Can One Man Declare War and Win?
Starting at the beginning at least close.
Page 8 from BNW: Over time in as little as twenty years, and as the leverage by technology increases, this threshold will finally reach its culmination- with the ability of one man to declare war on the world and win. it is in italics in the book, I put it in bold to show the author's emphasis. Does the council think this is a possibility?
Not yet, but in the future
I'm relying on memory, but I thought the author said in the future one man could declare war and win? I think this would require us to define war first, and I don't think we want to go down that rathole now. However, I do think it is possible for one man (especially in the future) to have extensive coercive power over a State if he can convincably present a viable threat, whether it is a biological attack, a computer virsus (that can undermine our economy), or something else along those lines. Somewhere in the book he refers to the superempowered individual, which I think is already true to some degree (one man now can create a disproportionate amount of disruption compared to one man could do in the 1970s) due to the proliferation of knowledge and technology and the centralization of our global economy. That capability will increase with time. Imagine one man releasing a catastrophic bio-agent effectively in a major city, and then contacting a government with his demands, or else he'll release it in another city? Can one man destroy the U.S. or U.K for example, perhaps but that is stretch. Can one man make the U.S. or U.K. dance to his demands?
Mobilizing Global Guerillas
I wonder if he meant that through the the ability to "connect" his message with others looking for a cause, 1 man could mobilize a great deal of trouble? This gets into Bill's comment about defining war though. While this 1 man's mobilization could be limited to a denial of service movement, it could also say - all of you who beleive my cause to be just, meet me at the gun swap meet, and we'll go from there. Theoretically (with out the mechanisms for catching such folks), a fellow could mobilize a global audience - into global guerillas. This gets to Friedman's point about the big being able to act small and the small being able to act big through the power of the Internet.
Are we limiting the discussion?
I'll play the opposite side to dig a little deeper - since the role individual "global guerillas" is a central component of Robb's book.
I had to ask myself if it was just my preconceptions about "war", or maybe my mental agitation with the idea that an individual or even a small group could enter into the realm of states, or the large organizations we are now familiar with. Some valid points were made about occupation, etc. However, here I think Slapout has an advantage with his LE perspective in that perhaps he understands better the motivations of individuals better then me.
So while Robb may have used the word "war" to help Joe Public digest it, maybe what he means is that the individual or small group perceives his/their action as war - sort of a Michael Douglas (what was the name of that movie) character but perhaps with online charisma - lots of connections, a thorough IT knowledge, and a motive). It is still a challenge to the state, and to stabilization - particularly if the act generates random "copy cat" acts, or spawns a group movement. Perhaps that is the motivation, the idea that one guy says "I'll show them". These individuals can become linked in with other groups through the Internet on a global scale - look at the JFK guy who was headed to Iran. Global communications has put people who lack means in touch with people who have them - it might be a state, or it might be an wealthy individual or organization inside of a state.
Who does Joe citizen identify AQ with? Why are the Democrats able to say that to defeat terrorism we must go to Afghanistan and hunt Bin Laden? You'd think they have the cave number and sat phone #. It doesn't matter that the Democratic presiential candidates either don't understand or don't want to address the decentralized nature of the threat, they are making political capital out of it as a theme because Iraq is a political issue. Its a matter of perception and those perceptions have influence.
I think Robb reached out and grabbed the first term and he had that made the most sense and would be widely understood. I think he is tryng to start a discussion on how the world is changing and what thse conditions have enebled. I'm not much on the description of "war" as a "contest of the minds" either, but I'm willing to entertain it and see where he takes it - it may not fit in my world, but I'll massage it some for the discussion. I suspect there is going to be allot more discussion and constructive argument in regards to Robb's views. I'm a natural skeptic who asks "what is a person selling", but I think he has some useful insights.