Meta-Warfare

[AmericanPride]

I'm not really sure where this train of thought is going yet. I am approaching the dissertation phase of my education, and the closer I get, the less sure I am about which idea/research to pursue. I wonder about the paradigm shift in military-political theory recognized by Clausewitz, and if we are still trapped within that frame of thinking when thinking about warfare. And if we are in the intellectual trap, how do we recognize it and prevent surprise when the paradigm shifts again?

[TheCurmudgeon]

For what it is worth, I believe you are right. I plan to write a short piece on it in the future. But I do believe it deserves a more complete academic review of the topic.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I'm not really sure where this train of thought is going yet. I am approaching the dissertation phase of my education, and the closer I get, the less sure I am about which idea/research to pursue. I wonder about the paradigm shift in military-political theory recognized by Clausewitz, and if we are still trapped within that frame of thinking when thinking about warfare. And if we are in the intellectual trap, how do we recognize it and prevent surprise when the paradigm shifts again?

AP, just letting you know I am going to write something on this. I think our thought patterns are far enough apart for me not to be plagiarizing your idea. I will post an outline when I have one to let you see it.

Good luck on your research.

[AmericanPride]

AP, just letting you know I am going to write something on this. I think our thought patterns are far enough apart for me not to be plagiarizing your idea. I will post an outline when I have one to let you see it.

Good luck on your research.

Sounds good. Looking forward to seeing what you write.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Sounds good. Looking forward to seeing what you write.

Here is the introduction. It lays out the paper

Intro

The purpose of this paper is to explore how defining an enemy’s political center of gravity can help build a strategy to defeat the enemy. The point it to identify primary and supporting elements of our enemy’s political power in order to allow us to better target those power centers. If war is truly an extension of politics by other means, then the source of our enemy’s political power is a valid, if not critical, target. Therefore, accurately identifying that target, and understanding how to eliminate, preempt, or co-opt its power, is a critical part of any strategy.

The paper is laid out in four sections. The first is assumptions and definitions. Terms like “political warfare” and “hybrid warfare” may not have the same meaning to everyone, and it is always useful to explain any assumptions. Second is the idea of a political center of gravity. I explore three primary centers as well as several supporting elements that can reinforce the political center. Next is a short section on the strengths and weaknesses of each political center of gravity. Finally, I will conclude with some thoughts on the offensive and defensive applications of the ideas presented here.

[Bill Moore]

C,

I'm confident you realize this isn't new ground, political warfare is quite old, but like war itself it's character changes based on changes in political, economic, social systems, and technology. It needs to be explored more as a topic, but the CIA, State, USIS, and to a lesser extent special operations have experience in this realm. Victories in this area were generally short lived when applied offensively, but I think it offers a lot of promise employed defensively.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Open for criticism - my draft list of definitions

Definitions
1. Political War. The employment of all the means at a Political Entity’s command, short of organized lethal force, to compel an enemy to do its will.

2. Kinetic War. The employment of organized, legally recognized lethal force by a Political Entity to compel an enemy to do its will.

3. Terrorism. The employment of illegal lethal force by a political actor or Political Entity to compel an enemy to do its will.

4. Hybrid War. The employment of a combination of Political War, Kinetic War, and/or Terrorism by a Political Entity to compel an enemy to do its will. Hybrid War usually involves low-intensity conflict and the true antagonist pressing the conflict may be obscured.

5. Political. The “political” is a principal around which a people identify, organize, and bind themselves separate from other peoples. As used here, it is an abstract, values based ideal separate from politics, which are the day-to-day operations of a political entity. The easiest way to think of it is as the term “political legitimacy” shortened to leave out the term “legitimacy.”

6. Political Entity. A group of people organized around a political ideal. They could be anything from a State to a terrorist organization. They are distinguished from other groups, like criminal or religious organizations, by their intent to control the traditional aspects of political power, like the creation, operation and application of civil and criminal laws; collection of revenue and the distribution of goods and services for the general welfare; the uncontested application of legitimate force; and provisions for the common defense.

7. Political Center of Gravity (PCoG). The PCoG is the source of the Political System’s power. It is what binds the people together as a group and gives them their motivation to act in concert towards a specific political or military goal.

8. Political System. Political systems are typologies of the various ideals people use to bind themselves into a political element with the purpose of controlling the traditional aspects of political power.

9. Autocratic System. A political system where political power emanates from a central authority. The governing authority has absolute, or near absolute power and is not answerable to the general population.

10. Democratic System. A political system where political power emanates from the general population. The governing authority is answerable to the general population, who are the true source of political power.

11. Ideological System. A political system where political power emanates from a guiding Ideology. The governing authority draws it power from the population’s belief in the ideology.

In a footnote I will probably add that Political War may involve the application of covert lethal force on a targeted basis (assassinations, elimination of spies, etc.)

[Bill Moore]

Responses will come in bits and pieces starting with this.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...istory-CIA.pdf

The US Government had to learn how to conduct secret operations in the Cold War. Few precedents existed. The primary mission was relatively straightforward: predict if/how/when the Cold War could become a hot war—to prevent another Pearl Harbor. Paramilitary initiatives also followed from World War II experience.

But what about political warfare, that is, influencing political outcomes without
showing the hand of the US Government? The threat was relatively easy to
grasp, but the possible American responses took some time to develop. As the
eminent diplomat George Kennan put it, “We were alarmed at the inroads of…
Russian influence in Western Europe…particularly over the situation in France
and Italy. We felt that the communists were using…very extensive funds…to gain control of key elements of [political] life in France and Italy, particularly the…press, the labor unions, [and] student organizations.” To counter the threat, in 1948 the Truman Administration decided to use the CIA to provide secret campaign funds to Italy’s pro-western Christian Democratic Party. The Christian Democrats won the election, averting a possible communist takeover and establishing a precedent. The CIA proceeded with operations in Iran—in concert with the British—and in Guatemala to install pro-Western governments.

[TheCurmudgeon]

C,

I'm confident you realize this isn't new ground, political warfare is quite old, but like war itself it's character changes based on changes in political, economic, social systems, and technology. It needs to be explored more as a topic, but the CIA, State, USIS, and to a lesser extent special operations have experience in this realm. Victories in this area were generally short lived when applied offensively, but I think it offers a lot of promise employed defensively.

I do, but I think that distinguishing the nature of the target makes a difference.