Author Topic: BUSTED! How to manufacture Controlled Revolutions: Project "SMART MOBS" EXPOSED!  (Read 20802 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Revolution in Military Affairs:
From Computer Generated Insurgents to Bioelectric Implants

http://www.oldthinkernews.com/?p=204
Old-Thinker News | May 4, 2008
By Daniel Taylor

In July of 1994 the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) produced the paper titled Revolution In Military Affairs And Conflict Short Of War that uncannily forecasted the future in a “hypothetical future history” written in the year 2010. The hypothetical situation contains many disturbing predictions, several of which have come true, some partially. After a series of terrorist attacks, foreign policy “fiascos” and various disputes between “supporters of multinational peace operations” and “isolationists”, a small number of “revolutionaries” recruits members in all branches of the U.S. government and shift American foreign policy to a practice of pre-emption. Computer generated insurgents claim responsibility for attacks that U.S. forces carry out, pharmaceutical drugs are used as a part of national security strategy, “attitude shaping campaigns” are directed against the American people, traditional boundaries between military and law enforcement are abolished, subliminal conditioning is used in combination with propaganda, and bioelectric tags are implanted in citizens. By 2010 the revolutionaries’ goals were met.

All of this will likely sound eerily familiar to followers of current events, or for that matter anyone who lived to see the events of September 11th 2001, its resulting wars, and its truly “revolutionary” effects in the reorganization of government and law. The Bush administration’s signature legislation, the Patriot Act, has infringed on multiple sections of the Bill of Rights and Constitution. Posse Comitatus, which has protected Americans from the military engaging in domestic law enforcement since 1807 was reversed when the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 was passed last year.

The Neoconservatives reign in the United States holds striking similarities to the scenario outlined in the 1994 SSI report. Interestingly, the document clearly stated that,

“Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or the other Third World caricatures of the Soviet Union are perfect opponents for a RMA-type [Revolution in Military Affairs] military.”

With this in mind, here are some disturbing and revealing excerpts from the Revolution In Military Affairs And Conflict Short Of War document:

The Revolutionaries’ rise to power

“This series of fiascos [terrorist attacks on the United States at home and abroad] led a small number of American political leaders, senior military officers, and national security experts to conclude that a revolution was needed in the way we approached conflict short of war. They held the Vietnam-inspired doctrine of the 1980s and 1990s directly responsible for these disasters. Only radical innovation, they concluded, could renew U.S. strategy and avoid a slide into global irrelevance.”

“The revolutionaries’ first task was to recruit proselytes throughout the government and national security community. Initially the revolutionaries, who called their new strategic concept “Dynamic Defense,” were opposed by isolationists who felt that new technology should be used simply to build an impenetrable electronic and physical barrier around the United States. Eventually the revolutionaries convinced the president-elect following the campaign of 2000 that Dynamic Defense was both feasible and effective–a task made easier by his background as a pioneering entrepreneur in the computer-generated and controlled “perception-molding” systems developed by the advertising industry. The President was thus amenable to the use of the sort of psychotechnology which formed the core of the RMA in conflict short of war.”


“The first step in implementing Dynamic Defense was reshaping the national security organization and its underlying attitudes and values. Technology provided opportunity; only intellectual change could consolidate it. With the full and active support of the President, the revolutionaries reorganized the American national security system to make maximum use of emerging technology and new ideas.

This loosely reflected the earlier revolution in the world of business, and sought to make the U.S. national security organization more flexible and quicker to react to shifts in the global security environment. The old Cold War structures–the Department of Defense, Department of State, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Council, and others–were replaced by two organizations.”


“This integrated the military, civilian law enforcement, the diplomatic corps, and organizations responsible for gathering and analyzing intelligence. Since so many of the conflicts faced by the United States were “gray area” threats falling somewhere in between traditional military problems and traditional law enforcement problems, the organizational division between the two was abolished.”


