FAST COMPANY: POWER TO THE PEOPLE

The March 2006 issue of Fast Company is about to hit the stands. In it, with the help and insight of my intrepid and talented editor Will Bourne, I lay out the next decade in American security. In particular, I focus on how inexorable global trends will change our notions of what security means and who provides it.

Since its part of Fast Company's 10 year anniversary issue, it will be packed full of big think vision articles. Don't miss it!

Security: Power To The People. The myth of American omnipotence fell in the Iraqi desert, laid low by an agile new enemy. We have a chance now to rethink the systems that protected us in the past. It's one we cannot miss.

Comments

[Dale]

You wrote:The myth of American omnipotence fell in the Iraqi desert, laid low by an agile new enemy.

What does that mean?

[joe]

Dale, It means that when faced with a tech savvy and determined, unconventional threat the US DoD (at all levels) is unable to respond effectively. This is due to the orientation of the entire system toward a conventional adversary fight under conventional rules. Joe

[Shloky]

Been looking forward to this, and luckily enough I'll be flying tomorrow.

[Jeremiah]

Mmmmmm, nothin' like the credibility of stinking ink on shiny paper in the morning!!

Just kidding - congrats on the piece, John. I'll enjoy standing in bookstores loudly proclaiming: "Oh, i know that guy! I'm a commenter on his blog!"

-j

[Dale]

Thanks, Joe.
So it is reminiscent of America's early years when we fought the mighty British with guerrilla tactics. We knew the weapons they had and fought them where there superiority was not an advantage. But I think that we have an adaptable military that can adjust to this. I have confidence in them.
I look forward to reading this.

[Brad]

I would think that the success of a tech savvy and determined, unconventional threat is due to the fact that we haven't carpet bombed the area into dust and then flooding it with troops. In any case. look forward to the article.

[jon]

I seem to remember a certain south-east asian country being carpet bombed, not to mention being defoliated to within an inch of its life, with 500,000 American troops involved at one time, still beating the most advanced military of the time.

[joe]

Jon, I was there (RVN 66-68) and you are right. This situation, while having some similarities, is interestingly different. The internet has had a huge impact on GG ability to recon, plan, train, communicate and advertise their operations. Additionally the confluence of cheap and reliable communications and chip technology to enable remote control of devices is available throughout the RF,IR and acoustic spectrum. The GGs have aligned these capabilities to create a system that permits nearly endless (and cheap) variations in the weapons they field, their TTPs and operational balance. The fact that they can do this for pennies and cause us to spend billions in attempting to counter them is part of their strategy. Joe

[wtofd]

Joe, sorry for my ignorance. What are RF, IR and TTP's? Cheers.

[Alex]

RF=Radio Frequency. IR=Infra Red.

[joe]

TTP = Tactics, Techniques and Procedures. Sorry to be unclear.

[Stephen]

RF = Radio Frequency
IR = Infra Red
TTP = Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures

http://www.acronymfinder.com/

[wtofd]

Thanks, guys.

[matt]

Excellent article, reading it in the same day as I read in the WaPo that all officers now need to go through COIN (Counter Insurgency) school in Taji it's clear how far behind the game we are. Books like Hammes (in your right hand column) came out 18 months ago and one would hope leadership on the ground would have figured it out sooner than that. As far as the domestic security projection goes you hit on the keys... energy independence and community integration, the former having an incredible impact not only on security but the underlying structure of the economy.

[John]

Of course hit and run tactics and remote detonated IEDs work cents on the dollar....An RPG goes for $20 while to defend against one costs hundreds of thousands... but even so, RPGs, IEDs, etc. don't in and of themselves win wars or defeat adversaries... the Arabs (and Muslim armies in general) excel in small unit actions and glorify the hit and run raid in their lore and song. The suicide bomber is their hero - but it's always a net loss for them in terms of manpower. Such tactics depend on the opponent tiring and retreating...they don't defeat the opponent per se.

In 3 years the US has lost some 2300 men to the IEDs/attacks. That's it. That's it?! An order of magnitude lower than our losses in Vietnam! We need to keep our perspective on this war.... we're not losing except in the mind of people who have no clue.

