Narco Warlord...

[jmm99]

Warfare has always had its ROEs - and its Laws of War, which generally followed the ROEs for the dominant powers that made the Laws of War. E.g., in Medieval Warfare, the officers (knights) certainly had their ROEs and their Laws of War - enforced by the heralds. Scarcely the GCs, but rules none the less.

As warfare has changed over the centuries, its ROEs have changed and also its Laws of War. For example, the Westphalian concepts were needed because the prior equilibrium of Medieval Warfare had been punctured. Every so often, significant military changes create situations where new rules have to be developed. The present seems to be one of those eras.

In an era of change, the neat little boxes of the past are insufficient - especially when divergent cultures become more apparent than they have in the past. I don't see any of this as very surprising since military cultures differ across the world - and the ROEs and Laws of War are an extension of the military cultures in which they are developed.

Any particular set of ROEs and Laws of War will be egoistic - that is, they will reflect what their particular military wants. As such, they differ - some greatly, some only a little. For example, we will hold KSM to our ROEs, Laws of War and Rule of Law. He holds himself (and us), as in his recent brief, to his ROEs, Laws of War and Rule of Law. We find him wanting; he finds us wanting.

I don't view either us or him as being hypocritical - although there is often enough self-rightiousness to allow everyone to share. But, I also do not view the obvious dichotomy as being relativistic. I am on one side in my choices; he is on the other side - and, yes, I will impose my choice on him if it is my power to do so.

So also with Nicki the Narco Warlord, who also has his ROEs, Laws of War and Rule of Law - perverted though they may be from our viewpoint. In order to defeat KSM or Nicki, we have to understand their concepts. In terms of Slap's article, we have to understand their system - which includes their ROEs, Laws of War and Rule of Law.

While that article uses vocabulary that I don't use (not being schooled therein), I do get the concepts. What seems to me most important is that the article takes an offensive approach to the problem, as exemplified by its conclusion (underlines added by JMM):

Conclusion

Our work is not a panacea, but it should add multiple dimensions to a strategy that sometimes focuses too much on the product of the system and not enough on the system itself. To disrupt the importation of energy, shape the environment and attack the environment/organization boundary. To destroy through-put, have a process-oriented attack plan. To attack export, meet the product head-on before it has been fully deployed. To interfere with the cyclic pattern of activities, interfere with internal activities that are critical, well-connected, or consist of exponential feedback loops. Attack negative entropy by disrupting or destroying critical stores. Disrupt the feedback and coding process by engaging in counter-intelligence and influence operations designed to increase uncertainty and disrupt communication. Destroy homeostasis by attacking critical nodes and disrupting system congruity. While doing these things, keep in mind our newly formulated principles of war for countering VNSAs, as they should inform all actions whether directed at input, conversions, or output. Our inter-disciplinary application of open systems theory provides a powerful framework for diagnosing adversaries, shaping their development and structuring an effects-based strategy for coercion and conquering. It is a global approach to a global challenge.

My bottom line (as to a part of this) is that our ROEs, Laws of War and Rule of Law should be shaped to reflect an offensive strategy which is acceptable to us.