“One of the turning points of the revolution came when its leaders convinced the President and key members of Congress that traditional American ethics were a major hindrance to the RMA. This was crucial: the revolutionaries and their allies then crafted the appropriate attitudinal vessel for the RMA. Through persistent efforts and very sophisticated domestic “consciousness-raising,” old-fashioned notions of personal privacy and national sovereignty changed.

This was relatively easy since frustration with domestic crime had already begun to alter attitudes and values. In fact, the RMA in conflict short of war was, in many ways, a spin-off of the domestic “war on drugs and crime” of the late 1990s when the military… became heavily involved in support to domestic law enforcement. The changes in American values that accompanied that struggle were easily translated to the national security arena. Once the norms concerning personal privacy changed, law soon followed.”


“With values changed, technology then opened the door to profound innovation. Vast improvements in surveillance systems and information processing made it possible to monitor a large number of enemies (and potential enemies)… As they advanced into the electronic and bioelectronic era, it was necessary to rethink our ethical prohibitions on manipulating the minds of enemies (and potential enemies) both international and domestic. Cutting-edge pharmaceutical technology also provided tools for national security strategists.”


“All of this reorganization and technological development was simply preface for the full flowering of the revolution in military affairs. American leaders popularized a new, more inclusive concept of national security. No distinction–legal or otherwise–was drawn between internal and external threats. In the interdependent 21st century world, such a differentiation was dangerously nostalgic.”

The Strategy

“The actual strategy built on the RMA was divided into three tracks. The first sought to perpetuate the revolution. Its internal dimension institutionalized the organizational and attitudinal changes that made the revolution possible, and pursued future breakthroughs in close conjunction with business, the scientific community, and local law enforcement agencies — the core troika of the 21st century security. The external dimension actively sought to delay or prevent counterresponses by controlling information and through well-orchestrated deception.”


“The second track consisted of offensive action. Our preference was preemption. In a dangerous world, it was preferable to kill terrorists before they could damage the ecology or strike at the United States… When preemption failed, the United States sought either passive containment where strikes (electronic, psychological, or physical) were used to limit the spread of the deleterious effects of a conflict. For opponents with the ability to harm the United States, the military preemptively destroyed their capabilities.”


“By 2010, the RMA accomplished its desired objectives.”

Operation Cerberus, computer generated insurgents and subliminal conditioning

“Probably the finest hour of the new warriors was the Cuba preemption of 2005–Operation Ceberus.”

“Potential or possible supporters of the insurgency around the world were identified using the Comprehensive Interagency Integrated Database. These were categorized as “potential” or “active,” with sophisticated computerized personality simulations used to develop, tailor, and focus psychological campaigns for each.”

“Individuals and organizations with active predilections to support the insurgency were targets of an elaborate global ruse using computer communications networks and appeals by a computer-generated insurgent leader.”

“Psychological operations included traditional propaganda as well as more aggressive steps such as drug assisted subliminal conditioning.”

“Since all Americans in Cuba had been bioelectrically tagged and monitored during the initial stages of the conflict, the NEO went smoothly…”

“The attitude-shaping campaigns aimed at the American public, the global public, and the Cuban people went quite well, including those parts using computer-generated broadcasts by insurgent leaders–”morphing”– in which they were shown as disoriented and psychotic. Subliminal messages surreptitiously integrated with Cuban television transmissions were also helpful.”

“In fact, all of this was so successful that there were only a few instances of covert, stand-off military strikes when insurgent targets arose and government forces seemed on the verge of defeat. U.S. strike forces also attacked neutral targets to support the psychological campaign as computer-generated insurgent leaders claimed credit for the raids. At times, even the raids themselves were computer-invented ‘recreations.’” [emphasis added]



Resistance beginning to emerge as “The Eagle Movement” rises


“Perhaps most important, Americans are beginning to question the economic, human, and ethical costs of our new strategy. A political movement called the “new Humanitarianism” is growing, especially among Americans of Non-European descent, and seems likely to play a major role in the presidential election of 2012. There are even rumblings of discontent within the national security community as the full meaning of the revolution becomes clear. Since the distinction between the military and non-military components of our national security community has eroded, many of those notionally in the military service have come to feel unbound by traditional notions of civil-military relations. This group has founded a new political party – The Eagle Movement – which is beginning to exert great pressure on the traditional political parties for inclusion in national policymaking. The traditional parties are, to put it lightly, intimidated by the Eagle Movement, and seem likely to accept its demands.” [emphasis added]




WAKE UP!

