Meta-Warfare

[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

[TheCurmudgeon]

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

I see your point, and will have to address it later. I am hesitant to use the security forces as a singular entity. Think about Turkey, or even Thailand. In both cases the military have been actively involved in supporting or attacking regimes. But also it was not necessarily the security force that had the last word. The general population either supported the military or attacked them. So I am not sure it is as simple as we like.

I will throw out the next section, which covers supporting PCoG, and will definitely include security forces.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Rough draft - second part of PCoG discussion.

"Secondary Types. All Political Entities exist within a socio-cultural system. They are a part of that system, but not the only part. Other elements of that system interact with the Political Entity and can either support it or oppose it. The oft cited elements of national power – Diplomatic, Information, Military, and Economic (DIME) -- are just such elements and represent tools that one nation can use to influence another. But, like tracers, they go both ways.

There are a myriad of supporting, or secondary types. The easiest way to think of these secondary types is through the metaphor of a man standing on a stool. The man is the primary PCoG. If I can influence him directly, I win. If I can’t, then I must look for another way. The secondary types are the legs of the stool. If I can cut deeply enough into one or more of those legs, I might be able to make the man unsteady, thus influencing the man just as if I had done it directly. Although there are probably dozens of secondary types, this paper only addresses a few.

Economic System/Support. Humans are economic animals. The complex social systems we build depend on economic activity. The people who make up every polity depend on the economic system to provide them with the opportunity to obtain the goods and services they need to survive and thrive. Even in the most independent of systems, the people still look to the political entity to provide the framework for a dependable economic system.

Security Forces. Security forces provide the basis of power for all political entities. In the case of a State, these are often the military and/or other security and intelligence agencies. In States, and lessor polities, these can also include private contractors or mercenaries, or militias made up of irregular forces.

Vassals or Key Supporters. These are individuals who provide the political leadership critical financial, military, or political support. In an Ideological System, these will include the actual leadership.

Ethnicity. Outside of family, ethnicity is probably the strongest physiological bond humans experience. It is often a critical part of how one defines themselves. It most likely defines what language a person speaks, what type of food the person grew-up eating, what region of the world the person lives, and potentially what religion they believe in as well as a plethora of cultural icons, common myths and fables, and historical stories. It provides an instant connection with others of the same ethnicity.

Religion. Religions provide not just a set of guiding moral principals, but also a sense of purpose. Religious leaders often are well respected in the community and are looked upon to provide guidance in difficult times.

Political Ideology. There are many political ideologies. Sometimes these are pure political theories, like Democracy or Anarchy. Sometimes they are a combination of political and economic theory, like Communism, Monarchy, and Socialism. On occasion, the political ideology and the Political System align, as in Democracy, but this is usually not the case. In most cases, the political ideology acts as a framework that bolsters and justifies the Political System. As such, while attacks against a political ideology will be useful, they are unlikely to be dispositive.

Individual Human Rights. Historically speaking, this is a new concept that is primarily a 17th Century Western invention. This is the idea that each person is a coequal with all other people when it comes to certain aspects of human life. These aspects are usually referred to as rights or freedoms, and include freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom to choose one’s own path in life.

National myths and Icons. Although often overlooked, a people are also bound by their common myths and Icons. In America, the Icon of Uncle Sam looms large in patriotic symbolism, as do stories of the founding fathers. These icons and stories can be used to support a political leader, or to attack them."

[AmericanPride]

Did political warfare exist before the modern nation-state? During feudalism, tribalism, or the ancient Roman/Greek era(s), were there forms of warfare that existed that don't now, or vice versa?

Realism obviously has a major influence in today's political-military thinking. Even self-professed true believers, whether communist or Islamist or fascist, are met with cynicism about their motives and their actions re-framed in the realist prism, which is a framework for nation-state conflict. But even fascism at its ideological core believed in warfare (and violence generally) as more than just diplomacy by other means- it was a purifying force for the individual and the nation. The state was the tool for war, not war a tool for the state.

A related question: when machines drive supply convoys, refuel unmanned aircraft, and perform increasingly more complex combat tasks, what happens to warfare? And when there are vast social changes - such as the displacement of factory workers, truck drivers, servers, and warehousing people - what happens to the political system? In some countries, the military forms a portion of the state's social welfare program, keeping the restless employed and off the street. Is that our future?

[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.

[TheCurmudgeon]

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

But the point is, they got what they wanted. They wanted the Spanish out of Iraq and they got it. They did not have to invade Spain. They did not have to do anything other than the bombing. It is one of the best examples of Terrorism succeeding. Plus, it would only work in a Democratic System. It was the population who capitulated and voted for the party who promised to get Spain out of Iraq. It is a perfect example of what I am talking about.