THE EXAMPLE OF GEORGIA

William Gibson: "The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet."

Nothing brings this quote more to life than the current situation in the nation of Georgia. It provides us with a glimpse of the future from thousands of miles of safety. Here's what happened. On Sunday, guerrillas knocked out two Gazprom natural gas pipelines and a critical electricity tower. The combination has deprived the country of heat and light for five days. In all, it's a great example of how:

• Even entire nations are vulnerable to systems disruption.
• Systems attacks can provide amazing leverage. An afternoon's work knocked out a country for more than five days.
• It can be repeated again and again. The attack was simple, the vulnerability is vast, and the attackers weren't caught (nor are they likely to be).

The Disruption of Russia

Vladimir Putin: "The fuel and energy sector, overall, is the goose that lays the golden egg. Killing the goose would be insane, stupid and unacceptable."

To really understand the deeper implications of this attack, it's necessary to revisit a scenario I wrote back in 2004 called, "Chechen Independence" (see parts 1 and 2). This scenario built off of ongoing attacks by Chechen guerrillas (now the Caucasian Front) against Russian infrastructure. It envisions a future where the Chechen guerrilla movement "evolved" and gave up their fruitless terrorist campaign in favor of something much more effective, systems disruption:

In this new substrate (nation-states vs. non-state networks within a global, information economy), global guerrillas will use a similar insight to win decisive battles. In this context, the conventional armies of nation-states aren't the target, a nation-state's economic and societal infrastructure is. Specifically, our large urbanized population centers are reliant on a complex set of relatively automated infrastructures. The operational objective of the global guerrilla warfare will be to separate a large urban population from its infrastructure and take advantage of the collapse and chaos that results.

Whether it was the Chechens or some other group (Ossetians?) we may never know. However, its clear that Russia's dispute with the Ukraine provided the impetus for some guerrilla strategist to make the leap to systems disruption. We saw the results of that inevitable leap on Sunday. We can expect to see more of this in the future.

A New Center of Gravity

The switch to systems disruption also points to a way guerrillas can decisively win wars against nation-states. We can see the outlines of this in the fearful reactions of the Gazprom dependent Europeans to the news of Georgia. This segment from the scenario explains how:

To win, the Chechens need to win a decisive moral victory. The moral center of a nation encapsulates its will to fight. The disruption of this moral center has traditionally been accomplished by directing menace, uncertainty, and mistrust at the nation's population (Boyd). The advent of a world dominated by global markets has changed this equation.

Nation's are no longer self-sufficient, they are interdependent and increasingly reliant on their ongoing ability to perform in global markets. Fall behind in this competition and currencies collapse, debt becomes exorbitant, and domestic stock markets plummet. A sharp slap of Adam Smith's invisible hand can quickly turn a weak state into an economic basket case. As a result of this progress, the target for a moral victory doesn't rest within the nation-state, but rather the global market.

Within this new calculus, actions that undermine the moral psychology of these markets vis-a-vis the target country, is the new measure of victory. Market psychology (of investors, trading partners, etc.) is marginally influenced by traditional terrorism. Systems sabotage is different. It can radically impact market psychology by building uncertainty (kryptonite for markets), menace to contracted export flows (resources in this case -- 1/3 of Europe's natural gas comes from Russia), and mistrust (a flight to alternative suppliers and investment opportunities).

If Russia can be put to the edge of financial catastrophe due to a moral victory won in global markets, the achievement of the limited objective of Chechen independence is easily possible.

Comments

[mark safranski]

Nice post John

Some observations on the region that both support and run counter to your scenario.

Transcaucasia in general and Georgia in particular are well suited to GG and 4GW warfare. While Georgia is an ancient nation and they have their national mythoi (Tariel the Knight, the early Christianization, wars with Persia, Stalin etc.) they are *deeply* riven by subnational divisions - Mingrels, Abkhazians, Adzarians etc. and non-Georgian minorities like the aforementioned Ossetians. The terrain and clannish culture are well suited for providing opportunities to ignite or aggravate feuds. There are some there still mad about what happened to Gamsakhurdia. This is a very fertile field for GG.

