Open Source Warfare – Update I

Thomas Barnett, noted writer and blogger who served in various areas in the DoD, shot off a rebuttle against John Robb’s Open Source Warfare article I mentioned last weekend in “Open Source War, Global Guerillas in Iraq“.

For those unfamilar with Barnett, he is famous for his article, now book , entitled “Pentagon’s New Map”, which interprets the world as caught between the Core and the Gap, with each at the opposite end of the pole of global connectivity; he uses a state’s level of connectivity as a measurement of how stable states and regions are with the evidence that the these “Gap” (low connectivity states) are those that are often in trouble.

Here’s Barnett’s response to John Robb:

Creating better rules is how we win. By doing so we attract good citizens and good states, slowly but surely. Killing symmetrically is gratifying, but ultimately pointless. Reformatting their world so that their cause dies is the real victory. Not a matter of making it like our own, but simply making it connective in a deep sense with the outside world, so that individuals can choose their level of connectivity no matter what the authorities say or do.

So I say, bet on numbers. Bet on bigger networks. Bet on growing the Core and, by doing so, restricting the enemy’s operating domain.

Information technology analogies are great, but they do not constitute tactics, much less strategy. The winning remains the same: kill their bad guys and replace bad governments with good. Don’t confuse the friction with the formatting. Don’t confuse skirmishes with campaigns. Don’t confuse their asymmetry with our disadvantage.

In the end, we win as we always do: with stuff. Capitalism bribes off its enemies with wealth. Worked in 1848 in Europe and it’s worked ever since.


Further discussion by Barnett, Robb and others (including yours truly) can be found at Robb’s blog.

And of course, my 2-cents here:

John and Tom,

I really don’t see these two ideas as exclusive to each other. Indeed, both are using the idea of a network; albeit, in very different ways and levels.

Tom seems to be taking the macro strategic view of Iraq as state, specifically the need of a different type of network: building connections to bring Iraq to the core.

John is talking about employing a strategy to fight a network (the Insurgents, for lack of a better term) that wants to destabilize the nascent Iraqi state with a counter-network.

I think at some level both you guys are saying this and agreeing on this – all things being equal.

As an effective counter-insurgency strategy, I think John is right in suggesting “renouncing the state’s monopoly on violence by using Shiite and Kurdish militias as a counterinsurgency”. But, I don’t think it serves the ultimate end goal: securing a new and viable Iraqi government and state, which I would assume includes monopoly of violence by the state.

Indeed, there is a question regarding how an “El Salvador” solution would work in Iraq, where there are so many political, religious and ethnic groups at work. Flipping what John mentions in his NYT article on the Iraqi insurgents, if the militias and the Iraqi government win, wont they simply turn go after each other’s throat?

Questions to ask re: John’s “El Salvador” Solution:

1. Wouldn’t employing militias undermine the ultimate authority of the Iraqi government? Isnt that one of the paramount goals?
2. How would the world respond, if the Shiite and Kurdish militias conducted massacres? If such a thing was to occur, imagine to comparison to Ariel Sharon to Bush and the Shiite militias to the Maronite Christians?
3. What happens once the counter-insurgency ends? What role would the militias be given? What incentives would they have to accept? Would all accept this role?

Additionally, I pessimisticly disagree with Tom’s suggestion that “Time is on our side.” How long will the American public accept this war – in lives and costs? If the Republicans face defeat in 2006, where would the political atmosphere tilt?

Just to be clear, I really respect both Tom and John’s thinking and approach to these issues. I’ve seen Tom speak at the San Francisco World Affairs Council. (self-promotion warning) Indeed, I’ve written some papers in my undergrad years using Tom’s Core-Gap State and John’s Global Guerilla approach. Even one, mixing in Tom and John’s idea and Clash of Civilization


Posted

in

, ,

by

Tags:

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 × five =