I'm really fascinated by the emergence of virtual militias which take on terrorists, insurgents, etc. in the virtual battlespace. Here's one example.
Thoughts on them?
Printable View
I'm really fascinated by the emergence of virtual militias which take on terrorists, insurgents, etc. in the virtual battlespace. Here's one example.
Thoughts on them?
The TV show 60 min. has done one or two shows about theses types of groups. One was actually the mother or sister or some relative of a service member. She kept finding things the pros could not find...had a few death threats sent her way to as I remember... but that didn't stop her. I agree with you Steve these groups could be a true 5th column. Acheiving effects far beyond there costs to support.
The costs are virtually nill, but there are issues. In a nutshell if you empower these groups that are working in the best interest of the nation state are you not also empowering the delegation of nation state powers? Thereby weakening the beneficiary of the volunteer effort? There are other issues, but as long as they remain in the soft power category and out of the kinetic business most treaties and laws don't apply.
I imagine Dr. Metz the fact they found your writing interesting helps a little.
I sometimes resonate with unusual people.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shad...roject066.html
http://newdawnmagazine.com.au/Articl..._Part_One.html
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/lammer1.htm
Hi Sam,
Good points, but I'm not sure how much delegation effect they are having. First off, the nation state has already "delegated" large amounts of sovereignty to trans-national bodies (including private firms). Historically, the US has also delegated an incredible number of sovereign powers to private groups as well (e.g. bounty hunters). I don't think that you an state that the sole beneficiary of the effort is the nation state (which you sort of implied above).
There's another factor playing out in this as well - put simply, nation states are increasingly incompetent at meeting the needs of their people, and many of these needs are now devolved and/or devolving to sub-state groups. This seems to be a fairly long standing trend going back to the late 1960's or so and it seems to be operating across the full spectrum of functions (think neo-tribalism in a globalized context). I think it is pretty much inevitable that groups like this will spring up.
Marc
Marc,
A big difference historically was overt governmental recognition involved in the delegation, at least in the US--things like letters of marque and reprisal being granted to privateers, posses being sworn and issued badges come to mind. I believe that Neighborhood Watch organizations have to do some kind of registration with local law enforcement too. I'm not sure that the folks Selil has in mind have that same approval. In fact I seem to recall a case of a guy being fired from his job and prosecuted for overstepping in a "cyber-sleuthing" effort involving Chinese interests.
The issue raised in your second paragraph is one that I find much more important and see it as having a lot of explanatory power for the current "devolution" of large nation states, which is following a 350 year aggregation of smaller jurisdictions into the national "empires of the 20th Century--only a few (the US, China, India,)are now left and they actually came on to the scene as "nations" quite late after the process began in Europe. Kosovo splitting from Serbia, the Baltic states, White Russians, Ukrines, and the -Stans all splitting with Moscow, are part of the swing of the pendulum that moves between the extremes of centralization and decentralization as the "right" way to meet perceived human needs. Isn't Scotland trying to repudiate the Act of Union?
Hi Wayne,
We had the same thing here, although the situation was compounded (possibly confounded ;)) by the traditional rights of the gentry and aristocracy (and boy does THAT sound weird coming from Canada!). Under a monarchy, the different classes had both rights and obligations - almost a form of shared sovereignty as it were. While the vast majority of that has disappeared, you can still see parts of it running around.
I would suspect that the crowd Selil is talking about don't have official recognition, but do have cultural recognition via your militia meme (i.e. self organization for self-defense as a recognized "right").
That's my guess also. I'm not sure how it will play out in the long run, but I have a suspicion that we will see some form of "Imperial" layer added on top of increasingly small nation states - probably a sub-set of the UN, but also larger than the EU. Then again, it is also possible that we could see a fragmentation into "Imperial" factions along the NAU, EU, ASEAN, China, etc. line - sort of a reversion to te organizational style and form of the last half of the 19th century. I wouldn't want to bet either way right now.
old wall for almost 100 years. The fact is that politicians have been seduced into attempting to provide all things to all people in order to protect their incumbency and feather their bank accounts. It's an appealing concept to many as it allows them to wander through life with no responsibilities and all can simply ask at every turn "What's the government going to do about this?" A worldwide culture of dependency has developed and is fostered by these same politicians who do not want people to think -- thinking people, after all, ask embarassing questions. Note the general decline in Education outcomes in teenagers worldwide...
