5GW -- each with his own eye training on the wide-ranging WWW, on the world, and indeed on what Thomas Barnett has recently called the 'AllSpace' -- that each individual contributor OODA, will provide a better composite angle on 5GW than I could possibly accomplish on my own.

---

"The sandwich generations-of-war strategy" -- Thomas P.M. Barnett

"5GW and Ruleset Automation" -- Dan, of tdaxp.

"A Strategic Dagwood" -- Mark Safranski, ZenPundit.

Speaking of Thomas Barnett... I had planned to take a day or two off after completing the designs and setup for Dreaming 5GW (a somewhat tedious affair) but from the blue comes an intriguing correlation with something I had only tangentially suggested previously:  That Thomas Barnett may actually be a 5GWarrior.

It's nice to know that while I piddle about, dependable bloggers continue their heroic output.

Mark Safranski of ZenPundit has been reexamining globalization and the problems that come with globalization -- "Network Theory, 'Noise' and Al Qaida" and "PNM Theory and the Question of Metrics" -- with a host of links in either post that should keep readers busy.

I confess to being both inspired and daunted.  Sometimes, the ideas circling among the intelligence-types and Blogospheric foreign affairs analysts appear to continue suggestive work while missing too many points.  But when I consider what is missing from these explorations, I am assaulted by vague impressions and then, thinking I should add my own interpolations, I am left dreading the prospect.

Three points:

1. Whether networks, waves, noise, complexity, influence, etc., the forces of globalization are almost always explained in ways that should make solidification of the process impossible.  Once they are solidified, they are no longer networks, waves, noise, complexity, nor influence -- at least, on that last point, not subtle influence.
   


2. Despite the apparent and assumed impossibility, assumptions are also made that these processes can be explained or "discovered."   Paradoxically, the more detail that is used to explain them, or to explain the discoveries, the further away from reality these theories appear to draw.  At least, for me.
   


3. At heart, the attempt to isolate, quantify, and qualify the processes of globalization leave me thinking that what is really happening among the intelligence-types and foreign affairs analysts is the imposition of order onto complex/chaotic realities: sometimes, the attempts appear to be ye old love of hierarchy and hierarchical -- perhaps, scaled -- modes of operating being expressed in new ways or, at best, circuitously.

I have myself circuitously approached such criticism before, usually with some significant incoherence.  For instance, in that linked list of notes and reactions, I questioned John Robb's assertions that the emergence of global open source guerrilla movements will be too complex to isolate in advance -- mostly because he then goes on to make qualitative (and somewhat quantitative) predictions related to such an emergence.  Which is it, impossible chaos or mere complexity?  Often, I seem to detect a belief in demons or angels that will operate on the world stage, which will be too vague to call anything else, combined with a wish to declare how they will appear and what they will do and what we can do in reaction to their appearance.

In another, older entry, I compared Thomas Barnett with Alexander the Great:  Alex either truly believed in improving the world by bringing Macedonian culture and structure to that world -- while incorporating the useful structures other cultures suggested -- or Alex merely wanted to control the world.  (Historians disagree.)

I have also stumbled over the term "rule set," since any utilization of the term rule leads quite naturally to thoughts of rulership and rulers of a very human nature.  But since I've made the point several times, I'll not link any given entry.

But, I will say that so much depends on whether those rules are naturally organic -- we discover them -- or are mere mortal creations.

And, I will say that the efforts of Blogospheric theorists on the subject tend to incorporate both kinds.

Thus, all the effort expended on creating definition for globalization and globalism appears to be the work of Grand Masters and their proxies -- although, who is who is not as easy to discern -- and, as a response to emerging paradigms and conflicts, has a very, very, very 5GWish aspect.