Fifth Generation of Warfare (5GW) is "indistinguishable from magic"

[astonas]

Re: Remembering the Past

I largely agree with your post.

And that was the point of my mention of "Act of Killing".

I can think of no better and more frightening example of dehumanization and the complete lack of mental/emotional consequences for mass murder.

I would bet my last dollar that not one of the folks featured in film consider they did anything more than an essential act of pest control.

I think many consider the effects of PTSD on returning service men and women to have a lot to do with the "unnatural" act of killing another human being and it's mental/emotional toll. Personally, I think it has very little to do with killing.

I've posted before my thoughts on a seeming disconnect between human development and technology by many in the well insulated west. I think many assume technological revolution should somehow result in a linked revolution in human development and behavior.

As if our shift to Star Trek technology will lead to Star Trek behavior. I think it's a very dangerous assumption. We're still stuck inside a caveman thinking box.

Thanks, lakedaemonian. It was indeed the mention of the Act of Killing that brought up some dark and long-dormant thoughts, which may have permeated my writing here.

Dehumanization and detachment are certainly candidates for the most chilling, and perhaps even the most damaging, consequences of war. Both of these can be achieved with frightening ease in a day in Riceville, IA or Palo Alto, CA, but for some segment of any society, they become inescapable in an environment steeped in fear and desperation, when shadows make people disappear into the night.

And while the Act of Killing might be one of the most vivid documentations, it is not the first, and won't be the last. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil is another one. There is no terror so great that it cannot be brought about by perfectly sane, mild-mannered people going about their daily lives, quite confident that they are good people doing their best in a difficult world.

You point to technology as an amplifier of this disconnect, and I agree. I also recall agreeing with at least some of your arguments on the topic of drones. The increased asymmetry of warfare presents a very real moral hazard. While poison gas and biological weapons are purportedly banned due to the heinous nature of their mechanism, another key benefit of the ban is that these extremely asymmetric weapons are no longer available to amplify the moral hazard of war. Is it perhaps time to view sufficiently asymmetric weapons - regardless of their mechanism - as inappropriate for that reason alone? While this isn't the "linked revolution in human behavior and development" that one might hope for, perhaps it could be made functionally equivalent in the interim?


It seems like the next obvious technology-driven update to the treaties of war already in the world.


I'll be honest, though. I don't really expect a unilateral disarmament of these tools as a political possibility. It would lead directly to greater casualties for the same projection of force. What leader has ever said, "this fight is necessary, but let's do it in a way that costs more of our soldiers their lives, just so we really feel its impact too?"

I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but as someone who spends at least part of your time making soldiers more efficient than they already are, I can only assume that you might resist this as well. I don't mean to get personal here, my point is really that the entire history of war has been a relentless drive toward maximizing the very asymmetry of impact we are talking about. Increasing the combat effectiveness of each single soldier represents a push on the same continuum, and in the same direction, as increased technological leverage. So could the services, or their civilian leadership, realistically choose to unilaterally reverse this historical trend? If there is a bright line that qualitatively distinguishes these force multipliers (in terms of their moral hazard) I am not yet able to see it.


So instead, perhaps the challenge is to find a way to offset the newfound ease of killing with a higher moral cost, through some other external structural reform.


I suggest that perhaps a radical increase in transparency might serve a role here. While it is troubling when drones are used at all, it is truly frightening that they are used by the CIA, presumably in the sorts of missions that will never be known. That a person or location, somewhere in the world can be targeted, and simply turned into an explosion of dust by a barely-visible speck in the sky, with no one ever having to acknowledged that this has even happened is more than worrying. It is the technological equivalent of the "disappearing" of people, only without any limitations on geography or physical presence.

I know that my opinions are colored. I believe you mentioned, in an earlier post, "wannabe Einsatzgruppen." As someone whose grandfather vanished without a trace one day, presumably to the originals of these, I feel pretty strongly that this isn't a good thing to permit in the world. But I think that even setting aside that personal bias, this could be something reasonable people can agree on.

Is it perhaps time to restrict the most advanced tools of war into the exclusive domain of publicly-acknowledged strikes? To radically curtail the capabilities of the less-acountable services?

After all, other technological advances came with this exact limitation, based on their nature. A nation couldn't, for example, deploy a nuclear weapon and expect to maintain deniability. I would argue that this is probably a major reason that we haven't experienced a nuclear attack since WWII. And while ascertaining the origins of chemical and biological agents isn't always trivial, at least the mechanism of death is evident to a physician, and the list of organizations possessing the capability is finite.

Perhaps it is time to consider the fragments of a drone-dropped guided munition in that same category of war-crime evidence, when the shards are unaccounted for, or missing attendant legal process.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Remembering the Past

Thank you! Your "2 cents" is worth considerably more.

