Meta-Warfare

[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.

[Bill Moore]

http://www.iwar.org.uk/psyops/resources/ndu/pwpor.pdf

On page 77

Politics is the marshaling of human beings to support or oppose causes. Political warfare is the marshaling of human support, or opposition, in order to achieve victory in war or in unbloody conflicts as serious as war.

We have new terms now, and we don't agree on the boundaries of what war is, but I think you tweak this one to your view. Foremost I think it is important to concisely describe what politics are as the above definition does, and then apply that to what you mean by political warfare.

In the next piece Max Boot uses Kenan's definition of political warfare. Personally, I find this too broad of description and not overly useful. Statecraft yes, but not all Statecraft is political warfare.

http://www.cfr.org/wars-and-warfare/...warfare/p30894

This concept was defined in a May 4, 1948, memorandum produced by the State Department's policy planning staff under George Kennan:

The bold highlights are mine, because I don't believe political warfare necessarily comes to an end in times of armed conflict, in fact it should intensify.

Political warfare is the logical application of Clausewitz's doctrine in time of peace. In broadest definition, political warfare is the employment of all the means at a nation's command, short of war, to achieve its national objectives. Such operations are both overt and covert. They range from such overt actions as political alliances, economic measures (as ERP—the Marshall Plan), and "white" propaganda to such covert operations as clandestine support of "friendly" foreign elements, "black" psychological warfare and even encouragement of underground resistance in hostile states.

During WWII the British principally defined political warfare as propaganda, but were careful not to limit it to propaganda.

https://www.psywar.org/psywar/reprod...TechMethod.pdf

Political Warfare employs both publicity and propaganda. That is to say, it can and must be as objective as possible in its projection of the British or Allied case. It, too, has to seek the good will of those in enemy and enemy-occupied countries who are already sympathetic to that case. It has to demonstrate and not merely claim the certainty of victory. It has to show by force of example that we have something better to offer than the Nazis. It has to establish the veracity of the news in order to win confidence for its propaganda and to build an audience through which it can achieve its eventual purpose.

(xi) There is, however, no intrinsic virtue in news; news is a device of Political Warfare; it is a necessity which we can make a virtue, since, as stated above, news is the most potent means of attracting and building up an audience.

Fake news has a long history, but the scale and sophistication of it in the 21st Century is a perfect example of political warfare. Our election results, our political bedrock is the legitimacy of our democracy, remain questionable by some. Fake News and exaggerations of actual events have pushed Europe further to the right, and the EU is a risk of fracturing further, clearly a Russian objective.

Finally the following piece, while focused on domestic U.S. politics and be applied to the larger picture.

http://libertypoint.org/?page_id=156

The Six Principles of Political Warfare

Three of the principles follow:

In political wars, the aggressor usually prevails.

Aggression is advantageous because politics is a war of position. In attacking your opponent, take care to do it right. Going negative … can be counterproductive. Ruling out the negative … can incur an even greater risk

.

Position is defined by fear and hope.

The twin emotions of politics are fear and hope… hope is the better choice

.

The weapons of politics are symbols that evoke fear and hope.

I found these interesting, because I attended an interagency working group discussing political warfare, and a government member present partly responsible for countering the use of adversary propaganda, said he or she didn't feel compelled to counter Russia's maligned propaganda because no one believes it. He or she may feel differently now, but we tend to view the world through our own eyes naturally. People in some government agencies are well educated (not the same as street smart), so they assume everyone is aware of what is propaganda and what isn't. As the principle clearly states, the aggressor usually wins.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Bill,

Thanks. I have the Kennan Memo as well as some other documents. My definition is a mix of Kennan and Clausewitz. I am trying to stick with a "bright line" distinction of 1) Political - Less than organized Lethal Violence, 2) Kinetic - Organized Legal Lethal Violence, and 3) Terrorism - Organized Illegal Lethal Violence. Hybrid is a mix, usually on a Low Intensity level.

I don't expect to spend a lot of time on them. I just want it clear (as it can be) what I am talking about so that definitional arguments do not get in the way.

I do agree with the second part, about who wins (although I disagree in general with the Liberty Point article, which seems to be designed for domestic, not international conflicts). I think this is because we rarely recognize we are at war, or we misinterpret what is war for simple propaganda or terrorism. I also believe that Democracies are particularly vulnerable to this kind of attack, particularly at election time. Part of the reason for my taking up the subject.

[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.