THE REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS IS THE HANDBOOK BEING USED!

IT WAS WRITTEN IN 1994!

SQUAREPUSHER, AI, BTT, AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN BEGGING EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND ITS IMPLICATIONS!

THESE REVOLUTIONS OVERSEAS ARE FULL BLOWN OPERATIONS IN RMA!

9/11 WAS THE FIRST COMPLETE, FULL SCALE RMA OPERATION TO DEMONSTRATE THE FULL EFFECTS OF A "GAME CHANGING" WEAPON. THAT WEAPON IS A CYBERNETIC CONTROLLED "PEARL HARBOR EVENT". THE REVOLUTIONARY ASPECT OF THE WEAPON IS THAT IT INCLUDES SENSORS TO MONITOR POPULATION REACTION; A REAL-TIME CONTINUAL FEEDBACK LOOP TO CONTROL THE HISTORICAL MEMORY OF THE EVENT; A PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS ENGINE TO FORESEE ANY THREATS TO THE MANUFACTURED CONSENT OF THE HISTORICAL MEMORY OF THE EVENT; PHOENIX PROGRAM "PRECISION STRIKE" SOLUTIONS TO THREATS TO THE HISTORICAL MEMORY OF THE EVENT; CONTROLLED OPPOSITION TO PRE-EMPTIVELY GUIDE, MANIPULATE, COMPROMISE, DISCREDIT, AND EVENTUALLY ELIMINATE FORESEEABLE THREAT "MOVEMENTS" WHICH MAY COMPROMISE ACHIEVED MILESTONES AND EVOLUTIONARY DIRECTIONS NOW CONSENTED TO BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

OTHER REVOLUTIONARY ASPECTS OF THE WEAPON IS THE ABILITY TO INCLUDE ANALYTICS TO ASSESS NEARLY LIMITLESS ONGOING "DECEPTION OPERATION" EVENTS WHICH CAN BE MANIPULATED ON THE FLY UTILIZING THE MASSIVE DATA WAREHOUSES CONTINUALLY ASSISTING IN PROVIDING INFORMATION FOR REAL-TIME AND PREDICTIVE "WAR-GAMING".

LIKE 9/11, THESE FAKE REVOLUTIONS ARE 100% RMA, IT WAS ALREADY WRITTEN ABOUT AND COMBINED WITH DECLASSIFIED INFORMATION ABOUT THE PHOENIX PROGRAM THIS LEAVES LITTLE DOUBT WHO THE TARGET IS...

ALL OF HUMANITY THROUGH CYBERNETIC COMPLIANCE!

IN ORDER TO FULFILL THIS OBJECTIVE...THE CONSTITUTION AND THE IDEA UNALIENABLE RIGHTS MUST BE REMOVED THOUGH WILLFUL COOPERATION!

WE HAVE BEEN INVENTING WARS SINCE KOREA TO BE TEST BEDS FOR AN EVENTUAL COUP IN THE UNITED STATES BY THE BANKSTERS. THEY ARE THE SAME BANKSTERS THAT HAVE BEEN FORCING US INTO ILLEGAL WARS OVERSEAS. RMA AND THE NEW PHOENIX PROGRAM LEAVE NO DOUBT!

