Slap - nothing new there I think - its just the way I articulated how some of the groups or organizations we'd lay out as enemies are finding that where their interests coincide - such as making money to fund activities, disrupting legitimate authorities, gaining influence, or by presenting the U.S. with problems that cut across our various FP goals, and create confusion on the domestic political front, and as such diffuse effort and focus - they are better served to do so - as long as it can be rationalized with their political goal or in many cases their bottom line. It also allows them husband resources, capabilities and access to markets or areas that any one group may not have in and of itself.

It would seem that technology and global access have created have enhanced/created these ad-hoc poly-organizational networks with both formal and informal agreements - participants range from Russian Arms dealers to Multi-National Corporations, to Coastal Pirate Rings, to Corrupt Officials (Civilian and Military) to Islamic Jihadist Terror Groups, to Columbian and Mexican Cartels to U.S. gangs, distributors and users. It is transnational in nature. Some of the relationships might be temporary, some may be longer standing.

At a recent conf. I went to some LE folks went over how the monies from the sales, storage and transportation of illegal drug precursor chemicals, sale and smuggling of illegal drug product, movement, sale and post sale revenue from human trafficking (from slaves to foreign fighters and jihadists), movement and sale of weapons and intelligence, the stolen car market, money laundering, telecommunications services, etc. all provide examples for the basis for cooperation among groups with different motivation, political objectives, beliefs etc.

Again, the concept of cooperation is not new - its business. We often see it on the local level, and often folks we'd label as an enemy are working with folks we'd label as only a competitor. What might be different is the emerging scale of the cooperation - a sort of non-state band-waggoning by increasingly dangerous groups who through our own public discourses are learning how better to create inertia in our system. This also extends to states partnering with non-state actors, or states that create non-state organizations as a means of cooperating with others.

Its worth noting that some groups (or members of their groups - free agents) may be involved with several different activities in order to supplement their income and reduce risk in other areas.

The first time I'd heard the term was a couple of weeks back. I thought it was a fair description in understanding these relationships and interests - you still have to place it in context though. If you don't do the mental effort to distinguish the limitations of any term or concept, you can wind up constraining your understanding of the enemy.

As for it being in the "bubble", what goes in the bubble all depends on the strategic end (and that drives the contents and numbers of the others) - that is also contextual and is dependent on the enemy, and the policy end to which military force is to be committed. Its just a way of thinking.

Does that help?

Best, Rob