IEDs/hit and run attacks in the grand scheme of things are just tactical annoyances - they don't defeat any US unit and at most destroy a single vehicle - they alone thus can't defeat the USA. For that, they need their agitprop campaign and our own 5th column who will do the rest by undermining morale.

What else is terrorism if not 90% psychological?

There was a story from the Marines in the initial post-invasion Iraq, where a small unit of Marines were guarding some site or base and a mob of Iraqi men swarmed out to 'protest', outnumbering the Marines by at least 3 to 1.

Essentially the mob was banking on the Marines' ROE which wouldn't allow them to simply machine gun the crowd. They got hostile and in the face of the assembled Marines. It was all bluster. The plucky Marine Lt. ordered his men to fix bayonets! The crowd of toughs had faced AK47s in the hands of their compatriots... they knew unless you pull the trigger a rifle is just a club. But a rifle with a long sharp knife sticking out of it... that's a weapon!

The mob dispursed. No one wants to be stuck.

My point is.... the Marines out thought them... in the face of bluster they showed they were willing - and happy - to apply bloody force, or alternatively shout chants and manly songs to the protester's chants and songs.

If the MSM simply stopped reporting the latest IED attacks, it would do more to take the wind out of their sails and thus reduce the strategic effect of those attacks than anything else we could do.

My point is... if you refuse to be scared and insist on letting the enemy know that you're now insanely angry with him and willing to do whatever it takes to kill him for even looking at you, most bullies and terrorists think twice about messing with you. If you play nice, let him know you're PC and brow beat yourself for every little indignity accidentally done to his companions, he'll eat your lunch.

I'm not calling for us to commit atrocities. No no no. I'm saying, we treat innocent people as innocents and guilty as guilty. "Your worst enemy, your best friend" ought to be the means to 'win hearts and minds'.

[Marcello]

"but it's always a net loss for them in terms of manpower."

Check Iraq (and most of muslim world for that matter) birthrate.Expendable manpower is not something they are going to run out anytime soon.

In 3 years the US has lost some 2300 men to the IEDs/attacks. That's it. That's it?! An order of magnitude lower than our losses in Vietnam! We need to keep our perspective on this war.... we're not losing except in the mind of people who have no clue.

War, especially wars like these, are not sport matches where the side which scores more points wins.Maybe in wars like WW1 it worked like that to a great extent but the circumstances here are vastly different.
You fight to reach certain political objectives with the appropriate means.
To illustrate the point with an extreme exaggeration; if, for example, your ultimate political objective is introducing democracy in country then nuking it would certainly terminate all resistance,inflicting massive
casulties to the enemy with zero losses to the US.Yet by leaving no people to take part in said democracy would defeat the purpose for which the war was waged in first place.Understand that this is just an example, I hope you are following what I am trying to say.In theory you can kill 100 enemies for each of your own and still lose catastrophically.

"If the MSM simply stopped reporting the latest IED attacks, it would do more to take the wind out of their sails and thus reduce the strategic effect of those attacks than anything else we could do."

By having the america media basically giving the same sort of coverage that Izvestia or Itar-Tass gave of the Soviet-Afghan war, with the DOD instead of the CPSU holding the strings, you might indeed delay the moment when the average american begins to ask what exactly is in that place worth losing billions of dollars and hundreds of casualties each month over.Delay for some time, not indefinitely.
It then has no impact on others crucual things, like preventing an all out civil war in the country ,the ability of the opposing force to disrupt economical reconstruction efforts and so on.

"I'm not calling for us to commit atrocities. No no no. I'm saying, we treat innocent people as innocents and guilty as guilty. "Your worst enemy, your best friend" ought to be the means to 'win hearts and minds'."

Guerrilla warfare 101:you usually cannot tell apart the enemy from the civilian population it hides into.If by chance you rough up civilians, then you have just gained recruits to the enemy.