Since it does possess some appeal it is a difficult concept for those that refuse to think past next week and the political and chattering classes shortsightedly continue to pursue the chimera of ever larger government that is all things to all people. That is patently impossible and, even were it possible, it is absolutely not affordable.
Thus, the Pols are in process of destroying the very thing that provides their livelihood. The result has been the trend noted by all above to smaller and hopefully more effective entities of governance and the fractures are quite predictably on cultural and ethnic lines.
Personally, I'm all for it. Want a Kurdistan? Good idea. Unfortunately, people do not like change and the Pols don't want to see their livelihood frittered away so much of the world will resist such fragmentation. Putin's (and others...) reaction to Kosovo is typical.
They probably ought to get over it. Confronted with devolution in all the places we have cited in this thread and looking at dozens of other places around the world, my suspicion is that the Stateus Giganticus will disappear and be replaced by dozens of Statelets and a series of Confederations as Marc posits (and which will, I'll bet, be somewhat xenophobic and disinclined toward 'multiculturalism') -- and, hopefully, that will happen before the World government fans can achieve their goal. Mankind will be much better off for that...
That of course ties into Steve's basic question and much of the comment above -- if the Guvmint is perceived as not doing something well (or even as some would prefer) then people will react in conglomerations to fill that vacuum. Good for them.
Shame the ruling milieus can't realize that...
I don't doubt that something along the lines of the latter will eventually come along. However, my crystal ball says that we will need some pretty serious multi-regional, if not global, anarchy, of at least an economics/trade sort. When folks start hijacking petroleum and/or food shipments, the pendulum should swing back towards recentralizing power. Wait until the piracy off Somalia starts occurring near Venezuela or at the mouth of the St Lawrence.
Hi Wayne,
I'd say we already have a "pretty serious multi-regional, if not global, anarchy, of at least an economics/trade sort." :wry: As to it swinging back to centralization over a little piracy, nah, I doubt it. Resource theft by pirates can't even come close to resource losses imposed by inefficient bureaucrats ;). I am expecting that we will see a rise in KYFHOesque philosophies that will drive certain neo-tribes to act as strange attractors agains such a resurgence.
Taken from the back cover of "An Empire Wilderness"...
"Everywhere Kaplan travels - from St Louis to Portland, from the fouty-ninth parallel to the banks of the Rio Grande - he finds an America ever more fragmented along lines of race, class, education and geography. An America whose wealthy communities become wealthier and more fortress-like as they become more closely linked to the world's business capitals than to the desolate ghettoes next door. An America where the political boundaries between the states - and between the US and Canada and Mexico - are becoming increasingly blurred, betokening a vast open zone for trade, commerce, and cultural interaction, the nexus of tomorrow's transnational world..."
This was written 10 years ago.
Live well and row
or most of it anyway (Gated communities were rare...) over 30 years ago. A lot was written on that wall in the 1965-75 time frame. Including AQ (generic version) et.al. and todays hot spots. Anyone who paid attention picked up on it. I sure wasn't alone in seeing that at the time, I can recall a number of others who spotted those sorts of things before I did.
Perhaps surprisingly, the US did pick up on it. State informed Nixon after the Munich Olympics in 1972 that terrorism was going to be a problem. Nixon set up both the National Intelligence Council and the Cabinet Committee on Terrorism which in 1977 produced a report that was highly predictive of the coming fragmentation of States, notably, IIRC, predicting the demise of Yugoslavia -- not much was done about it. Carter figured out that oil dependency needed to go due to potential fragmentation in the ME. There were others over in many fields the years, mostly ignored due to domestic politics. So a lot of people realized what was coming -- even before Kaplan wrote that. :wry:
A massive number of folks can spot trends; not all of them are academics, writers, pundits or politicians. ;)
Only politicians seem to diligently ignore said trends... :mad:
And I suspect I and some others also beat Kaplan in 1979 when the Tehran Embassy was seized or in 1982 when all the bad stuff happened in Beirut and we agreed that bad things would come of those events and our failure to respond...
