Narrative, Cyberspace and the 21st Century Art of War by Brad D. Williams, Fifth Domain
In February 2013, an article insipidly entitled “The Value of Science in Prediction” appeared in the Russian publication Military-Industrial Courier. The article was penned by Valery Gerasimov, chief of the general staff of the Russian Federation. Few in the West recognized the article at all, much less its significance, at the time of its publication.
In the article, Gerasimov analyzed “new-type conflicts.” These conflicts entail an array of strategies and tactics employed in the gray zone to achieve national interests, even military, without a declaration of war and without crossing the threshold that would provoke a kinetic response.
“The very ‘rules of war’ have changed,” Gerasimov wrote.
Dr. Mark Galeotti, an expert on Russian history and security issues who annotated an English translation of Gerasimov’s article, identified the most important line as, “The role of nonmilitary means of achieving political and strategic goals has grown and, in many cases, they have exceeded the power of force of weapons in their effectiveness.”
Gerasimov’s “nonmilitary means” included “broad use of political, economic, informational, humanitarian and other nonmilitary measures – applied with the protest potential of the population.”
Experts see one hybrid tactic – narrative and cyber – playing an increasingly prominent role in current conflicts…
Comments
This is interesting. Note the following from the article above. (At the second paragraph in the subsection entitled: "China and the Sovereignty Narrative."):"
"At issue is, Demchak wrote, 'China wants her borders in cyberspace and will take nothing less.' Whereas the West sees the internet as a tool for global democratization ..."
If we agree that the West's such narrative (re: advancing global democractization), that this includes -- not just advancing "global democracy" but advancing Western values globally also -- then, by the West having adopted such a narrative, has the West (much as the Soviets/the communists did in the old days) set itself up to be accused of threatening the (much valued, in some cases even "sacred") alternative ways of life, alternative ways of governance and alternative values, attitudes and beliefs of virtually everyone else in the world? Herein, our opponents using our such narrative to (a) craft their own "anti-Western/anti-modernization" narratives and (b) using same to try to replace the West as the leader of the world accordingly? In this regard consider following examples from ISIS, the Russians and the Chinese:
First, an ISIS example:
"In her writing, Maan has examined a common idea across ISIS’s communications: 'Islam is under attack.' That is a title, not the narrative, she explained.
Despite the West’s claims otherwise, “Islam is under attack” resonates with ISIS followers in many forms."
(See more at our article above, in the subsection entitled: "ISIS and the Narrative of the Islamic Caliphate.")
Next, the Russian example:
"In 2013 modernization was rejected, both as a word and as a policy. It was replaced by a de facto counter-modernization course that included social conservatism and an emphasis on Russian 'traditional values'. In the past, Putin would occasionally speak of the West as an unfriendly competitor or a force that seeks to do Russia harm. But in his third term, he also assumed a posture of moral condemnation. In his public speeches in late 2013, Putin sounded like a preacher: he harshly criticised the 'Euroatlantic' countries for their decadence and immorality. He said they had abandoned their roots and their Christian values and equated 'belief in God with belief in Satan'. He condemned European multiculturalism and dismissed the policy of tolerance as 'neutered and barren'. And a wide range of officials and loyalists eagerly took up Putin’s words."
http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_how_russia_has_come_to_loathe_the… (See the subsection entitled "Propaganda and Moral Commendation.")
Last, to view the case of China:
"Ideology has returned as a major factor in U.S.-China relations. Chinese government warnings against the pernicious influence of 'Western values' have surged under Xi Jinping and vigilance against Western influence is now a guiding component of his policies toward the Internet, traditional media, culture and entertainment, universities, think tanks, and non-governmental organizations. While not yet as prominent as his anti-corruption drive, the elements of a sustained ideology campaign are now in place and are already affecting the atmospherics of the bilateral relationship."
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/do-western-values-threaten-china-the… (See the third "bullet.")
Bottom Line:
Thus, it appears that nearly everyone has taken the West's such -- clearly threatening (to identity, independence, freedom, ambition, etc.; think Thucydides "honor, fear and self-interest?") narrative -- and has now used this exact such Western narrative against us.
Herein, our opponents suggesting that only they, individually and/or collectively, as the champions now/the leaders of anti-Western/anti-modernization movements, can protect their populations -- and indeed the entire less-western/non-western world -- from such "evil" as the West now seeks to impose upon them.
In this manner, of using one's own narrative against them (much as we did against the Soviets/the communists back-in-the-day), these entities (the Islamists, the Russians, the Chinese, for example today) seek both to (a) contain and roll back Western power, influence and control throughout the world and to (b) gain such power, influence and control for themselves.
