Global Guerrillas

QUOTE that sums it up from SLATE

"Not all would-be futurists are quite so pie-in-the-sky. For my money, John Robb, a former Air Force officer and tech guru, is the futurists' futurist."SLATE.

For new readers, here are some good places to start your adventure:

• The future of American Security
• Open Source Warfare
• A Shadow OPEC
• Big Bangs
• The Systempunkt
• Primary Loyalties
• Emergent Terrorism
• The IED Marketplace
• Guerrilla Entrepreneurs
• Global Guerrilla Swarming

JOURNAL: Intelligence Agencies Adopt Part of Global Guerrillas

It appears that the cutting edge thinkers in state intelligence agencies are starting to adopt the global guerrillas approach to next generation warfare. Unfortunately, they are about two years behind this site (and it is unlikely to make a difference given that defense spending continues to focus on China and domestic security boils down to data-mining). Some of the big ideas borrowed from this site (;->) that are now getting currency include open source warfare, bazaar micro-markets, and self-generating communities. From a closed-door briefing in Washington:

The group, from the Interior Ministry's General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD), spoke at length of how jihadist groups are becoming much more dynamic, fluid, and diffuse, coming together to cooperate on specific goals and targets. Unlike the al Qaeda of old, these are local, autonomous, "self-radicalizing" jihadist cells, not controlled from overseas. They rely heavily on virtual networks and training, through the Internet, and then shift into actual, operational networks. The Internet is "the cement" of these new terrorist networks, the analysts stressed. Another trend seen by Dutch intelligence is a worrisome drop in age among participants, with increasing numbers of teenagers, often with petty crime records. Other trends include the recruitment of women and western converts (USNews).

JOURNAL: The Market-Guerrilla Nexus

More on guerrilla entrepreneurs:

TNA: One of five men arrested on Friday in connection with Thursday's bombings in Thailand's southernmost border provinces of Yala, Narathiwat and Pattani has been identified as a key drug trafficker wanted by state authorities for his activities in the drug trade, according to a senior police officer.

JOURNAL: Gangs (primary loyalties) in the US military

Dynamic instability can enable systems to perform at exceedingly high levels of efficiency due to radical improvements in responsiveness (to even very small inputs). Unfortunately, it comes at a cost. Legacy structures within the system, that aren't designed to withstand the stresses at this level of performance will fragment. In a nutshell, this is exactly what the world is experiencing as rapid globalization (towards the emergence of a dynamically unstable global platform -- think in terms of fluid capital filled with hot money, service oriented interconnections between enterprise software systems that reduce barriers to interconnections/switching, and global JIT logistics that reduce inventories to hours of supply) continues to produce incredible wealth. It comes at a cost: severe stress cracks in the nation-state (the legacy structure -- think in terms of decaying social safety nets, slow moving/ineffective international organizations that aren't addressing tough global problems, and an increasing reliance on the private sector to shore up security/services).

As this process continues (likely inevitable), segments of populations will move towards alternative organizational structures centered around primary loyalties in compensation. The reason is that these loyalties -- gang, tribe, clan, ethnicity, religion, and more -- can power a much more cohesive organizational alternative to that of the nation-state. We are seeing this process of fragmentation emerge globally.

However, if you think that this is only a process underway in the developing world, you would be wrong. The challenge of primary loyalties has even reached the US military. Here's a video from FOX 11 News in Los Angeles on the topic (video link).

JOURNAL: Why al Qaeda hasn't attacked the US since 9/11

One good explanation is from a brief I wrote back in 2004 on (see the brief "Terrorist Death-March") how terrorism suffers from diminishing returns against stable enemies. Simply, the more it is used, the less valuable it is (which is a good thing). The reason for this is psychological. Target Western populations (and the press) become inured to terrorism in much the same way they do with petty crime. Each subsequent attack has less of a psychological impact than the first. In order to compensate for this, a terrorism planner must make each subsequent attack even more damaging or symbolically devastating than earlier attacks. The result is a death march until entire terrorism campaign runs out of steam.

