Meta-Warfare

[TheCurmudgeon]

Bill,

Thanks. I have the Kennan Memo as well as some other documents. My definition is a mix of Kennan and Clausewitz. I am trying to stick with a "bright line" distinction of 1) Political - Less than organized Lethal Violence, 2) Kinetic - Organized Legal Lethal Violence, and 3) Terrorism - Organized Illegal Lethal Violence. Hybrid is a mix, usually on a Low Intensity level.

I don't expect to spend a lot of time on them. I just want it clear (as it can be) what I am talking about so that definitional arguments do not get in the way.

I do agree with the second part, about who wins (although I disagree in general with the Liberty Point article, which seems to be designed for domestic, not international conflicts). I think this is because we rarely recognize we are at war, or we misinterpret what is war for simple propaganda or terrorism. I also believe that Democracies are particularly vulnerable to this kind of attack, particularly at election time. Part of the reason for my taking up the subject.

[TheCurmudgeon]

More grist for the mill ...

"II. The Political Center of Gravity
The idea of an enemy’s center of gravity (CoG) originates with Clausewitz. He did not use the term consistently, and whether is it truly useful to military commanders is a matter of some dispute. As used here, it is the source of a Political Entity’s power. It that respect, it represents the prime target for Influence Campaigns. If our aim is to bend the enemy’s political will, then the PCoG represents the metaphorical point that we want to concentrate our major efforts.

The problem is that the PCoG is not a piece of armament or a physical location on the battlefield. It is a value laden ideal. It is, in a manner of speaking, an idea about how and why a people bind them together into a Political Entity. But more importantly, it is the source of political decision-making. Any attack on an enemy is designed to affect the enemy’s political will. Even in Kinetic War, it is so. You attack and destroy the enemy’s armies to cause the enemy to lose their will to fight. The destruction of the enemy is the act, but the goal is to cause the enemy to lose their will. The ultimate aim of the physical attack is to affect in the ethereal world of the PCoG.

I identify three types of PCoG: Autocratic, Democratic, and Ideological. These are pure types in the Weberian sense. No real Political Entity exists in these pure forms. But by using pure forms it makes them easier to recognize in the real world. It also makes their advantages and disadvantages clearer.

Autocratic Systems are the easiest to define. Except for some forays into Democratic governance in Ancient Greece and Rome, this this has been the dominant system of governance throughout the world’s history. These are the Monarchies, Empires, Principalities, and other political entities where political power vests in the central leader and their vassals. Historically power transferred down family lines. In the modern age the transition to power is rarely a matter of birthright. Power is seized by the dictator, with or without force, and legitimized by an election where there is only one viable candidate. This is often done with the backing of the majority of the population. As used here, the true autocratic system is not one where the population is enslaved. The majority of the population supports the dictator and is willing to fight and die for them. Think of Hitler or Kim Jong Un. The main point is that, in the eyes of the majority of the population, political power rightly vests in the person of the central leader, making the central leader the appropriate target of any Influence Campaign.

Democratic Systems are relatively new on the world stage. Once seen as the end of history, democracies have been in the decline in the last few years. Democracies are built on the ideal that political power vests in the individual and is granted to the government by the individual. The government acts on behalf of the people to advance the general welfare. Unlike an Autocratic System, the government is answerable to the general population, usually through elections. This means that the true source of political power is the general population and the appropriate target of an Influence Campaign is the general population.

Ideological Systems see a deeply held belief system as the source of political authority. These systems are rare. In most cases an ideology plays a supporting role in either a Democratic or an Autocratic system. For example, the ideal of human rights is a foundational belief in a Democracy, but political power still resides in the people. Three examples are Communism, Fascism, and Political Islam. In each the tenants of the ideology subsume the traditional aspects of political authority listed above. People follow these systems because they believe the core tenants of the Ideology represent revealed truth. Following the Ideology is not just the right path for the adherents, but the true path for all mankind. In that sense Ideological Systems are the most dangerous. All Ideological Systems require human actors to administer the system. There will be a Party Chair or a Caliph, but they are only worldly vessels. The real power lies in the Ideology. Which means the primary target of an Influence Campaign designed against an Ideological System is the Ideology itself."

I also had to add a definition:

12. Influence Campaign. A suite of operations that may include activities that fall into any, or all, of the forms of War (including Terrorism), designed to bend the will of, or destroy, the PCoG.

[Bill Moore]

A PCOG can be control over a nation's security forces. If there is chaos in the street, and the government in power loses control of its ability to impose control, then it will likely fall. We saw this play out during the Arab Spring, and the different outcomes between those who did and didn't. Kilcullen describes how terrorists wage political warfare through competitive control. They create chaos and a great deal of uncertainty, and then establish a new form of governance that reduces uncertainty. The communists did a form of this. Not all forms of political warfare are non-violent. What makes it political warfare is the objective.