There is probably only one straightforward way to achieve victory in these sort conflicts: extreme ruthlessness towards the civilian population.Remember Fallujah?
Let's say we just firebombed it immediately.
And then do something like that every single time US troops were attacked.After some time either there will be nobody left to fight or who's left will be so terrorized that will not dare to attack you.Either way no more resistance.And,if your political objectives are a bit more nuanced than achieving some sort of Lebensraum, you have scored what in soccer is dubbed "own goal".

Bottom line, to summarize you can theoretically terminate resistance relatively easily with massive atrocities but it is not worth it.If you stay several steps below that there are a variety of dynamics which works against the occupying force (see the roughing up example) and which ensure that what is theoretically the stronger party is actually weaker and is often forced to give up, like the soviets in Afghanistan, the israeli in Lebanon, the frenchs in Algeria etc.
So you have to figure out some other way to run the business.And nobody has yet a good answer.

[joe]

Marcello, I've been working these problems for 40 years and find the inability of the US DoD to adapt to be resolute. Everyone views the conflict as an opportunity to sell something. Joe

[Adam]

John,

The problem for your argument is that two things overhang it: Fallujah and Abu Ghraib.

"Such tactics depend on the opponent tiring and retreating...they don't defeat the opponent per se."

Welcome to a guerilla war. The victorious Malaysian campagn (1950s) still has holdouts in the jungles today (2006), only some 50 years later. And bear in mind that this example is considered to be a win for military force against an insurgency. Afghanistan has been a-rocking since 1978, thats before more US soldiers were born.

"In 3 years the US has lost some 2300 men to the IEDs/attacks. That's it. That's it?! An order of magnitude lower than our losses in Vietnam!"

Given the wildly different situations between Vietnam and Iraq this is, at the very least, highly arguable. In the first four years of US involvement in Vietnam (1961-1965) the US lost 1,864 killed, 7,337 wounded, 18 missing.

What is important is that overall in Vietnam the US was mainly (60%+) losing cheap, conscript troops that are expendable in any military. In Iraq a single IED can cost the US 20 years of regular, trained, expensive experience which militaries hate to lose (roughly $4m worth of time and training). Vietnam cost roughly $5bn a month (adjusted for inflation), Iraq is costing $9bn a month in direct costs (not counting wear and tear on everything else in the $580bn US defence budget). It'll be bankruptcy for the US before their troops are all dead. Mind you this is what happened to the USSR in Afghanistan, they went broke.

"We need to keep our perspective on this war.... we're not losing except in the mind of people who have no clue."

Other than all the regional experts, the US military high command, the Iraqi religious groups, the Iranians.... Clueless the lot of them. Except that they were, and are, right. Why is it that the experts all say that the US is losing in Iraq, whilst the dillettantes are saying its a win?

"For that, they need their agitprop campaign and our own 5th column who will do the rest by undermining morale."

Ah the old the US wasn't really defeated in Vietnam argument. Its a terribly silly one that the US far right and the US military has used for self justification for years. Now in Iraq the US hasn't got control of most of Iraq, doesn't control the Iraqi government, doesn't control the oil, and hasn't got enough troops to cover any one of these aims. That these are facts is self evident. And none of those facts is anything to do with support at home.

Most would argue that in fact support for the Iraq war, given its nature, was very high.

"What else is terrorism if not 90% psychological?"

The obvious answer is 100% political. In Iraq the terrorists have won. The current elected Iraqi government is going to be led by Moqtada al-Sadrs party (you may recall the US proconsul Paul Bremer attempted to kill him in 2004), the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Iranian backed, links to Lebanese Hezbollah) and Dawa (specialists in US and Kuwaiting embassy bombings, along with Iraqi school buses. Some have suggested that Dawa were one of the techincal advisors to Lebanese Hezbollah in the 1983 Beirut bombings). Forget psychology, they own the place.

"There was a story from the Marines in the initial post-invasion Iraq"

Boiling your story down: A group of locals came to the Marines about something. Unable to speak the local language), seeing that the Iraqis had guns, and forgetting that Iraq is an NRA-dream armed society, the Marines panicked and got ready to fight. Wisely the locals retreated. If only the Iraqis had decided to learn English before being invaded then the entire problem could have been avoided. Expecting the Marines to learn the language or customs of a nation they're invading would be a combination of insightful, useful, practical, and clever - something that no-one could accuse America of these days.