This approach in part explains why the US hasn't suffered another attack since 9/11 -- the other factors being improved security (debatable) and the break-up of camps in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has not opted to attack the US is because it hasn't been able to muster an attack that could exceed 9/11 in damage. Instead, and this is explained in the brief I linked to above, it has moved to new targets that access new geographies and political dimensions (Madrid, London, etc.).

A good example of this framework in action is found in the recent revelations unearthed by Ron Suskind in his new book called "The One Percent Doctrine." An excerpt made available through TIME magazine has this valuable tidbit:

Ali revealed that Ayeri had visited Ayman Zawahiri in January 2003, to inform him of a plot to attack the New York City subway system using cyanide gas. Several mubtakkars (NOTE: small, portable, chemical weapon delivery systems) were to be placed in subway cars and other strategic locations. This was not simply a proposal; the plot was well under way. In fact, zero-hour was only 45 days away. But then, for reasons still debated by U.S. intelligence officials, Zawahiri called off the attack. "Ali did not know the precise explanation why. He just knew that Zawahiri had called them off."

QUOTE that sums it up

"The Taliban are opportunists. They have no deep ideology and no deep theory that informs what they are doing. . . . In other words, they are better understood as being like a crime family in New Jersey."

John Stuart Blackton, a retired U.S. diplomat and consultant on Afghan issues to the Washington Post.

JOURNAL: Niall Ferguson on Adam Smith's world

A recurring theme of global guerrillas is that smaller organizations are often better suited for success (more agile, responsive, and cohesive) within the fluid/chaotic environment spawned by globalization's new rule set -- as with all ubiquitous platforms, this new global rule set is minimalist (that's all we can agree on). The same is true for economic "white" competition at the nation-state level. I've personally been calling this Adam Smith's world. Niall Ferguson, a staunch defender of the concept of empire, has finally recognized this with his recent statements on the future of Scotland.

One of Scotland’s most prominent academics — and a staunch defender of the union with England — has announced his conversion to independence. Niall Ferguson, professor of history at Harvard University and author of several books celebrating the success of the British empire, said that he now believes Scotland would be better off as a separate nation state... “Ireland and some of the east European countries like Estonia are showing that small countries which embrace economic liberalism can thrive.” “What Scotland needs is a re-injection of the ideas of Adam Smith...”

REQUIEM FOR PREVENTATIVE WAR (AND POLITICAL BIG BANGS...)

Since 9/11, the US has been following a strategy of forward defense -- engaging threats outside of its borders long before they can strike. In the vernacular of the US press and domestic politics, this roughly translates as "we fight them there so we don't have to fight them here." The thinking behind this strategy is:

• Rogue states are behind terrorism. Non-state threats are of little consequence without rogue state support.
• Removal of these rogue states will diminish terrorism by eliminating its sponsors/havens.
• Converting a rogue state into a democracy will completely eliminate them as a threat and change regional politics.

The Real Threat

The result is that we are now in two hot guerrilla wars and global terrorism is at an all time high. Further, the soft power exercised by the US is at the lowest level we have seen since WW2, mostly due to an inexorable process of isolation driven by this strategy (as demonstrated within the framework of Boyd's theoretical framework). What went wrong? The flaw in preventative war is due to a fundamental misconception of what the threat really is. As we have discovered in the briefs on this site, the threat doesn't emanate from rogue states, but rather from non-state entities. These non-state groups are a product of globalization's super-empowerment of individuals that connect to it. Given this situation:

