Meta-Warfare

[OUTLAW 09]

This is exactly why the US cannot and is not capable of responding to Russian political warfare and countering Russian cyber and information warfare....

"The world is moving too fast for the institutions we created in the 20th century." - General Jones

That is why social media and IT security companies are in fact leading the pushback...not the US government or it's agencies...and that includes DoD/DoS...as they are not tied to the 20th century structures....

[TheCurmudgeon]

Outlaw, when I get to a real computer and can type I want to respond to some comments you made earlier on Kirkullen.

Right now I want to go back to a point I believe Bill C made, that using the term "Political Warfare" is imprecise and confusing. The obvious alternative is "Political Conflict" but that seems too weak. Does anyone have another suggestion.

[Bill Moore]

I wouldn't worry about the confusion, don't define it, but describe it. The description will morph over time as its character changes. Army SF did more harm than good when it narrowly "defined" UW along organizational lines (underground, auxiliary, guerrilla force), which is basically nothing more than another weapon system to coerce. Political warfare is complex and many facets, that is just the way it is. If you do define it you'll have to limit your discussion to the narrow definition you applied to it. I know that is the army way, but then again the army is still trying to figure out how to use military force to achieve political objectives (different than political warfare) in the 21st Century.

[OUTLAW 09]

I wouldn't worry about the confusion, don't define it, but describe it. The description will morph over time as its character changes. Army SF did more harm than good when it narrowly "defined" UW along organizational lines (underground, auxiliary, guerrilla force), which is basically nothing more than another weapon system to coerce. Political warfare is complex and many facets, that is just the way it is. If you do define it you'll have to limit your discussion to the narrow definition you applied to it. I know that is the army way, but then again the army is still trying to figure out how to use military force to achieve political objectives (different than political warfare) in the 21st Century.

Actually a very good thought as it then allows the description to morph as does the environment....

IMHO I am far more concerned about "how that political warfare looks....feels....thinks....acts"....as they are the elements that a country being "attacked" will see and need to counter......

I know I am on a soap box but we are in fact "losing" the "war" and in my daily world it is a "grind it out war" against cyber and information warfare which both drives and supports "political warfare"....

This confirms a lot of what I have been saying when I say the US is losing...on both fronts...cyber and info warfare...

The US Takes On the World in NATO’s Cyber War Games in Tallinn
https://www.wired.com/2017/04/us-tak...eshare#… via @WIRED

In this cyber war game, the Czechs won. The US came in 12th—a step up from last year's dead last.

Many readers here wonder why I keep repeating over and over..we are in fact losing to the Russian cyber and information war directed straight at the US..the above article answers that question in a very clear and concise way.

While we might have the greatest movers and shakers in Silicon Valley we have lost our tech edge and advantages in the cyber era long ago...as we do not focus on the younger generation and drive their tech learning/training/education opportunities as do a lot of other countries...who clearly recognize that value...

[davidbfpo]

Citing Outlaw09's last post in part:

While we (USA) might have the greatest movers and shakers in Silicon Valley we have lost our tech edge and advantages in the cyber era long ago...as we do not focus on the younger generation and drive their tech learning/training/education opportunities as do a lot of other countries...who clearly recognize that value...

In the UK there has been an attempt to recruit young "techies" into government-run cyber roles in the last six years, which is reportedly hard to achieve. One explanation is the private sector pays better, shocking. Then there is the cultural aspect, are government, let alone military institutions in peacetime (as seen by them) places they would fit happily into.

A few years ago I attended a mainly British Army attendee conference on information operations; the vast majority of army attendees were either over-fifty or retirees on contracts. Hardly encouraging IMHO.

GCHQ and the Cabinet Office both have schemes, or are they plots underway to attract and educate talent. We shall see if they work.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Many readers here wonder why I keep repeating over and over..we are in fact losing to the Russian cyber and information war directed straight at the US..the above article answers that question in a very clear and concise way.

While we might have the greatest movers and shakers in Silicon Valley we have lost our tech edge and advantages in the cyber era long ago...as we do not focus on the younger generation and drive their tech learning/training/education opportunities as do a lot of other countries...who clearly recognize that value...

I would argue that we will never win an information war with Russia because any attack on Russian information is futile. The government power is not based in popular support, so information given to the general population will be of no effect. As long as we think that information will beat a dictator, we will be on the losing end of the war.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I am going to shift to "Political Hostilities." I want to be clear that what is happening does not include organized lethal violence. Discussions in the area are muddied enough. I would prefer some clear lines drawn in defining terms.

A political entity can engage in War Overtly, as in a declared war like Russia in Syria; Covertly, as in undeclared wars like Russia in the Ukraine; or via surrogates or proxies, like Russian support of the Taliban in Afghanistan. They can engage in Political Hostilities either independent of war or in conjunction with any of the three types of war.

The point of these terms are to identify WHAT is being conducted, not HOW it is being conducted. Terms like Irregular Warfare defines a HOW; a set of tactics used by the combatants.

This creates a quandary for me, as I see Terrorism as a HOW and not a WHAT. I my have to compromise on this one.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Next Section:

III. Strengths and Weaknesses.

As an opponent in a battle of political wills, each of the three Political Systems has strengths and weaknesses.

Autocratic Systems.

Strengths. An Autocratic System’s greatest strength is that all of the elements of national power are concentrated in a limited group of key players, including the entity's leader. This means that attacks on, or attempts to influence, other sources of power, like the population, are likely to be ineffectual. Depending on how repressive the regime is willing to be, even attempting to exploit cleavages in ethnic or religious segments of society may have little effect.

Weaknesses. In any medium to large size political entity, control cannot be effectively wielded by one person. This means that there will be a groups of close confidants or even family members, -- the Vassals -- who will have direct influence on the autocrat and some level of control. Some may even have aspirations to be the autocrat someday. Also, the autocrat’s ability to project power, both internally and externally, will be based on their security services, including their military. Finally, the autocrat needs to control the economy to be able to keep their Vassals happy and fund their military/security services. All of these are appropriate targets.

Democratic Systems.

Strengths. A Democratic System’s strength lies in its ability to distribute authority over a large number of people, who will act independently, but with a common purpose. Democracies tend to be wealthier, and because the population are not constrained by a centrally controlled market system, their economies will tend to be more diverse, which means that the economy itself is less likely to be effectively targeted.

Weaknesses. A Democratic System’s greatest weakness is its population, who can be fickle and easily influenced by demagogues. This makes coordinated action difficult to maintain over the long term except in times of direct threat (real or perceived). Also, ethnic or religious cleavages are easily exploited, as well as any other method that divides the unity of the group.

Ideological Systems.

Strengths. An Ideological System’s strength lies in its adherent’s dedication to the ideology. This devotion is individualized, which means that, unlike the Autocratic System, no single leader or group of leaders is likely to be critical to the group’s survival. This individualized devotion means that, like a Democratic System, authority to act can be distributed. It is also not dependent on a military or a security service to survive or even expand. A dedicated follower can always find a weapon to use against the enemy of the ideology.

Weaknesses. A purely Ideological System is a one-trick-pony. It is belief that the ideology is inevitably correct that keeps it alive. This presents an ideological group with two problems. First, if it wants to grow, it must gain (or conquer) new converts. Second, if it fails to meet the expectations of the followers, the ideology may lose its control over the population. This means that the two primary ways to defeat an ideology is either through discrediting the ideology or through exhaustion.