"My point is.... the Marines out thought them... in the face of bluster they showed they were willing - and happy - to apply bloody force, or alternatively shout chants and manly songs to the protester's chants and songs."

Alternatively the locals turned up with some justifiable issue (after all the US was the government at that time, wasn't it? And the Marines were the representatives on the ground, weren't they?). An example could be perhaps the Marines had taken over the local school and the parents of the area wanted it back so that the kids could go to school - as happened in Fallujah - and the Marines stupidly decided to be tough and macho. In Fallujah it was the 82nd Airborne that panicked and machine-gunned the crowd. On two separate days. That'll teach the Iraqis to think that the Americans are interested in talking to them as anything other than Master and slave. And guess which side of the chains the Iraqis put themselves on? Your story is an example of how poorly trained and badly led soldiers help cause the insurgency.

"My point is... if you refuse to be scared and insist on letting the enemy know that you're now insanely angry with him and willing to do whatever it takes to kill him for even looking at you, most bullies and terrorists think twice about messing with you."

Weirdly enough this is exactly the point that Bin Laden makes about the United States: if Muslims simply smash American skulls then Americans won't bully and terrorise them any more. Bear in mind that Bin Laden (and almost every other Muslim scholar of note) has declared Iraq a defensive Jihad.

"I'm not calling for us to commit atrocities. No no no. I'm saying, we treat innocent people as innocents and guilty as guilty."

Ah. Good glad that you're not planning on committing atrocities; merely mass murder of civilians whenever the invading power feels ("insanely angry")like it. Remind me: didn't we hang a bunch of Germans for this about 60 years ago? Something about war crimes. Doubtless you'll argue that the resistance caused the artrocity, but who shot the Iraqis in the back of the head? The resistance or the Americans? Did the resistance pull the trigger, or give the orders? Did the resistance drag people into trucks to be taken away and shot? Of course this assumes that you have the moral courage to order murder one at a time, the current US alternative is shelling entire towns. Like Fallujah.

Still I am glad that you recognise that your position could easily be seen as arguing for atrocities. The first step in not committing a crime is realising that it is a crime.

The other problem with your position is that finding out who is innocent and guilty relies on torture, which would more or less require treating the innocent as if they are guilty. Until you've tortured them enough that you think that they are innocent, at which point they probably hate you, making them guilty anyway. Its remarkable how unreasonably unforgiving people are when you torture their children in front of them. Unless you think that torture is a nice fluffy affair? Perhaps the US soldiers buy them a pizza and they chat amiably over an episode of Cheers or Friends? No? I didn't think so.

[jon]

Something else to be considered when talking about American casualties in Iraq vs. Vietnam. During Vietnam the ratio of wounded to killed was similar to the historic ratios. In Iraq it is much lower, because of the "uparmored" Humvee's, improved body armor, and increased lethality of weapons, specifically the IED and VBIED.

[AoT]

Actually, the wounded to killed ratio is higher than in previous conflicts, about 8 or 9 to 1 last time I checked.

[Cardenio]

I've said from day one, the plan was to forment a civil war and stage manage, looks like the plan might be coming together ?

[P-]

The other side is well-educated of our vulnerabilities...

Latest in the news wire...

'Word of a terror attack against a Saudi
Arabian refinery sent stocks mostly lower
Friday as oil futures soared... News
reports said a pipeline at the refinery in
Buqayq was damaged after 2 explosives-laden
attempted to destroy the facility. That
sent oil prices higher... '

... "The clock is ticking... " to quote Mr. Hunt of his well-known impossible missions

I just hope that when the President comes out and tells the people that we're on the verge of an energy breakthrough, let's hope politics aside he can be trusted to have a modicum of facts surrounding his claim. The question is will the next 50 years of foreign policy be better, equal or worse than the last 50 years or even much worse...