Marc,
The level of serious acts of anarchy I have in mind are something like blocking the St Lawrence Seaway by blowing an oil tanker in the Eisenhower Lock, taking out the Robert Moses Dam and generating plant at the same time, for example.
How about these as possible news stories:
Hijackers holding a few trainloads of grain headed across the the US and Canadian wheat belt (CN or UP trains maybe both) and holding their contents for ransom--"ship them to the people starving in "pick your locale" or we detonate the nuke/dirty bomb we have strapped to the train."
"And in Germany for the third time this week, crowds refusing to pay rising food prices have stormed into a BMA warehouse and taken what they wanted."
This is more what I mean by serious economic anarchy. Of course it would have to be more than just one or two isolated incidents like this.
Hi Wayne
Sounds like Paris :D. No, I understand what you mean by serious acts; I just take the position that they are already happening in some locales and may well spread. They don't really happen in North America yet (barring the mortgage "fun" right now ;)).
Anyway, I don't think "anarchy" is a necessary precondition to te breakdown of nation state sovereignty. Any sub-state (or trans-national organization) can produce a breakdown in national sovereignty and often has. To my mind, it doesn't have to be rioting in the streets per se; it could be the complete de facto rewrite of state economic policy by multi-national corporations or organizations such as GATT and the WTO.
consistently promise more than they can deliver and refuse through political cowardice to lead instead of following the pleas of squeaking wheels. Said rejection by people who have just developed a really significant antipathy to the government of the place at the time, no anarchy or global corporations involved.
A not unheard of series of events...
..........
My point about significant anarchy was not to identify when nation states would start to break down. It was rather to identify when we might start to see the pendulum start to move back towards reaggregation of smaller units into regional cooperative organizations or governmental units.
I concur that the world is already witnessing the rise of intranational breakdowns. However it is still trying to manage that with international conglomerations (the EU, NATO, ASEAN, etc.), but even those are now starting to get frayed at the edges, as we see with national lelvel debates over such things as continued involvement in NATO ISAF missions. Gaining international consensus has started to become ever more difficult as the centralizing tendency is questioned even more by those "have nots" who see themselves as bill-payers for the excesses of the "haves."
Hi Wayne,
This may just be another case of us saying the same, or similar, things with different languages ;). I'm just not sure when it will happen or if it will happen. The historical analogs were all predicated on low speed communications and fairly low technology, both of which make a major difference.
Marc,
I don't doubt that we are experiencing one of those instances of "two people divided by a common language." :D
I believe that speed of communications and level of technology will impact primarily by shortening the pendulum's period of oscillation. In other words, the swings between aggregation of power and disaggregation of power will occur more rapidly, hence more social turbulence will arise. Technological advances allow people to see much more rapidly that they are not alone in their dissatisfaction with the status quo, which makes them more likely to band together to change (the "madness of crowds" phenomenon or what was called a "right on" movement in the '60s). Technology does not, however, provide us with a silver bullet to get past the emotional (and therefore not rationally considered) knee jerk solutions that the dissatisfaction will engender. Of course, I am viewing this as a Westerner, with typical Western lack of patience.
I think it is an insurgent counterinsurgency.
(And my tongue was not in my cheek as I wrote this.)
Furthermore, I think they have a critical role to play. A great deal of what has been published in the MSM has been propoganda. It is impossible for the US Government to effectively counter it. That is the role these groups can fill.
Hi Wayne,
LOLOL - too true!