From this exact such point-of-view, to consider "Narrative, Cyberspace and the 21st Century Art of War?"
"a. "Conflict"/"Competition"...has been, is, and, indeed, will continue to be the "steady-state" condition of the world....
b. ...all living organisms...are "hard wired" to pursue/defend their respective interests by any means possible."
Sure, although for purposes of this discussion, let's stick to sentient organisms...or humans, if you debate whether they're sentient. :)
"Thus, to understand that the steady-state condition of the world has been, is and will continue to be a world of conflict and competition between human groups...."
When in human history has it not been? Conflict and competition aren't necessarily violent or destructive, but humans are individuals, and subordinating individual needs and desires to those of a group is a conscious decision, not an automatic reaction.
"Peace, cooperation and common cause between these competing groups will be understood as an extremely limited, fleeting, and indeed, simply a transitional time...."
Perhaps better stated as "not a steady-state condition". Peace, cooperation, and common cause can last a long time, but only by conscious decision and effort.
"In this "there is really no space between war and peace" worldview, to understand calls, for example, from COL Maxwell, for a return to such things as "political warfare", and, likewise, to understand "shaping operations" today?
Both of which concepts tell us that, in a time of so-called "peace," we, and indeed our opponents, are (or should be) just pursuing/defending our interests (a) in other ways and/or (b) by other means?"
If you mean that "war" and "peace" simply define two different conditions, then yes. But that's why I don't find concepts like "political warfare" or "economic warfare" very helpful. If all conflict or competition is "warfare", then we make no meaningful differentiation between political or economic actions that happen as part of organized, violent conflicts -- war -- and political or economic actions that happen as part of non-violent conflict -- peace. I understand we've adopted the words "war" and "warfare" to indicate maximum effort and a no-compromise approach to achieving objectives (although wars have been fought with less than maximum effort, and waging war usually demands compromises), but those always struck me as simply excuses for excess.
Should we understand that there is no space between war and peace and that, accordingly, the title of the above article should be "Narrative, Cyberspace and the 21st Century Art of Survival?" Herein, to understand that:
a. "Conflict"/"Competition (between individuals, groups, sects, tribes, nations, nation-states, cultures, etc., etc., etc.) -- this has been, is, and, indeed, will continue to be the "steady-state" condition of the world. (Even when military forces are not seriously engaged.). And that, re: this "steady-state" condition of the world,
b. Not only "humans" but, indeed, all living organisms (past, present and future?), are "hard wired" to pursue/defend their respective interests by any means possible.
If we adopt the above as our "worldview," then might this not prevent us from "going off the rails" (of reality) -- such as we have in the recent past?
(Wherein, after winning the Old Cold War, we came to believe that "universal Western values" had obtained, and that, accordingly, the fundamental nature of humanity had changed: from conflict/ competition to cooperation and common cause.)
Thus, to understand that the steady-state condition of the world has been, is and will continue to be a world of conflict and competition between human groups; wherein,
a. All human groups (or at least the "bright" ones who hope to achieve/defend their interests and survive to see another day) will -- continue -- to use every means possible to pursue/defend their interests. And
b. Peace, cooperation and common cause between these competing groups will be understood as an extremely limited, fleeting, and indeed, simply a transitional time -- a literal "jumping off point" to immediate future conflicts, competitions, etc.
In this "there is really no space between war and peace" worldview, to understand calls, for example, from COL Maxwell, for a return to such things as "political warfare, and, likewise, to understand "shaping operations" today?
Both of which concepts tell us that, in a time of so-called "peace," we, and indeed our opponents, are (or should be) just pursuing/defending our interests (a) in other ways and/or (b) by other means?
In this light, to change the title of the above article to "Narrative, Cyberspace and the 21st Century Art of Survival?"
Have "the very rules of war" changed, or has the definition of war been stretched to become synonymous with conflict? Certainly war is more than just combat, but historically, economic and political activities were simply part of the competition between nation-states. Diplomacy and the publication of tailored information (propaganda) were tools to accomplish goals within those areas. IIRC, the Soviets tacked "war" onto the end of everything to convince their population (and remind everyone else) they were constantly engaged in an existential, total effort conflict with the West, even when there wasn't direct combat. (And if you keep repeating it, it becomes true.)
We be better off if we toned down the hyperbole and reaccepted the idea that there are conflicts between nations that don't necessarily involve going to war, and save the definition of war for when that's what's actually happening.