HEY RMA GAME-PLAYERS...THERE IS NO NEED FOR THESE ELABORATE SCENARIOS INVOLVING GENOCIDE OF MILLIONS, DEPOPULATION OPERATIONS, EUGENICS, MIND DOMINATION, TRAUMA BASED MIND CONTROL (INSTITUTIONALIZED TORTURE) AND THE THEFT OF $30 TRILLION TO CREATE AN "EAGLE MOVEMENT". IT WAS ALREADY CREATED IN 1776 AND IT IS ALIVE AND WELL BEFORE RMA EVER TRIED TO HIJACK IT (AS EVERYONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO NOW CLEARLY SEE). RMA GAME-PLAYERS...JUST SPEND 1/1,000,000TH OF THE ENERGY AND RESOURCES BY REQUIRING THE US CONSTITUTION TO BE DEFENDED FROM ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. THAT IS YOUR PRIMARY DIRECTIVE, YOUR INITIAL DIRECTIVE, YOUR OVER-RIDING DIRECTIVE...YOUR ONLY F-ING DIRECTIVE! THE GLOBALIST SCUMBAGS ARE CONVINCING YOU THAT THIS IS THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COUNTRY. BUT, JUST LIKE MUBARAK BEING CONVINCED INTO ALLOWING THE CIA TO TORTURE PEOPLE ON EGYPTIAN LAND, YOU ARE BEING CONVINCED TO SUPPORT ABSOLUTE ATROCITIES "FOR THE GREATER GOOD". THERE IS NO SUCH THING, IT DOES NOT EXIST, THE MOVIE WATCHMAN IS A FRAUD. YOU ARE BEING TRICKED INTO HELPING GLOBALISTS PUSH THIS COUNTRY INTO THE SPOTLIGHT OF A GLOBAL MOB WHICH WILL DEMAND JUSTICE FROM THE "GLOBALLY CONSENTED ENEMY - THE UNITED STATES".

THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPOSED IN AN EARLIER THREAD HERE:

Proof that post 9/11 illegal wars were planned to find US guilty in Int'l Courts
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=201604.0


NOW DO YOUR JOBS!
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Rockefeller Foundation Proposal on a Revolution in Military Affairs, Military Operations, and Transformation of Psychological Operations to Psychological Domination of Large Populations
Operations to allow the United States to evolve from a Republic to a Monarch
British Intelligence Mandated "Above Sovereign Operations"
Project Monarch

Monarch 12 - Military Intelligence - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvfEl8Xt84o
Monarch 13 - Scientists - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je8rTnqkeHo
Monarch 14 - Patents Open Science - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVqzHUGyhTQ

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
The following white paper must be read by everyone IMO:

THE REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS
AND
CONFLICT SHORT OF WAR


Steven Metz
and
James Kievit

July 25, 1994


http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub241.pdf



FOREWORD


For many experts on U.S. national security, the combination of emerging technology and innovative ideas seen in the Gulf War seem to herald a genuine revolution in military affairs. The victory of coalition forces demonstrated the technology and seemed to suggest that the revolution in military affairs can solve many of the strategic problems faced by the United States in the post-Cold War security environment.

In this study, the authors concede that the revolution in military affairs holds great promise for conventional, combined-arms warfare, but conclude that its potential value in conflict short of war, whether terrorism, insurgency, or violence associated with narcotrafficking, is not so clear-cut.

Given this, national leaders and strategists should proceed cautiously and only after a full exploration of the ethical, political, and social implications of their decisions. To illustrate this, the authors develop a hypothetical future scenario--a "history" of U.S. efforts in conflict short of war during the first decade of the 21st century.

It is too early to offer concrete policy prescriptions for adapting many aspects of the revolution in military affairs to conflict short of war, but the authors do suggest an array of questions that should be debated. In order to decide whether to apply new technology and emerging concepts or how to employ them, the United States must first reach consensus on ultimate objectives and acceptable costs. The Strategic Studies Institute is pleased to offer this study as a first step in this process.