• Collapsing rogue states doesn't reduce the threat, it does exactly the opposite: it creates ungoverned spaces and failed states where non-state groups thrive.
• Nation-building is impossible in this situation. The humpty-dumpty rule applies. All of the talk about mismanagement of Iraq is fruitless, counter-productive (and should be seen merely as a rationalization of failure as we saw in Vietnam and the Russians did in Afghanistan), and will only lead to disasters in the future if we try it again. Since the real threat is from non-state groups, pushing nation-states (even rogue ones) into failure only makes the situation worse. It catalyzes the development of non-state groups. As a result, rectification of the situation becomes impossible since these non-state groups, with newly developed organizational models and methods of attack (systems), can easily collapse our attempts to return cohesion to the nation-states we toppled.
• It seeds the global development of non-state groups. As we have seen in London, Madrid, Toronto, and increasingly in the US (Reuters), new opponents will spontaneously emerge from nascent primary loyalties in response to these attacks. The more pressure applied, the greater the number of threats we face in our own back yard. Further, these groups are learning the lessons of guerrillas in Iraq -- the ultimate proving ground of advanced fourth generation warfare -- to become global guerrillas. As they continue to evolve, the very oil supply we hoped to secure will be increasingly put at risk (as we have seen in Nigeria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.).

What This Means

As these bastardized preventative wars continue to percolate, we can expect the following:

• An Iraq/Afghanistan syndrome. Extended heated conflicts in these locales will have a long term impact on the willingness of both the US and NATO to intervene in future conflicts (and particularly nation-building). The costs, particularly in the US, of these conflicts will only exacerbate existing limits on future action. Hamstrung?
• Long tail markets in warfare. The market for private military services will continue to grow as states retreat from conflict areas and open source foes proliferate. These PMCs will function as the global marketplace's guards. Within a larger context, the arrival of these forces represent a return to the military structure of Europe's chaotic thirty years war. Since many of these firms will become brands as identifiable as Hawkwood's "White Company" was in 14th century Italy, will we also see the return of great mercenary captains like Wallenstein? Hard to see this happening, unless it occurs as a natural outgrowth of CEO celebrity culture.
• The tipping point for open source warfare has been breached. Our inability to disconnect from these conflicts will only catalyze its continued development, increase the likelihood that we will experience blowback, and create opportunities for black swan events (like an attack on a major oil facility that knocks out 3-5 million barrels a day of production).

One final note: these political big bangs are accelerating history, although the popular conception of where history is taking us is completely wrong.

QUOTE: A quote that sums it up from Basra, Iraq

"We as Fadhila, we want to make our province our own region. We have two million people, an airport, a port and oil — everything we need to be a state."

Aqeel Talib, senior member of Basra's Fadhila party, to the New York Times. June 2006

THE MELTED MAP

From Sao Paulo, Brazil to Baghdad, Iraq to Nuevo Lardeo, Mexico to Quetta, Pakistan to Port Harcourt, Nigeria to Narathiwat, Thailand... globalization is melting the map. The reason is that the hyper flows of the new minimalist global platform are centrifugal in nature and not centripetal. As people connect outward onto this platform, they see both threat or promise. In response, they look inward for sources of strength to support them going forward, and in most cases find it wanting. Their states (and corporations) can't or will not provide them that strength.

The result is an almost pandemic drive towards ethnic/religious identity -- and -- the increasingly muscular granular forces of clan, sect, gang, and tribe. To get a sense of what I mean, you should take a moment to read an excellent Ralph Peters essay on a redrawn Middle East per ethnic and religious identity for The Armed Forces Journal (the weblog The Coming Anarchy follows this thread and provides a similar redrawn map for Central Asia). They detail mechanisms that have put our maps into flux and which will gain momentum.

The big differences between this struggle and those of the past is that first, it will be never ending. Big states, even those drawn along ethnic, religious, or national identity, may never provide the level of support required by those contained within their borders. The drive for a valuable identity, one gives as much as it gets to every member the group, may be a race to the bottom. There is no inevitable equilibrium point.

Second, the competitive advantage is rapidly conferring to the revisionist group, no matter how small. These groups can, and will, continually gain strength (economic, technological, and influential) through interaction with an increasingly open global platform. The acceleration of technological progress will only make this process faster. As these groups move to challenge the state for control over identity, they will in many cases opt to fight. To fight, they will increasingly use a new method of war -- the systems disruption and open source warfare that I detail here on this site -- that leverages the power of networks to undermine the functioning of their larger, more cumbersome competitors.

The stage is set. History has started again.