Threat or Opportunity: non-violent protest?

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Fuches,

It's not the communications, but the organising.

The organizers agree with you that organization was critical, but the means they used to form a community (organize) to mobilize was Facebook. Not only did they effectively garner support from within Egypt, they garnered international support, which limited the options for the Gov of Egypt.

IT is important, yes it just a tool, just like strategic bombers, satellite communications, nuclear weapons, submarines, etc., but it is apparent that tools can make things possible that were not previously possible.

[Fuchs]

It should nevertheless be understood that it's not the communication tool, but the organising that counts. The absence of communication tools does no suppress self-organisation. It merely reduces the options of the people for self-organising themselves.

[Dayuhan]

The organizers agree with you that organization was critical, but the means they used to form a community (organize) to mobilize was Facebook. Not only did they effectively garner support from within Egypt, they garnered international support, which limited the options for the Gov of Egypt.

IT is important, yes it just a tool, just like strategic bombers, satellite communications, nuclear weapons, submarines, etc., but it is apparent that tools can make things possible that were not previously possible.

These things were previously possible, and were previously accomplished. There was no Facebook during the fall of Marcos in the Philippines, or during the popular revolts in Poland, Romania, et al. No Facebook during the French Revolution.

People use the tools they have. Now that we have mobile phones and internet it's hard to believe that people ever lived or rebelled without them... but they did. Focusing on Facebook and Twitter as enablers makes it all seem very modern, 5G, and open source, but they were and are only tools, and looking too much at the tools can distract from equally important factors.

Loss of fear is critical. These events typically start with small rallies, marches, etc. If the populace perceives that the government is not cracking down and that security forces seem reluctant to break up actions, the size rapidly surges, in a process that can take only days, even hours. These things don't just happen because popular disaffection rises, they happen because government control wanes. Both factors have to be in place for success.

[Jedburgh]

These things were previously possible, and were previously accomplished. There was no Facebook during the fall of Marcos in the Philippines, or during the popular revolts in Poland, Romania, et al. No Facebook during the French Revolution.

People use the tools they have. Now that we have mobile phones and internet it's hard to believe that people ever lived or rebelled without them... but they did. Focusing on Facebook and Twitter as enablers makes it all seem very modern, 5G, and open source, but they were and are only tools, and looking too much at the tools can distract from equally important factors....

The Economist, 17 Dec 11: How Luther went viral: Five centuries before Facebook and the Arab spring, social media helped bring about the Reformation

Modern society tends to regard itself as somehow better than previous ones, and technological advance reinforces that sense of superiority. But history teaches us that there is nothing new under the sun. Robert Darnton, an historian at Harvard University, who has studied information-sharing networks in pre-revolutionary France, argues that “the marvels of communication technology in the present have produced a false consciousness about the past—even a sense that communication has no history, or had nothing of importance to consider before the days of television and the internet.” Social media are not unprecedented: rather, they are the continuation of a long tradition. Modern digital networks may be able to do it more quickly, but even 500 years ago the sharing of media could play a supporting role in precipitating a revolution. Today’s social-media systems do not just connect us to each other: they also link us to the past.

[Bob's World]

Its the breakthroughs in technology that are relevant in their time to disrupt the status quo.

Roman Roads allowed Legions to march and counter-march about the empire; and connected disparate populaces in unprecedented ways. All roads led to Rome, and the Barbarians followed them there...

Gutenberg invents a printing press, and a European populace controlled through ignorance and the Catholic Church was able to soon read, write and think for themselves; and those with political agendas soon recognized the power in Luther's work and converted it to their purpose. Within 200 years Western Europeans had developed the concept of the modern nation-state and had leveraged associated breakthroughs in technology to conquer and dominate the globe. The Holy Roman Empire faded from the scene.

A global grid of telegraph cables allowed Britain to dominate the second half of the 19th Century; but as populaces read of revolts in one corner of the empire in their own corner a day later, the costs of controlling such a vast empire soon came to exceed the benefit. Information could be everywhere at once, but the Army still moved at the speed of horse and steam.

The Soviets dominated post-WWII Eastern Europe, but could not control the information flowing from Satellites into the homes of the populaces they sought to divide, suppress and exploit. It shocked the world when those populaces so empowered rose up in a wave the Soviets declined to put down.

Following collapse of the Soviets tensions among the many populaces of the Middle East began to slowly build. Western manipulations of legitimacy and sovereignty of governance to contain the Soviets were benign in comparison, but faced increasing resistance as they shifted from being "the lesser of two evils" to simply being "the evil." Cellular phones, wireless Internet, social media all served to not only share grievances and motivation, but also allowed savvy insurgents to develop new tactics of networked operations and provided the ability to skip the time-honored (and highly vulnerable and dangerous) organization phase of insurgency. "Flash Mobs" and instantaneous and continuous global news cycle quickly put tired and despotic regimes on their back foot, and left Western powers in shock as their carefully crafted schemes of influence and manipulation began to unravel.