JOHN W. MOUNTCASTLE
Colonel, U.S. Army
Director, Strategic Studies Institute
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub241.pdf
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
Top Rumsfeld Aide Wins Contracts From Spy Office He Set Up
Rumsfeld, with Cheney’s support, set out from the beginning to “transform” the U.S. military into a high-tech, computerized fighting force designed specifically to shoot down missiles from “rogue states” and defeat counterinsurgencies and other “low intensive” threats to U.S. national security, primarily in the Middle East. None of this sat very well with the uniformed military and the defense industry, both of which were slow to embrace Rumsfeld’s network centric policies and the accompanying cuts imposed on Cold War-era weapons such as aircraft carriers and artillery systems. But the grumbling stopped after September 11, which provided the opening for Rumsfeld and his allies in the administration to make intelligence the centerpiece of their new “war on terror.”

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=172727.msg1026279#msg1026279
The RMA Enables President To Start Wars Without Congress' Approval - RMA Exposed
"OK, remember this moment....

Mission Accomplished


Everyone just thought this was down to hubris on the part of dumb Bush and his controllers. Right? He didn't think there would be an insurgency, right - he counted his eggs before they hatched, right? Well, guess what?

YOU COULDN'T BE MORE WRONG. STARTING THE WAR WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL AND DECLARING ITS END within 60 days was ALL PART OF THE PLAN - as this document will show you. If you thought the above (the part about Bush being lied to about the realities of the war and the battlefield), you were owned by this dumbass, which would lead one to conclude Bush, in fact, and the guys that ran him, were in fact smarter than you from the get go. That would be quite the ownage.

This entire 'Mission Accomplished' thing was actually a bland exercise of the extreme unconstitutional powers that the RMA provides the executive branch (and its controllers - meaning, not the President and his cabinet) with.

http://www.nps.edu/Academics/centers/ccc/publications/OnlineJournal/2003/sept03/strategy.pdf

http://www.nps.edu/Academics/centers/ccc/publications/OnlineJournal/2003/sept03/strategy.html

Quote
The RMA and War Powers
Strategic Insights, Volume II, Issue 9 (September 2003)
by Lukasz Kamienski

Strategic Insights is a quarterly electronic journal produced by the Center for Contemporary Conflict at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. The views expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of NPS, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

Click here for a PDF version of this article.

This Strategic Insight explores the impact of the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) on the roles played by Congress and the President when it comes to decisions for war and peace, and the way the RMA is changing the distribution of war-making powers between the two branches of government. While the information-driven RMA is changing the character of wars fought by the United States, it also seems to be shifting the war powers "balance" in favor of the executive branch. The RMA appears to be strengthening virtual Presidential war powers, while weakening the position of Congress.

War Powers in Theory and Practice

According to the war clause of the Constitution, "The Congress shall have power … to declare war (…)."[1] There can be no doubt that the intention of the Founding Fathers was to give the legislature an authority to initiate war. Constitutionally, any use of armed forces abroad requires an explicit Congressional authorization. This, however, is not necessary in case of an attack on the United States, because such an act of aggression would mean that war had already been initiated.[2] The President not only has the power but the duty to repel any sudden attack despite a lack of Congressional authorization. The executive branch was given narrow war powers. They are limited to the Constitution's commander in chief clause, which says, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."[3] Alexander Hamilton explained the essence of this clause in the following way: "when war is 'authorized or begun' the president is to command the military operations of American forces."[4] The legal powers of war and peace also were included in the checks and balance system that is reflected in the organizing principle of the separation of powers. Richard Neustadt characterized this model as "separated institutions sharing powers."[5] Nevertheless, as historical practice shows, this model represents only the Weberian ideal type. Unilateral presidential actions in foreign affairs resulted in a "revision" of these constitutional principles.