[TheCurmudgeon]

A PCOG can be control over a nation's security forces. If there is chaos in the street, and the government in power loses control of its ability to impose control, then it will likely fall. We saw this play out during the Arab Spring, and the different outcomes between those who did and didn't. Kilcullen describes how terrorists wage political warfare through competitive control. They create chaos and a great deal of uncertainty, and then establish a new form of governance that reduces uncertainty. The communists did a form of this. Not all forms of political warfare are non-violent. What makes it political warfare is the objective.

But if there is chaos in the streets, something else has failed. That failure could be the result of strictly internal factors, or it could be the result of external Influence Operations. Destruction of the existing PCoG may be acceptable, but not if it creates a worse situation than the one that existed before.

[Bill Moore]

I'm looking at political warfare as practiced by other actors, not just the U.S. If part of PW is defense, perhaps counter UW in this case, then we need to understand the different strategies that may be employed against us. Sounds like you are focused on how the U.S. can employ it?

[TheCurmudgeon]

I'm looking at political warfare as practiced by other actors, not just the U.S. If part of PW is defense, perhaps counter UW in this case, then we need to understand the different strategies that may be employed against us. Sounds like you are focused on how the U.S. can employ it?

I am not looking at it as practiced by anyone. I am looking at it from a generic point of view. How does what I have said makes it U.S. unique?

[TheCurmudgeon]

I'm looking at political warfare as practiced by other actors, not just the U.S. If part of PW is defense, perhaps counter UW in this case, then we need to understand the different strategies that may be employed against us. Sounds like you are focused on how the U.S. can employ it?

I am pretty sure no one in the U.S.A. believes that Autocratic Systems are anything but oppressive governments where the population are downtrodden slaves who have no choice but to obey their overlords. In their minds there is no such thing as a popularly supported Dictator.

[Bill Moore]

I am pretty sure no one in the U.S.A. believes that Autocratic Systems are anything but oppressive governments where the population are downtrodden slaves who have no choice but to obey their overlords. In their minds there is no such thing as a popularly supported Dictator.

True in many cases, not all. However, that gets to my point about security forces being the COG versus a competitive idea or ideology. If the autocratic government is unpopular, then its center of gravity is arguably their control of their security forces. Severing the relationship is not sufficient, the opponent of the autocrat (whether internal or external to the country) still needs to generate a mass movement.

KJU in DPRK is an extreme case, where many people seemly believe the rest of the world lives in the same condition and KJU is truly the anointed one. However, more information getting in via business contacts, balloons, DVDs, etc. may develop cracks that can be exploited. If messaging from outside via the U.S., China, or South Korea promises a degree of economic and safety status quo to the security forces then a regime change is possible, but it will still be an autocratic government, but maybe one willing to work with the rest of the world?

Just throwing ideas out, the topic of PW fascinates me, and the Russians actually think we're quite good at it, even if we don't agree

[Azor]

Lt. Col.,

A couple of questions:

Firstly, are you conflating the terms "war" and "conflict"? The Cold War was a conflict that involved a series of violent wars and non-violent soft power, as well as violent and non-violent criminal activities.

Secondly, what does victory over or defeat of an adversary look like? For instance, if Putin is overthrown, would a civil war be considered a victory? Was victory achieved in Iraq or Libya? Can containment or deterrent of a threat be considered a victory? Basically defeat can range from behavior modification to incarceration to physical destruction...

[TheCurmudgeon]

Lt. Col.,

A couple of questions:

Firstly, are you conflating the terms "war" and "conflict"? The Cold War was a conflict that involved a series of violent wars and non-violent soft power, as well as violent and non-violent criminal activities.

Secondly, what does victory over or defeat of an adversary look like? For instance, if Putin is overthrown, would a civil war be considered a victory? Was victory achieved in Iraq or Libya? Can containment or deterrent of a threat be considered a victory? Basically defeat can range from behavior modification to incarceration to physical destruction...

To your first point, yes I am conflating the two. I will have to clarify that later.

To your second, I haven't gotten there yet. However, victory would look different in every situation. Take the Spanish Elections. Al Qaeda used violence (train bombings) for the political purpose of persuading Spain to remove its troops from Iraq. The government that was elected did so. That was victory. Since the point is to influence your adversary to do you will, victory could be as little as getting them to sign a favorable trade deal, or it could be as great as regime change.

[Azor]

To your first point, yes I am conflating the two. I will have to clarify that later.

To your second, I haven't gotten there yet. However, victory would look different in every situation. Take the Spanish Elections. Al Qaeda used violence (train bombings) for the political purpose of persuading Spain to remove its troops from Iraq. The government that was elected did so. That was victory. Since the point is to influence your adversary to do you will, victory could be as little as getting them to sign a favorable trade deal, or it could be as great as regime change.

I prefer the term "conflict" to "war", in this case. When I'm enjoying a UFC match and it turns into a bloody slugfest, I refer to it as a "war" and not a "conflict". Terms such as "economic warfare" and "lawfare" make sense, but for instance, the "Arab-Israeli Conflict" encompasses a number of wars, terrorist acts, police actions and non-violent struggles.

Indeed, the Spanish response to the Al Qaeda attack was absolutely craven, and contrasted to the French reaction to Daesh's attacks.