I have only one final question: To the best of your knowledge, does a similar parallel organizational structure exist in the clandestine services (eg. CIA and NSA), or are there other structural differences affecting accountability to rule of law that are noteworthy?

As I understand it, the legislation that encompasses US national security and foreign relations foundation consists of Title 10(military), Title 22(foreign service/State Department), and Title 50(which includes intelligence/covert/clandestine operations and emergency powers).

That would be a good place to start for some insomnia inducing reading.

I do know there's a heated argument and turf war over bridging the gap between it all in the form of specialized military personnel conducting some additional operational scope(with oversight) rather than the cumbersome and convoluted task of falling under CIA for some operational activities such as having to be "sheep dipped" for legal purposes. I believe that had to occur in the Bin Laden raid for example.

As best I can tell, this would mostly involve US Army Special Forces(who spend the majority of their time as culturally immersed and language trained advisors and trainers....like an unofficial parallel diplomatic service).

Where it gets weird is with contractors "green badgers" working directly(and others indirectly) on behalf of US intelligence.

It's not all nebulous and problematic. As it was two CIA "green badgers" and former servicemen who died defending US personnel in Libya, along with the death of two "blue badger" US State Department permanent employees.

Here's some articles that might offer a sense of where things can start to get muddled:

http://www.businessinsider.com/cia-o...ce-2014-1?IR=T

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/wo...nted=all&_r=1&

I can relate to some minor aspects of this. I conducted a number of tours to Afghanistan where I was specifically requested to work as a contractor on behalf of our version of the State Department after a number of incidents occurred that raised the threat level and freedom of movement for our permanent diplomatic personnel at a time when some "halo" nationally associated projects were at risk.

While my total time on the ground pales compared to most folks I know who served there(a few I know spent 6 out of the last 13 in uniform there), my time was almost exclusively 24/7 living and working right amongst the Afghan people, not hiding behind Hescos, razor wire, and machine guns.

There were some high risk areas and boundaries we didn't cross(such as only flying back and forth from Kabul to the Hindu Kush due to high kidnapping risk), but overall it was safe-ish for us if we randomized our schedules and used discretion.

It was like a watered down live action version of one of my favourite books Eastern Approaches by Fitzroy Maclean.

And in the conduct of our jobs we would run into all kinds of interesting and unsavory characters and interesting coincidences.

Our job, while adventurous, was not the least bit covert or clandestine. But we were living in and visiting communities and accessing local nationals overtly in ways that is hard to put a value on.

Serendipity comes into play, such as finding yourself having lunch with 2 strangers(amongst other acquaintances), 1 of which with great family influence, who were far from home and hailed from a very insular provincial village where 30 Americans were killed in a single contact. There's value in such overt and open source coincidental opportunity.

But I wonder about the risk of disconnect where oversight exists for "blue badgers" and in house operations.

But does that always apply consistently with contracted personnel and contracted operational activities?

In the case of Robert Levinson(CIA contractor missing since 2007, after a ridiculously ill advised trip to Iran) it might be argued that the CIA possibly failed to follow it's own internal rules in the management of contractor operational latitude/operational approval and payment.

I reckon there's legitimate concern for the potential for risk stemming from direct contracted operational activity.

But I also think one of the most underutilized resources for intelligence collection, particularly in dealing with asymmetric opponents, is ethical overt open source networking with NGOs for atmospherics , confirmation of other sources, and targeting for new sources.

If I had my way, I'd recruit several hundred US Army SF and FBI agents in their 40's/50's/60's with a few decades of experience, put them through language/culture coursing(most will have already done it repeatedly earlier in their careers), and deploy them around the world to live in local communities working in arms length partnership with the conventional State Department diplomatic infrastructure and just overtly network the hell out of the place with local military/law enforcement and local governance(think 3rd world versions of Tammany Hall and local political machines) and map the legitimate and illicit networks. And leave them there.

There's already heaps of retired guys permanently living(and often married to locals) in the developing world in places they trained in uniform. Why not leverage that existing community trend by vetting and shaping it?

If something horrific happened in Lagos, Nigeria the solution could never be to deploy troops, invited or not. That city(and many like it around the world) would swallow the entire US military without a trace.

The effective answer, if it involved anything beyond just watching from a distance, would likely be a very small mashup cross functional team driven by accurate ground truth.

[vt]

Re: What magic, what technology?

There are lots of scam charities:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/us/worst-charities/

http://cironline.org/americasworstcharities

Charity Navigator helps pinpoint some problems:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...3#.VIITKjHF-MI

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Remembering the Past

Thanks, jk.