The shift in war-making authority from the legislative to the executive occurred over time. The turning point in this process was the Korean War and President Truman's unilateral decision of June 1950 to engage the U.S. armed forces in hostilities on the peninsula. This war, which was described by the administration as a "police operation" rather than a war, set a precedent as a "presidential war" waged without any authorization from Congress.[6] Truman's successors followed suit. The rise of the executive at the expense of Congressional prerogatives led Arthur M. Schlessinger, Jr. to talk about the "imperial presidency." Such a "shift in the constitutional balance," wrote Schlessinger, "received its decisive impetus … from foreign policy; above all, from the capture by the President of the most vital of national decisions, the decision to go to war."[7] Thus, the constitutional presidency was transformed into the so-called "imperial presidency."

In the face of a serious weakening of the presidency that was a result of the Vietnam War and the Watergate affair, Congress attempted to recover its constitutional war powers by passing The War Powers Resolution (WPR) of 1973.[8] Its aim was to retrieve and formalize Congressional control over Presidential military actions. The WPR can be summed up in four clauses:

1. A consultation requirement stipulates "The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances…" (Section 3).
2. A reporting requirement obliges the president to report to Congress when U.S. armed forces have been engaged in hostilities "in the absence of a declaration of war" (Section 4).
3. A "sixty-day clock" gives the president two months for concluding a military action plus an extra 30 days under a Congressional extension (Section 4[a][1]).
4. Congress can direct the removal of U.S. forces by passing a concurrent resolution (Section 5[c]).

Although the goal of the WPR [War Powers Act] was to stimulate a genuine dialogue between the legislative and the executive branches on issues of war and peace and to revive the constitutional war powers ascribed to Congress, it had the reverse effect.[9] The Resolution enhanced Presidential war powers. As a result, "The presidency is understood to be proactive in the exercise of the war power, while Congress, for the most part, is understood to be reactive." The contemporary American RMA has further strengthened this model.

The RMA and the "Imperial Presidency"

A President who launches a military operation without a congressional authorization will attempt to make the use of force short and decisive. It is desirable to terminate an engagement within the 60 to 90 day limit imposed by the War Powers Resolution. Since long and large-scale interventions may lead to a political conflict between the Presidency and Congress, this threat undoubtedly has an impact on Presidents' conduct of foreign affairs. Such political conflict might weaken and undermine a President's position as a Commander in Chief or as a leader of an international coalition. A short and decisive war, however, does not pose a threat of a constitutional conflict between the President and Congress.

The RMA facilitates fighting these quick wars. It reflects "the Napoleonic concept of war" which is typical of the American war culture, namely "that only decisive results are worth having."[11] Information dominance and supremacy in high-tech conventional weapons are supposed to enable the United States to win wars quickly. Rapid and precise air strikes paralyze an opponent's military and civilian infrastructures. This, in turn, makes ensuing land operation faster, more predictable and less costly.

The United States has conducted several "RMA wars": the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the Kosovo war in 1999, and the war with Iraq in 2003. The RMA allows various administrations to conduct "Presidential wars" (with no Congressional authorization) within the time limit set by the War Powers Resolution. In October 2002, for example, Congress passed joint resolution 114 authorizing President George W. Bush to "use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security interests of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and (2) to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."[12] Congress thus made irrelevant its prerogative to declare war. A Republican Representative, Ron Paul summed up the behavior of the legislature in the following words: "Congress would rather give up its most important authorized power to the President and the UN than risk losing an election if the war goes badly."[13]

Avoiding Casualties

If a U.S. administration suffers far greater casualties than expected in a given conflict, then it is likely that the Vietnam syndrome might reemerge in American politics. Congressional opposition to the conflict would grow. As a result, the President's position would be weakened and his options for action narrowed. This could be seriously damaging particularly given the congressional threat of demand for force withdrawal (Section 5[c] of the WPR). The RMA, however, helps to avert this scenario by minimizing casualties among combatant and noncombatants on both sides of the conflict. Thus, the socio-psychological dimension of the RMA reflects Western trends toward the humanization of warfare. Precision munitions, long-range missiles and unmanned vehicles move soldiers away from the battlefield, while information superiority facilitates highly effective operations that minimizes losses on both sides and reduce the likelihood that attritional engagements will take place. Indeed, a paradox of this post-heroic warfare is that more casualties are caused by friendly fire and accidents on the side possessing information superiority than are caused by enemy action.

