The National Defense Strategy is Not

[Bill Moore]

Thanks for the response Bill.

Last week I submitted an article for the US Army Mad Scientist 2030 writing competition that covers “geodigital strategy” in a fictional scenario against “Donovia” used as a proxy for China.

I’m happy to send thru a copy(although about 4500 words) if you’re interested.

But in short:

GeoDigital Strategy: A fictional subfield of geopolitics. Foreign policy guided by factors that are unique or significantly magnified in the digital environment. The geopolitical application of Metcalfe’s, Moore’s and Zipf’s Laws.

Superplatform: A digital platform of global geodigital significance.

One Platform, One Network(OP/ON): One Belt One Road applied to geodigital networks. A fictional development strategy extension of OB/OR to expand the integrated China/BATH superplatform into the ubiquitous global operating system.

FAANG+(Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google, Microsoft, Cisco/Juniper)

BATH(Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, Huawei)

The entire fictional exercise actually rose from a post I made here in response to one of yours where I mentioned the disturbing rise and total dominance of WeChat in China.

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...l=1#post212826

I view China/BATH as an integrated “operating system” akin to government developing and directing strategy executed in combined arms operations by an interoperable Army, Navy, and Air Force.

I view the US/FAANG+ “operating system” as the “geodigital” equivalent of a government in open conflict with each and every one of its superplatform “armed services” who are also concurrently in open conflict with each other.

Having grown up during the 90’s gen1 Internet boom and the silly valuations put on scaling user bases(first common use of Metcalfe’s Law in tech media lexicon). Then again in the last decade long boom.

It has me thinking Metcalfe’s Law and Zipf’s Law may apply to government/commercial hybrid networks that are globally and geopolitically significant.

Hope that helps clarify it?

Great thoughts, and we're potentially already seeing the One Platform, One Network with Huawei. Perhaps digital hegemony enables economic and political hegemony?

Regarding Zipf’s Law, I add to look up the definition and just reading the definition wasn't helpful. I'll attempt to study it a little more over the weekend to understand its relevance in your argument. Copy on Metcalfe's law, and maybe a passing thought, can we reverse engineer it from a value proposition to a destructive proposition. Rough thought, but turn all the connected nodes against a particular actor. Not sure where I'm going with this, sounds like something your generation could explore more effectively than mine. Keep the ideas coming.

[flagg]

Great thoughts, and we're potentially already seeing the One Platform, One Network with Huawei. Perhaps digital hegemony enables economic and political hegemony?

Regarding Zipf’s Law, I add to look up the definition and just reading the definition wasn't helpful. I'll attempt to study it a little more over the weekend to understand its relevance in your argument. Copy on Metcalfe's law, and maybe a passing thought, can we reverse engineer it from a value proposition to a destructive proposition. Rough thought, but turn all the connected nodes against a particular actor. Not sure where I'm going with this, sounds like something your generation could explore more effectively than mine. Keep the ideas coming.

Agreed on digital hegemony perhaps allowing economic/political hegemony.

If given a choice of digital, economic, or political monopoly, I’m increaisngly leaning towards digital as my vote for most valuable.

Zipf’s Law applies to frequency of word useage, regardless of language.

With the most frequently used word being used at roughy twice the rate of the 2nd most frequently used words, etcetera.

I think it can be roughly applied to operating systems such as:

Cloud computing:
Amazon #1
Microsoft #2(half of #1)
Google #3(half again of #2)

Mobile OS:
Android #1
iOS #2 (well less than half of #1)

Desktop OS:
Windows #1
macOS #2(well less than half of #1)
Linux #3(half of #2)

Where I think it may apply here in a geodigital Cold War between opposing superplatform operating systems is that in commercial cases there seems to be far more in the way of dominance than equilibrium.

My thoughts are that Zipf’s Law, if it applies, may be something akin to Thucydides Trap for geodigital networks.

In my fictional scenario, I refer to an “OD-X” partnering with OGA combined under Title 50v2 focused on counter network effects operations.

I find out by the end of the month if US Army Mad Scientist will publish it or not.