I first learned of the concept of such demonstrations when I read the german book "Die Welle" (the wave). (It's also been made into a movie.) Apparently it, too, is based on real-life examples of a demonstration in Palo Alto, CA.

Only later did I encounter Jane Elliott's far tamer attempt to demonstrate the darkness lying just beneath the surface of ordinary people.

To me, such demonstrations show first and foremost that we cannot simply rely on the goodness of individuals to serve as the sole bulwark against violent extremism. The human mind, however well trained, is simply too easily mislead by group dynamics. We are in our very nature social creatures, who rely on social cues to establish our emotions, and that is a challenge that requires external intervention to ensure it can't get out of control.

It simply isn't a question of being a good person. Good people can indeed do evil things. Even the worst of things.

So instead, structural measures must exist that force mutual supervision by individuals with very different identities, and different motivations, so that groupthink cannot take hold.

I largely agree with your post.

And that was the point of my mention of "Act of Killing".

I can think of no better and more frightening example of dehumanization and the complete lack of mental/emotional consequences for mass murder.

I would bet my last dollar that not one of the folks featured in film consider they did anything more than an essential act of pest control.

I think many consider the effects of PTSD on returning service men and women to have a lot to do with the "unnatural" act of killing another human being and it's mental/emotional toll. Personally, I think it has very little to do with killing.

I've posted before my thoughts on a seeming disconnect between human development and technology by many in the well insulated west. I think many assume technological revolution should somehow result in a linked revolution in human development and behavior.

As if our shift to Star Trek technology will lead to Star Trek behavior. I think it's a very dangerous assumption. We're still stuck inside a caveman thinking box.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: What magic, what technology?

One of the tragic results of war is the death or wounding of servicemen and servicewomen.

For the past six years I have given generously to the Fisher House, which provides a place for wounded soldier's families to stay free of charge while their soldier family member is being treated for injuries.

https://www.fisherhouse.org/

There are other organizations that help wounded soldiers:

https://support.woundedwarriorprojec...FQQSMwodXxYAag

http://www.pva.org/site/c.ajIRK9NJLc...of_America.htm

http://www.specialops.org/

If you are looking for places to make charitable contributions, these and others are for worthy causes.

Fisher House and the Wounded Warrior Project are both good ones.

6 months ago I had the pleasure of meeting a fella named Dick Winters the namesake of the Easy Company commander Dick Winters in Band of Brothers.

He's a retired Vietnam veteran and now works as liaison to Walter Reed fundraising, facilitating, begging, borrowing, and stealing to help them out. He invited me down to visit the fellas at Walter Reed during a trip to the area a few months later.

The one thing he shared with me that was quite disconcerting is the growing problem of some military related charities out there doing more scamming than helping. So sadly, thorough due diligence is required before making a donation by the sounds of things.

You've posted at least two good ones.

[vt]

Re: What magic, what technology?

One of the tragic results of war is the death or wounding of servicemen and servicewomen.

For the past six years I have given generously to the Fisher House, which provides a place for wounded soldier's families to stay free of charge while their soldier family member is being treated for injuries.

https://www.fisherhouse.org/

There are other organizations that help wounded soldiers:

https://support.woundedwarriorprojec...FQQSMwodXxYAag

http://www.pva.org/site/c.ajIRK9NJLc...of_America.htm

http://www.specialops.org/

If you are looking for places to make charitable contributions, these and others are for worthy causes.

[astonas]

Re: Remembering the Past

that "color of their eyes" link was really an amazing article. thank you.

Thanks, jk.

I first learned of the concept of such demonstrations when I read the german book "Die Welle" (the wave). (It's also been made into a movie.) Apparently it, too, is based on real-life examples of a demonstration in Palo Alto, CA.

Only later did I encounter Jane Elliott's far tamer attempt to demonstrate the darkness lying just beneath the surface of ordinary people.

To me, such demonstrations show first and foremost that we cannot simply rely on the goodness of individuals to serve as the sole bulwark against violent extremism. The human mind, however well trained, is simply too easily mislead by group dynamics. We are in our very nature social creatures, who rely on social cues to establish our emotions, and that is a challenge that requires external intervention to ensure it can't get out of control.

It simply isn't a question of being a good person. Good people can indeed do evil things. Even the worst of things.

So instead, structural measures must exist that force mutual supervision by individuals with very different identities, and different motivations, so that groupthink cannot take hold.

[DSpencer]

Re: the war on terror

Who demeans soldiers?
...

Great post. Long in internet terms but well worth the read.

[don]

Re: Remembering the Past

"Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low."

Lovely quote!

We just had a chance to attend a showing of Sarah Treem's The How and the Why, a mother/daughter day-of-reckoning, set in an academic catfight. Delicious.