The Russians are a different matter. I'm not sure the short term annoyance or economic pain that GG can deal out with systempunkt attacks will be enough to pierce the enormous apathy and capacity for suffering of the Russian people to motivate them enough to topple Putin. These people after all, lived under the misrable Soviet system and weathered Stalin and invasion by the Nazis.

Moreover, the Russian prejudice against the " dark skinned" Caucasians is so widespread to begin with I'm inclined to see them supporting whatever hamfisted and stupidly brutal retaliation Putin and the Siloviki can cook up with the net result that Putin become more popular rather than less. Putin caving in - now that would hurt him and provoke some political fireworks

Lastly Peter Lavelle is a great source for recent news on this region ( fmr UPI chief for Russia)

http://www.untimely-thoughts.com/index.html?art=850

http://www.untimely-thoughts.com/index.html?art=850

[Valdis]

"Within this new calculus, actions that undermine ... "

It is not calculus John, it is graph theory.

[Movie Guy]

John,

I see no significant evidence of OODA Loop Theory in play (as opposed to the narrower, refined 4GW tactics) among major guerilla activities.

What we are observing is all fairly direct. Of course they are after the infrastructure. There is not a major nation-state on the planet that has not been forewarned.

Having tangled with certain groups in Europe during the late seventies through late eighties, I can share that their general tactics and targets were anticipated. Repeatedly. I was never surprised, even when they tried to take out the CINCUSAREUR in Heidelberg, a few blocks from my location.

So, yes, they are presently after energy feeds. And? Which nation-state will not address this problem? Granted, there will serious protection investment costs involved, but they will have to step up and use probability theory to minimize exposures and costs to counter the guerilla forces.

If the current guerilla elements were brilliant, they could attack just one particular resource in any community or region that would do far more than disrupt it. It would eliminate that community's ability to continue to function. Repeated on a broader scale, they could knock out major population centers, and ultimately the majority of regions so large as to weaken certain nation-states. I could detail it here, but I won't. They might do it.

I enjoy reading your posts. You do a good job. But I am hoping to read something that would help nation-states get ahead of the power curve on dealing with guerilla activities and intents.

[Cardenio]

The Georgians blamed the Russians " They blew up their own pipelines ". ENRON would have done that, why not GAZPROM ? If a corporation can make more money selling engergy to A ( say China ), well, then the rebels blew up the pipes to B ( Georgia ).

Corporations are the other guerillas with nice suits and briefcases.

[Bruce Sterling]

I don't understand why "global guerrillas" would want to stop their attacks after "winning" the narrow nationalist goal of
Chechen independence. Couldn't they simply up their
blackmail ante and demand other things from other nations?

[John Robb]

Bruce, you are exactly right. My thinking since I wrote that scenario in 2004 has evolved substantially, and I should have noted that in this brief. The coercion/blackmail won't ever stop.

[Cardenio]

Terrorism and Extortion should stop, as soon as they get their cut.

Then they just have to deal with their zealots after, { if the right people are getting what they're really after ( which is a share of the pie } and they're usually a tiny faction and easy to deal with.

The people at the top are the ' financers ' ( just as was described in the DefenseNet article so well ) like Bin Laden and they're not stupid, they're after a piece of the action. They know when to lay off.

Our problem, is that we can't afford to pay all these guys off anymore. We have to give them REAL money not conterfiet dollars and then they'll actually SPEND that money. That sucks.

But don't you worry ! Once Donald Rumsfeld is President it's going to be an Iron Fist in a Latex Glove ! Now roll over on your side and say " Allu Allu Akbar ! Free ! Free ! Free ! "

[Movie Guy]

John,

As you appear to be rather selective in your willingness or courtesy to respond to posters' comments, perhaps you will answer a few direct questions.