I think that is one possible solution, but I have a suspicion that centralized aggregation will be on the decrease. My gut is telling me that we are in a period of increasing neo-tribalism where there will be an increasing demand for "governments" to pull back. The flip side, of course, is that the increasing turbulence makes it much more probable that there will be more and more "revitalization movements" appearing selling the glories of a Golden Age that never existed (usually a variant of a centralized government).
Yup - it's one of the reasons why I decided to specialize in sense-making and symbolism; I wanted to get a handle on my world :wry:. Personally, I blame Descarte for most of this since we in the West have pretty much abandoned everything but the material world and, as a result, left us without a) the "technologies" to handle rapid shifts in reality, and b) our collective sense of wonder. Then again, as Stan notes with almost depressing regularity, I am a hopeless romantic :D.
WM,
I caveat the following in saying that the following is based on anecdotal evidence and intuition (thus I have violating rule #1 of effective communication - never put the disclaimer in front) :o....
I would argue that the impact of an omni -present info sphere is less upheaval as opppsed to more. I will use an econ example as an anecdotal piece of evidence... During the Clinton years our economy enjoyed unprescedented growth, low unemployment AND LOW INFLATION. This made teaching MACRO ECONA at USMA, a little dicey.
How can it be so? My feeble thought on the matter is that developed economies (to include our own) still suffer the same cyclical periods of "recession" and "inflation" (I do "this" because I'm not sure the definitions still hold true based on time period), the difference is that the flucuation and magnitude of the sine curve is far less pronounced. Why? A possible explaination is that near-perfect information results in a far more optimized investment decisions from the collective whole. In other words, the reduction in lag time between reality and knowledge of that same reality reduces the flucuation/upheaval of the past. Money chases high returns, regardless of locale
Might this translate to other areas of social activity. I think its likely based on the premise behind the ideas of Adam Smith. It is human nature to act in self-interest. In the example we discussed, I may have more knowledge of those with more, but I also have more knowledge of the impact of social upheaval. Hence, societies will likely reach a stasis and then as a matter of course make rapid minor corrections that result in little "mass upheaval". Of course, getting to that stasis is likely to be a b1tch or this example might not translate. I certainly can't point to any rigorous academic analysis of my premise, but then again it makes sense in the vacuum between my ears.
Now for my final disclaimer... I apologize for the typical stream of consciousness (& poor spelling) that characterize all my postings :)
Live Well and Row
Hi Hacksaw,
Don't know when WM will respond but I just had to jump in <evil grin>.
I think it is important to distinguish between "information", "noise" and "knowledge" here. Information, and I use Bateson's definition as "a difference that makes a difference", does not automatically translate to perception or use of information. You mention the financial markets, but i would suggest to you that they are actually more unstable now than they were 40 years ago due to the proliferation of automation and expert systems as well as massive over production capacities. Like you, I'm only able to toss out anecdotal points, but I think things like Nick Leeson and the Bearings Bank fiasco illustrate some of the problems.
Personally, I don't think it translates. Smith's premise is too focused on a singular facet of human nature and way too "rational". And, while self interest is a motivator, it is not the only one by a long shot. For example, there has been an incredible amount of work done looking at altruism, or at least the ability to fake it in social settings, as a requirement for a society to function.
Second, as a species, we've been on a roller coaster ride for at least 12,000 years ever since some twit decided to settle down and get into horticulture. We have had quasi-stable periods and, as long as change has been fairly slow, say over a 100 year period, we tends to not perceive that change too much. However, every major change in communications technology has also been matched with a fairly major change in social organization and instability. Sure, it tapers off for a while but that is because the technology matures and is absorbed in the culture. At the same time, that technology also acts as a catalyst to produce new communications technologies as it reaches its limits which, in turn, sets off more instabilities.
Personally, I don't think we will see a "stasis" period for a while, but, hey, I could easily be wrong :D.