[jk]

Re: Remembering the Past

Sayre's law: "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low."

If the only differences between two halves of humanity were the color of their eyes, that would be enough to flatten the earth.

that "color of their eyes" link was really an amazing article. thank you.

[Woodsman]

Re: Remembering the Past

I don't fight. I don't resist. I don't organize. I don't demonstrate. I don't discuss such matters in public life. And I write no words for attribution. I tend to my business and to the needs of those depending on me. I have my opinions and since they are no more than that, I trust people here have enough common sense to pay them no mind at all.

[astonas]

Re: Remembering the Past

Thank you! Your "2 cents" is worth considerably more.

I have only one final question: To the best of your knowledge, does a similar parallel organizational structure exist in the clandestine services (eg. CIA and NSA), or are there other structural differences affecting accountability to rule of law that are noteworthy?

[astonas]

Re: Remembering the Past

Even in a world with unlimited free energy and wealth we'd still find plenty to fight over.

Sayre's law: "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low."

If the only differences between two halves of humanity were the color of their eyes, that would be enough to flatten the earth.

[astonas]

Re: Remembering the Past

I would agree.

I think it's quite common for folks to take a blindered view of their own country's foreign policy, either only exclusively seeing the wrongs of their country, or choosing to NOT see any of them.

Balanced viewpoints from individuals can be a hard thing to find at times rather than relying on group average "wisdom of crowds".

I should perhaps clarify that I didn't intend to imply (in my prior response to vt) that an objective viewpoint isn't useful. Only that it is both hard to find, and also inherently leaves out a lot of things that, while not objective, are still important as subjective inputs.

I don't know that there can really be an objective way to assess and sum up degrees of suffering, for example. It is something that can only be known to the sufferer. But that doesn't mean that suffering isn't something that should be minimized where possible.

Perhaps this is the grey area that lakedaemonian refers to. Perhaps Woodsman might more colorfully prefer to think of it as shades of pink, a spray based on proximity to a recently exploded person.

But my simple understanding at this point is that while lakedaemonian's explanations have indeed reassured me greatly that professionalism in the military is not only possible, but prevalent, I still appreciate the fact that people like Woodsman are around to aggressively shine light on those failings of the 5-10% bottom tier that will remain in any organization. Truth be told, I think the intelligence services in particular require this accountability more than the military, if for no other reason than the moral hazard there appears to be far greater.

And similarly, while Woodsman's passion and intent to avoid doing harm can indeed help keep the defensive structures of our country honest, at the end of the day, it is people like lakedaemonian who will be called upon to put an end to those atrocities that will exist as long as human nature does, usually risking great personal (psychological as well as physical) cost to themselves. I do feel better knowing that there are people like him involved in training in the services.

So is there an objective answer here? One every reasonable person should be able to agree on? I remain in doubt.

But I'm certainly glad there is more than one subjective viewpoint being expressed here. I've learned an incredible amount, and am grateful to you both for it.


Thank you for sharing your stories.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Remembering the Past

Honestly, I'm not sure this question is one where objectivity is really possible. Or frankly, always desirable.


Take my case. I fully understand that there really isn't any way for me to be objective about this subject (though I do my best).

My parents both grew up in extremely active war zones.

They saw and experienced horrible things. My mother was some combination of lucky, and strong. She came out of it fairly intact.

My father, let's just say that parts of his psyche have remained shattered. That there are whole chunks of his life that he to this day cannot discuss.

War is a terrible thing. It destroys lives in ways that propagate to subsequent generations. In this, Woodsman is entirely right. That war was present in my household every day I was growing up, though it had "ended" decades before.

And yet, I cannot in good conscience say that I wish there had been no war.

Why?

Because the war was WWII. And because my parents grew up in Germany.


So to me this isn't a contest about which side is more objective. The subjective does matter. At least to me.

But that doesn't mean it isn't a conversation worth having.

Because finding a way to end the suffering of war where that is possible, and minimize the suffering where it is not, is essential to remaining human in the kind of world where militaries are regrettably necessary.

I tend to think of war as little different from cancer.

I made a comment a few posts back about how I like talking to health care workers who work in oncology.

Cancer can be mitigated through personal/collective choices. But we fail to make those choices for both the right and wrong reasons.

But for all the promises it doesn't look like we will ever eradicate cancer.

Can't the same be said of war?

We try(sometimes) to mitigate war, we could probably do a better job of mitigating it for both right and wrong reasons.

But it's part of the human condition isn't it?

Even in a world with unlimited free energy and wealth we'd still find plenty to fight over.

Maybe a couple of oncologists and oncology nurses should run foreign policy.