Over the years, these breakthroughs always precede change where change is needed. An associated shift of sovereignty being vested in one man, one family or one class and a trend to distribute it back across the people follows. Such changes are typically resisted, and almost always slow and messy. They are also unstoppable.

[Bill Moore]

Its the breakthroughs in technology that are relevant in their time to disrupt the status quo.

Precisely, the world changes constantly, even as certain aspects remain consistent. There were wars before we had gun powder, but I wouldn't recommend showing up to a conflict today with a shield and sword. I wouldn't recommend developing a defense strategy based on the fact that wars have always existed, but rather design a strategy based on how your projected adversaries will fight. You can't live in the real world and reject the impact of new technologies. If a State wants to compete for influence, then it better appreciate the new technologies that its citizens are using.

Technology more than anything else has disrupted the status quo throughout history, and those who have failed to adapt generally fell.

[Bob's World]

This is why I find recent DoD thinking on Cyber and A2/AD so scary. Some domains opened by breakthroughs in technology require the power of a big state to play in. The Sea, under the sea, the air, and space all to varying degrees. But Cyber? This is a democratic domain where all have equal access.

We have created tremendous cyber-based capabilities over the past 20 years, and have created equal cyber vulnerabilities in stride. Instead of doubling down on those bets in pursuit of broad new missions in an age of declining budgets, we need to refocus.

Are we maximizing the cyber domain to conduct our core operations and activities? I think SOF has some work to do there. Are we still trained, organized and equipped to conduct those same operations and activities if forced to play unplugged? I fear not.

What happens when the Sat Comms go down, the GPS data stops, the Drones all drift out of control, the Op center screens go black and all neck down to a couple FM or HF channels and a map on the wall; the computers in the fire direction centers black out; Are we ready? No cyber defense, certainly none we can afford, can prevent this. We need to be ready to continue the mission when the lights go out.

when breakthroughs in technology favor big states, there isn't much disruption. But when they involve information and favor the individual??? Time to hang on tight, this ride is going to get interesting. "Non-violence" is not limitied to putting flowers in gun barrels and standing in front of tanks; it also includes kicking the plug out of the wall on state and military capabilities as necesary to make one's point. It won't be the "rise of the machines" that takes us out, it will be the "rise of the individual."

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Bob's World,

This is why I find recent DoD thinking on Cyber and A2/AD so scary. ome domains opened by breakthroughs in technology require the power of a big state to play in. The Sea, under the sea, the air, and space all to varying degrees. But Cyber? This is a democratic domain where all have equal access.

We have created tremendous cyber-based capabilities over the past 20 years, and have created equal cyber vulnerabilities in stride. Instead of doubling down on those bets in pursuit of broad new missions in an age of declining budgets, we need to refocus.

Cyber enables individuals and poorly resourced groups to wreck disproportionate havoc on a range of potential targets from Corporations to governments. The power of advanced States to attack their adversary's cyber systems is a little frightening.

Are we maximizing the cyber domain to conduct our core operations and activities? I think SOF has some work to do there. Are we still trained, organized and equipped to conduct those same operations and activities if forced to play unplugged? I fear not.

What happens when the Sat Comms go down, the GPS data stops, the Drones all drift out of control, the Op center screens go black and all neck down to a couple FM or HF channels and a map on the wall; the computers in the fire direction centers black out; Are we ready? No cyber defense, certainly none we can afford, can prevent this. We need to be ready to continue the mission when the lights go out.

We can pretend we'll just go back to HF comms in SF, but the reality is quite different. It will take time to adapt our C4I systems (and just as importantly our command and control procedures, since we're now accustomed to a high degree of micromanagement). We're also accustomed to near real time comms, video feeds on targets, and GPS guided weapons. None of these challenges are insurmountable, but the transition period would leave us vulnerable to an aggressive enemy who was capable of exploiting our confusion.

when breakthroughs in technology favor big states, there isn't much disruption. But when they involve information and favor the individual??? Time to hang on tight, this ride is going to get interesting. "Non-violence" is not limitied to putting flowers in gun barrels and standing in front of tanks; it also includes kicking the plug out of the wall on state and military capabilities as necesary to make one's point. It won't be the "rise of the machines" that takes us out, it will be the "rise of the individual."

The rise of the individual is important, but it is wrong to dismiss the potential disruptions that can concur when States acquire certain forms of technology. They can be just as significant, if not more so, than the rise of the individual.