Marc
I would agree with you if I accepted that we operate in perfection, rational conformance to an informed choice model. But, I am inclined to believe, and that belief is, like yours, based on anecdotal evidence not what would pass for rigorous quantitiative analysis among academic economists, that the more we know, the more we dither about what we will do next and the greater the turbulence. Unfortunately, I doubt that we are like the archangel that R.M. Hare uses to justify utilitarian ethical thinking. As to your anecdote about the Clinton years, I think that is best explained by overt interference by Greenspan and the FED, not an Adam Smith inspired hidden hand in the market.
I hope you remembered your disclaimer about stream-of-consciousness rambling as you tried to fight through the above. PM coming as well.
I suspect that if we believe that the second law of thermodynamics applies to human actiivity, then Hacksaw is right about a stasis--we will lose our impetus to change. In other words, our "get up and go" will get up and go. But, I'm not sure that I want to map the laws of Thermo onto human behavior.
However, another result of applying the 2nd law is that random, chaotic behavior in a closed system must increase over time. I guess the question becomes whether human life on Earth constititues a closed system.
I tried to capture the idea of the pendulum swinging between individualism and nationalism as actor capability and ability. Technology does appear to speed the swing, but it also empowers both the national actor and non-state actor. The US government has used technology substantially to strengthen it's hold. I added a line of perceived corporatism's rise within this system of struggle. Starting with the Renaissance business just keeps getting stronger. I'll do just about anything to not have to read anymore sociology today.
I dunno 'bout that...Quote:
feudalism.
We fight an awful lot down here...
feudalists. Several of 'em, in fact -- both sides of the family... :D
I thought about putting in "rednecks" but being a denizen of the northern woods where we eat smoked spotted owl and cut down trees so you can have a real view us "logger necks" know our southern brethren are just misunderstood.
Redneck is no insult, Sam. I've been all over this country and they're in every State, only the accents differ. We-elll, those down here are a little more polite. Sometimes... ;)
All,
I readily except all criticisms regarding my "construct". Words are important, so the use of "stasis" and near-perfect" information is dubious for supporting rigorous evaluation. I just lack the vocabulary/time to communicate clearly.:(
I would like to clarify that I have no illusion whether this model, if applied to a single actor, would necessarily predict behavior in a micro sense. "Rational" behavior is in the eye of the beholder, but at a Huntington-civilization level I propose that the effect of an ever-present info-sphere will dampen radical upheavals/flucuations if for no other reason that it becomes damn difficult for any single actor/group to maintain the illusion of an alternative "reality". Even the super-powered individual will have difficulties with "staying power"
I suppose we'll just have to agree that the mob is right and I'll wallow in my ignorance:o
Live well and row
Jihad Jane thread over at The Whole News
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=9957
http://ndupress.blogspot.com/2010/04...tias-with.html
From National Defense University Press BlogQuote:
US defenses are insufficient to stop Chinese cyber attacks. The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission estimates that Chinese cyber attacks cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars annually. By way of comparison, this is substantially more than the entire Chinese military budget.
What is needed is a threat that is both capable of forcing China to take notice and that it will believe the United States would execute. Such a threat exists. While China's regime does not appear willing to be deterred by conventional diplomatic or legal complaints, it has demonstrated considerable concern about threats to its censorship apparatus.
The most effective way to threaten Chinese censorship would be for US and partner nations to develop their own cyber militias. Rather than stealing intellectual property and disabling public institutions, however, Western militias would aim at finding ways to bypass Chinese firewalls to spread internet freedom.
America already has cyber militias doing PSYOP, and this is a call for cyber militia CNA.
Saw this on Twitter this morning. Some of you may have heard it.
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/04/132634...w#commentBlock
What lessons can an Estonian Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group, or Cyber Defense League within the Estonian Total Defense League, teach American Computer Network Defenders?Quote:
In the years since that cyberassault, Estonia has distinguished itself once again: Now it is a model for how a country might defend itself during a cyberwar. The responsibility would fall to a force of programmers, computer scientists and software engineers who make up a Cyber Defense League, a volunteer organization that in wartime would function under a unified military command.
"[Our] league brings together specialists in cyberdefense who work in the private sector as well as in different government agencies," Defense Minister Jaak Aaviksoo says. The force carries out regular weekend exercises, Aaviksoo says, "to prepare for possible cyber contingencies."