[Bill Moore]

GeoDigital Strategy: A fictional subfield of geopolitics. Foreign policy guided by factors that are unique or significantly magnified in the digital environment. The geopolitical application of Metcalfe’s, Moore’s and Zipf’s Laws.

The evolution of globalization and information technology facilitates the ability to share information instantaneously around the globe in multiple forms. These messages frequently become memes that individuals identify with (note the recent criminal act in New Zealand). The power of information to shape the geopolitical space is profound. The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) states “the rapidly accelerating spread of information is challenging the ability of some governments to control their populations and maintain civil order, while at the same time changing how wars are fought and aiding groups in mobilizing and organizing. It is this globalization of information that blurs the distinction between local and global affairs in the social, political, and economic spheres. Metcalfe’s Law indicates this geodigital space will increase in significance exponentially.

I think we have a fair understanding of how violent extremists leverage the digital environment to pursue their ends, which includes expanding their operational reach globally, or at least to the connected the portions of the world. We have only recently begun to appreciate how state actors compete in the geodigital domain. It is Net warfare in the 21st Century, but in traditional parlance, it is political warfare with new means (weaponizing the digital space).

The digital domain enables more than information/influence dominance, it will enable economic dominance, and perhaps security dominance. Collectively this unfortunate, because it has so much promise to change the world for the better. Norming the use of the digital domain globally is desirable, but I question if it is possible?

[flagg]

The evolution of globalization and information technology facilitates the ability to share information instantaneously around the globe in multiple forms. These messages frequently become memes that individuals identify with (note the recent criminal act in New Zealand). The power of information to shape the geopolitical space is profound. The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) states “the rapidly accelerating spread of information is challenging the ability of some governments to control their populations and maintain civil order, while at the same time changing how wars are fought and aiding groups in mobilizing and organizing. It is this globalization of information that blurs the distinction between local and global affairs in the social, political, and economic spheres. Metcalfe’s Law indicates this geodigital space will increase in significance exponentially.

I think we have a fair understanding of how violent extremists leverage the digital environment to pursue their ends, which includes expanding their operational reach globally, or at least to the connected the portions of the world. We have only recently begun to appreciate how state actors compete in the geodigital domain. It is Net warfare in the 21st Century, but in traditional parlance, it is political warfare with new means (weaponizing the digital space).

The digital domain enables more than information/influence dominance, it will enable economic dominance, and perhaps security dominance. Collectively this unfortunate, because it has so much promise to change the world for the better. Norming the use of the digital domain globally is desirable, but I question if it is possible?

I believe the voluntary reach of commercial network platforms, if working in granular partnership with government, could be easily pushed beyond just majority and towards ubiquity with preferential treatment towards specific commercial networks and diplomatic/political/legislative nudging behaviours.

Expanding hybrid digital network influence across international borders may be achieved using the same political, economic, and diplomatic TTPs as One Belt, One Road.

However, I very much believe coercive debt trap diplomacy only gets a network so far.

A competitive value proposition is still required.

For both “citizen users” to enhance their opportunity as well as “sovereign government users” to enhance their continuity.

Just in the last two weeks, Italy became the first Group of Seven or NATO country to sign up to China’s One Belt, One Road initiative along with Germany’s decision to NOT ban Huawei 5G from Germany’s next gen network are both related to my argument of a possible One Platform, One Network future.

I’m left thinking that the US is currently facing a much more dangerous digital analog to the Trans-Siberian Pipeline Crisis where President Reagan placed considerable political pressure on some of the US’s closest allies to disrupt Soviet economic opportunity and political leverage.

Creating, capturing, distributing, and monetising economic value.

But I see it working as a velvet gloved, iron fist.

An economic hand up, combined with a political punch in the face if you oppose it.

Global economic, political, and social “networkism” with Chinese characteristics.

I don’t view the possibility as a singular dominant network/platform, but I do see it as having potential to be the world’s largest.

But my concern is that instead of seeing some form of Cold War-esque balance, equilibrium, or homeostasis we may see Zipf’s Law apply with vastly uneven distribution between the most commonly used network and the 2nd most commonly used network.