1. Can you cite any publicly known or acknowledged examples of guerilla/terrorist groups using OODA Loop theory in their campaigns? (there are some examples, depending on one's level of information) And, if armed with such information, can Western interests concentrate sufficient effort in a timely manner on assessed "real" targets to minimize effective damage and disruption?

2. As you hold the opinion that the "coercion/blackmail won't ever stop", do you agree or disagree with Cardenio's terrorism evolution point? Historically, he is correct up to a point.

3. Have you correlated the shift in guerilla activities and any coordinated efforts with establishment of the late 90s reordering of the New World Order?

It's my judgment that we observed a significant movement to counter the impending move to a revised World Order in years 1999-2001. While this was labeled as terrorist or guerilla acts, few public communications from governments or news media sources appeared to offer the connection with the imposition of the latest New World Order.

It is clear from a few writings among terrorists/resistance elements in the early portion of the campaign that the big battle is more than anti-U.S. or anti-West. It is anti-New World Order. Bin Laden's previous writings addresed this point as an underpinning issue.

What are your thoughts on anti-New World Order movements and related offensives
battling such, and do you believe that we can project potential guerilla activity based on such analysis?

[joe]

It's all about the establishment of the 'Caliphate'. Bin Laden, Ayman, et al are the front men and obvious targets. The continued attacks hammer centers of gravity.
Joe L

[Duncan Kinder]

According to the following post by Kevin Drum, "Word just came out that Kuwait, long regarded as home to some of the world's largest reserves of petroleum, may possess only half the amount of oil reserves that it officially has been stating for many years."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008103.php

Drum states that other OPEC nations likewise have probably overstated their oil reserves.

If Drum is correct, Mother Nature already has done much of the global guerillas work for them.

[John Robb]

Cardenio, if you pay off one a line will form.

Movie Guy, not sure how to respond to you. New World Order?

Joe L: That's true but where is that center of gravity? I think it is ultimately going to be found in the global market. If so, that is a sea change in regards to thinking about grand strategy re: states vs. non-states. Barnett's approach says the same thing in reverse: economic determinalism breeds non-state foes.

Duncan, that revelation (long in the making and an amazing thing for Kuwait to do) increases the window of vulnerability we see in the oil market (perhaps indefinitely).

[Cardenio]

Please don't take anything I say seriously, I'm just having a good time, you know kickin' ideas around.

[Peter Reiner]

"The group has set a GOAL (!) of a 30% reduction in Nigerian production by the end of February!".

John, could you please provide some background information on this? Which Group?

[Movie Guy]

John -- "Movie Guy, not sure how to respond to you. New World Order?"

John,

I asked three questions above. You brushed up against just one.

As to the reordering of the New World Order, it's not a mythical thing. President Bush I discussed various changes in the New World Order in a few speech opportunity. President Clinton did the same. Bush II sidestepped the whole issue and undertook some courses of action that demonstrated some opposition to the early to mid 90s thinking about world order.

Bin Laden clearly was addressing the New World Order in his earlier communications. Again, no mystery.

Any review of historical presidential communications since the early 1900s reveals specific references to the New World Order. Most recently, the acknowledgement focused on changes in the New World Order which were ongoing. Example, China was acknowledged in the last decade as the leader and controller of the Asian world. This was not only stated by a sitting President, but was further discussed in speech material before the Council on Foreign Relations and elsewhere. Similarly, the U.S. was being further restricted to economic development within its own hemisphere, which was a substantial shift from previous global plans.

A sizeable chunk of the anti-WTO protest crowd is built around the fight against the perceived New World Order, which, in part, encompasses advanced global trade as realized through WTO multi-lateral accords and to a lessor extent, bilateral trade agreements. The dimensions of new world ordering, of course, go far beyond economics.

"New World Order?" Well, yeah. What's not to understand? The game is very much in play, though Bin Laden has slowed portions of it.

[Movie Guy]

Whenever a sitting President of the United States mentions the term, New World Order, sufficient credibility is applied to make it a noteworthy point of discussion in global politics and economics.

Does it exist? Yes, a number of U.S. Presidents have stated that it does.