The unit is but one division of Estonia's Total Defense League, an all-volunteer paramilitary force dedicated to maintaining the country's security and preserving its independence.
I met last June with the CO of the Estonian Defence League (actually had dinner with him and his XO). I also met with the Defence Minister at a meet and greet. While I was in Estonian I was giving a presentation titled "Cyber warfare: As a form of low-intensity conflict and insurgency" which definitely plays out similar to what is discussed in the article. Rain Ottis gave a similar talk titled "From Pitchforks to laptops: Volunteers in cyber conflicts".
Many ideas of the concepts of levee' en masse are present in the European strategy to solve issues in cyberspace. Whereas, here in the United States I can't even think of talking to the bastion of cyber wizardry known as the NSA (now bow towards Ft. Meade). I can discuss with a much wider group of talented individuals options and success strategies in Europe. The European model though flawed in many ways is much more a distributed capability thereby giving much more power to the individual and empowering the state through resilience.
I gave credit to Small Wars Journal in my talk and several members of the council. There is a severe disconnect between the study of conflict and the study of cyber capability. I need schooled on the conflict, but understand the cyber quite well. Bringing together these two populations you would think would be easy. Not so much.
Conscripting Cyber Experts to Protect IT Infrastructure
http://blogs.govinfosecurity.com/posts.php?postID=840
Estonian CND is pretty cool, but how much of what they do in Estonia could Americans do in America?Quote:
Defense Minister Jaak Aaviksoo says it's so important for Estonia to have a skilled cyber army that the authorities may institute a draft to assure every IT expert is available in a national emergency:
"We are thinking of introducing this conscript service, a cyber service. This is an idea that we've been playing around [with]. We don't have the mechanism or laws in place, but it might be one option."
Our new Civilian National Security Force that's just as big and just as well funded as our military might consider drafting all the skiddies who signed up for Low Orbit Ion Cannon.
Sam,
Sadly we couldn't get together during your stay (being made aware of your visit from our SWC agent in Sweden (M1) :D
One of the things with conflict and cyber wizardry in Estonia is a serious generation gap. The older folks spend an enormous amount of time and energy preparing for Russia's return and the youth behind a monitor. Trying to teach someone how to use a spreadsheet is just as challenging to explain and employ as is emergency preparedness to teenagers.
I hope they start concentrating on internet fraud before someone slips in the back door and takes all our Euros :rolleyes:
Happy New Year!
What does SWC's man in Estonia care to share about the Total Defense League?
Kaitseliit
Happy New Year to you too !
There are actually two SWC men in Estonia (Kaur is lurking about or back to his real job east of here :cool: )
That's a difficult question. My previous experience with the Defense League in 95 was mixed. Kind of reminded me of an extremely under-financed militia (some Estonians reminisced of the 1940s and called them the Forest Brothers). Back in 95 (similar to 1940) they were poorly equipped and disorganized as the country was trying hard to concentrate on active duty forces, leaving their national guardsmen to hover for funding. But that didn't stop the League from training and maneuvers where possible. I would later learn that many of my friends and associates were reserve members and were quite active within their assigned units.
In the 1940s the so-called Forest Brothers were responsible for more Russian officer (single shot) kills than any other military unit to include SS death squads. They couldn't afford to squander ammo nor spend too much time in the AO. They adapted well to both the terrain and their own shortcomings (Estonian's rarely whine when the chips are down).
Although they financially fair much better today, most of the older folks tend to hang onto their tried-and-true traditions.
I can't comment much on the Cyber Defense League - just not my background nor interest.
I talked to them about their training. While I was there they were getting top notch training from SANS and others. They are also tied in with NSA, DOD directly, NATO, and a few other organizations around Europe. They have CCD COE there that is a government group, and several of their members are highly regarded here in the United States.
To quote the famous M1, Estonia is a small country with hot chicks. No wonder Stan and Kaur live there.