[Barry]

Posted by: joe: "The GGs have aligned these capabilities to create a system that permits nearly endless (and cheap) variations in the weapons they field, their TTPs and operational balance. The fact that they can do this for pennies and cause us to spend billions in attempting to counter them is part of their strategy. Joe"

And a huge chunk of this, IMHO, is the bone-deep corruption in the US political/military/industrial system. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield wanted this war since before 9/11. It was a 'go' since 9/12/2001; us citizens were allowed to think otherwise. Yet still these scum didn't prepare for it, didn't plan for it, and sh*tcanned the planning done by their betters.

Now, years after it's clear that the US has very little capability to fight guerrilla wars, and after the US Army and Marines have been ground down in a land war, the administration's plans are for more hideously expensive high-tech conventional war machines.

[Robert Schunk]

In earlier posts in other fora, I pointed out my concern for the possibility of massive failure of the US Federal state in the near future. In one of these posts, I indicated the possible use of Private Military Corporations (PMC's) as domestic constabulary in the future US.

Since then, I've read John's article in this month's edition of "Fast Company" magazine (Robb, John "Power to the People" in "Fast Company", March 2006 (Issue# FC103), p. 126) in which he speaks of Private Military Corporations being used, not as general constabulary forces, but for point defense of the homes and other activity locations of the upper classes, while civilian police auxiliaries, trained by PMC's, patrol the "Armored Suburbs" in which the middle classes will dwell in tomorrow's America. This seems to me a more likely scenario. Additionally, I'd apparently forgotten what I'd previously read concerning the use of federally funded gangs for controlling the rest of us, as reported in McPherson, James Alan "The Blackstone Rangers" in "Observations of Deviance" Ed. Douglas, Jack D.,(Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1970) pp.170-191, as well as Webb, Gary "Dark Alliance: The Story Behind the Crack Explosion" in San Jose Mercury News (August 18-20, 1996)

http://www.lycaeum.org/drugwar/DARKALLIANCE/

These show how gangs are federally funded and supplied with raw materials (i.e., drugs) to 1) control populations within their own gang territories; 2) keep ghettoized populations supplied with drugs (to keep everybody happy without the expense of materially improving their social and economic circumstances), and 3) keep their own territories free of contending gangs and/or contending political forces (particularly, in the case of the Blackstone Rangers and other black-oriented gangs, black nationalist perspectives). In short, they seem to inhabit a twilight zone lying between 1)parastatal agencies of the powers that be and 2)structures in competition with the state which perform many of the same functions traditionally associated with the state. Either way, their persistent power may be seen as both a cause and a symptom of partial state failure in the parts of the US under their control.

Robb also passingly mentions the failure of the US government to defend our borders on September 11, 2001 (without quite styling it as I've begun to recently: "Naptime for NORAD") and subsequent failures in Iraq. I would additionally like to mention this tidbit I just picked up on Yahoo!:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060308/ap_on_...s/border_troops

Ariz. Governor Orders Troops to Border

By JACQUES BILLEAUD, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 9 minutes ago

PHOENIX - Gov. Janet Napolitano on Wednesday ordered more National Guardsmen posted at the Mexican border to help stop illegal immigrants and curb related crimes.
National Guard troops have worked at the border since 1988, but Napolitano signed an order authorizing commanders to station an unspecified number of additional soldiers there to help federal agents.
Once the funding is approved, the troops will monitor crossing points, assist with cargo inspection and operate surveillance cameras, according to the order.
"They are not there to militarize the border," the governor said. "We are not at war with Mexico."
About 170 National Guardsmen are already posted at the nation's busiest illegal entry point, where they assist with communications, fence construction and anti-drug efforts.
Napolitano did not say how many additional troops would be stationed at the border and referred questions to the National Guard, which did not immediately return a call.
Napolitano has asked the military to pay for her plan, but said she would commit state dollars if necessary.
The governor declared an immigration emergency last summer in Arizona's four border counties, citing security shortcomings by the federal government.

***

[Robert Schunk speaking again:]

This, combined with earlier press reports of private citizen voluntary militia groups patrolling the border with Mexico, shows the extent to which the US government is unable or unwilling to execute essential tasks (in this case related to the sovereignty of the state itself) required of it under law, which is as sure a symptom of state failure as one can have.