[flagg]

The digital domain enables more than information/influence dominance, it will enable economic dominance, and perhaps security dominance. Collectively this unfortunate, because it has so much promise to change the world for the better. Norming the use of the digital domain globally is desirable, but I question if it is possible?

Further to my last Bill:

The Xuexi Qiangguo “Study the Great Nation” app is now the most downloaded item on Apple’s App Store in China(More than WeChat and TikTok):

https://www.scmp.com/tech/apps-socia...inping-thought

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...to-your-pocket

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8859511.html

Seems like Mao’s Little Red Book(published by PLA General Political Department) mashed up with behavioural economics “nudging”, likely observed by tireless evolving AI/ML Google Analytics-like tools of State Security.

Probably more George Orwell’s “1984” than Shoshana Zuboff’s “Age of Surveillance Capitalism”.

I tend to think our potential digital future is a blend of the two, with the spoils going to the network/platform that iterates the best value proposition for both citizen “users” and government “enterprise/admins”

[Bill Moore]

Xi is using Mao's methodology to brainwash his citizens. The similarity between Xi and Mao is both embrace oppressive governance; the difference is Xi comes closer to embracing Confucius thought (as Xi calls it, socialism with Chinese characteristics) than foolishly embracing communism as Mao did. The results economically are night and day, but increasingly similar when it comes to oppressive governance. Like Mao in the 60s and 70s, Xi is now exporting this model of governance, and the means (IT, AI, etc.) for other nations to implement it. Xi infiltrates economically, then gains control of the various media outlets to the point of controlling country's media may publish, etc. With Huawei, artificial intelligence, facial recognition technology increasingly available, I think it is possible that Xi will gradually assert control over social media in other nations. If you control the information, then you can control the populace.

This thread started with the claim that our NDS is not a strategy. In the traditional sense it is a strategy, but one that clings to outdated Clausewitzian views of power. I'll refer back to a post I made a couple of years ago that is relevant here.

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...l=1#post202760

Connectography: Mapping the Future o...y Parag Khanna

I'm quoting reviewer on Amazon below:

The author of this book has done something no one else has done – I say this as the reviewer of over 2,000 non-fiction books at Amazon across 98 categories. For the first time, in one book, we have a very clear map of what is happening where in the way of economic and social development; a startlingly diplomatic but no less crushing indictment of nation-state and militaries; and a truly inspiring game plan for what we should all be demanding from countries, cities, commonwealths, communities, and companies, in the way of future investments guided by a strategy for creating a prosperous world at peace.

This is a nuanced deeply stimulating book that makes it clear that China’s grand strategy of building infrastructure has beaten the US strategy of threatening everyone with a dysfunctional military that crushes hope and destroys wealth everywhere it goes; that connectivity (cell phones, the Internet, roads, high-speed rail, tunnels, bridges, and ferries) is the accelerator for wealth creation by the five billion poor that most Western states and corporations ignore;

Parag makes the following arguments:
- Infrastructure is destiny
- Connectography proves why past is no longer prologue
- Why China’s “One Belt, One Road” project is a winning strategy that outflanks the U.S. rebalance (Go) by integrating all of Eurasia’s economies under China’s auspices.

For those that think proxy wars are the way to compete, he offers a counterview. I am reading more and more thought pieces that propose we revert to Cold War proxy wars to compete, but to what end? It is hard to break from the past when our doctrine clings to it.

a tour of the new geopolitical marketspace in which military superpowers competed for influence in regions strife with instability and divisions. Colonies were once conquered; today countries are bought. Smart states practice a shrewd multi-alignment strategy, friendly with all great powers to extract max benefit without committing to deep alliances.

I think our national leadership has awakened to this fact (there are exceptions of course), but too late and we don't have a strategy to compete effectively for connectivity. We also have a White House that messages it is opposed to connectivity, creating opportunities for China to exploit.

Geopolitical competition is evolving from war over territory to war over connectivity. A tug of war over global supply chains, energy markets, industrial production, and flows of finance, technology, knowledge, and talent. Shifts from a war between systems (communist versus capitalist) to war within one collective supply chain system. Military war is a real threat, while tug of war is a perpetual reality. Won thru master economic planning

.

If the overarching of our national strategy is to advance an international order that facilitates achieving our security and economic objectives, then the following should be considered.

Mega-infrastructure overcame hurdles of pol-physical geography. How we divide the world legally (geo-pol) is giving way to how we organize its functionality versus political space. The lines that connect us supersede the borders that divide us.
Systems only want one thing, connectivity, doesn’t care which power is most connected. Is PRC building the new system?

[Bill Moore]

Supporting links to Xi's use of technology to oppress and export the same.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ce-prison.html

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/08/asia/...tl/index.html?

https://www.cfr.org/blog/exporting-r...ce-push-africa

[flagg]

Supporting links to Xi's use of technology to oppress and export the same.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ce-prison.html

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/08/asia/...tl/index.html?

https://www.cfr.org/blog/exporting-r...ce-push-africa

Unlike the “surveillance capitalism”-like WeChat, Xi’s App feels far more “littleredbook.com” forced.

But if we look at them both thru a geodigital export “product” lens:

WeChat is for citizen users (consumers) who desire opportunity
Xi’s App is for sovereign users(enterprise) who desire continuity

[flagg]

Xi is using Mao's methodology to brainwash his citizens. The similarity between Xi and Mao is both embrace oppressive governance; the difference is Xi comes closer to embracing Confucius thought (as Xi calls it, socialism with Chinese characteristics) than foolishly embracing communism as Mao did. The results economically are night and day, but increasingly similar when it comes to oppressive governance. Like Mao in the 60s and 70s, Xi is now exporting this model of governance, and the means (IT, AI, etc.) for other nations to implement it. Xi infiltrates economically, then gains control of the various media outlets to the point of controlling country's media may publish, etc. With Huawei, artificial intelligence, facial recognition technology increasingly available, I think it is possible that Xi will gradually assert control over social media in other nations. If you control the information, then you can control the populace.

This thread started with the claim that our NDS is not a strategy. In the traditional sense it is a strategy, but one that clings to outdated Clausewitzian views of power. I'll refer back to a post I made a couple of years ago that is relevant here.

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...l=1#post202760

Connectography: Mapping the Future o...y Parag Khanna

I'm quoting reviewer on Amazon below:



Parag makes the following arguments:
- Infrastructure is destiny
- Connectography proves why past is no longer prologue
- Why China’s “One Belt, One Road” project is a winning strategy that outflanks the U.S. rebalance (Go) by integrating all of Eurasia’s economies under China’s auspices.

For those that think proxy wars are the way to compete, he offers a counterview. I am reading more and more thought pieces that propose we revert to Cold War proxy wars to compete, but to what end? It is hard to break from the past when our doctrine clings to it.



I think our national leadership has awakened to this fact (there are exceptions of course), but too late and we don't have a strategy to compete effectively for connectivity. We also have a White House that messages it is opposed to connectivity, creating opportunities for China to exploit.

.

Hi Bill,

Connectography looks interesting and is now in my Kindle queue.

At a glance, it aligns quite nicely with my recent Mad Scientist submission.

Which network operating system(China or US) will offer individual users(consumers) and sovereigns(enterprise) the best respective value proposition?

I’ve been grounded in Metcalfe and learning how to apply Clausewitz.

I’m hoping those that are grounded in Clausewitz start applying Metcalfe.

I’ve been looking at two very sobering comparisons:

1) (E-commerce/mobile payments), Chinese > USA .....by 50x

2) (Relative spend in 2018 dollars), One Belt One Road > Marshall Plan .....by 50-90x

Advancements in disrupting & destroying insurgent networks is a useful capability(McChrystal et al), but how are we at amplifying friendly/coalition commercial network effects and deterring/disrupting adversary commercial networks via non kinetic means?

The GWOT expression “we can’t kill our way to victory” can also be recycled and repurposed for peer threats to “lethality doesn’t create positive geodigital network effects”.

[flagg]

Great thoughts, and we're potentially already seeing the One Platform, One Network with Huawei. Perhaps digital hegemony enables economic and political hegemony?

Last month Germany resisted heavy US pressure to ban Huawei, greenlighting its 5G buildout.

Now add the UK to the list:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12224897