The RMA helps Presidents keep public support for military actions while avoiding conflict with Congress, thereby strengthening the executive vs. the legislative branch of the U.S. government in terms of war powers. This situation has been sanctioned by the practice of several administrations and a passive Congress. The RMA is making longer wars that might trigger the War Powers Act less likely, establishing de facto authority for Presidents to make war.

Asymmetric Warfare

The RMA is that is a double-edged sword. According to James Adams, "The countries that have the most effective IW [Information Warfare] capabilities are also the most vulnerable to attack—uniquely in the history of the world, a single individual armed with just a computer and a modem can literally hold America to ransom."[14] The accidental power failure that affected up to 50 million Americans in August 2003 should be a warning that reveals an Achilles heel of the information-based society. An asymmetric adversary does not have to target the military to paralyze a state's infrastructure. In fact, because the U.S. military dominates the high-tech conventional battlefield, a determined adversary will be drawn to launch asymmetric attacks against a relatively vulnerable American civil society to undermine the American effort to keep war short with few casualties.

Asymmetric war thus posses a great challenge to the new Presidential-style of war that has emerged in the United States. If asymmetric conflict turns long and bloody, Congress might become more vigorous in asserting its constitutional prerogatives when it comes to issues of war and peace. Adversaries might try to use asymmetric attacks to engage the "sixty-day clock" of the War Powers Act by extending the conflict or avoiding decisive engagements, increasing the chances for a conflict between Congress and the President. (My note: See people, that whole counterinsurgency thing was part of the dialectic - they wanted to test this out long after 'Mission Accompished' had been declared. The war did not go south - they knew exactly what they were doing - using Iraq as a giant battle lab for all of their pet theories)

Democratization vs. Centralization

There is a paradox inherent to the relationship between the RMA and war powers. On the one hand, the RMA is a strong democratizing factor within military organizations. The need of "jointness" (inter-service cooperation replacing traditional service-oriented structures) and the ability to communicate around traditional hierarchies, will over time force militaries to adopt more horizontal, decentralized and flatter command structures. The RMA requires military organizations to adopt the net-like structures that already dominate the most effective corporations. The "real-time knowledge" and "situational awareness" make traditional decision-making processes and procedures archaic. Military operations can no longer be pre-planned since the intelligence information is constantly changing. As a result, many decisions, which were previously taken on a higher and centralized level, have to be made ad hoc by lower unit-levels. In short, the RMA undermines traditional and hierarchic military organizations and favors decentralized and horizontal structures.

On the other hand, the shift in war powers from the legislative to the executive and the establishment of the "presidential war powers" represent the opposite process. It is characterized by centralized, hierarchical and unilateral decision-making. "Imperial presidency" is the antithesis of the intent of the Framers, who, as James Wilson put it, did not want "one man to hurry us into war."[15] The original idea was that there should be a genuine debate in Congress (the democratic representation of the nation) before the United States became involved in a war. In fact, the shift of power from Congress to the President as far as decisions on war and peace are concerned reflect a drift toward less democratic procedures. This paradox is of a significant importance for the analysis of the contemporary American way of warfare and its transformation. The decision-making process of going to war has become more centralized and less democratic. At the same time decisions regarding the conduct of war are becoming less centralized and more democratic.

Conclusion

Will war powers within the U.S. government be a subject of increased academic interest and debate? The answer is yes. If the 21st century turns out to be another "American Century," then the information revolution and the RMA may facilitate the return of an "imperial presidency," and the traditional, Constitutional vision of war powers may become obsolete.

For more insights into contemporary international security issues, see our Strategic Insights home page.

To have a new edition of Strategic Insights delivered to your inbox each quarter, please e-mail ccc@nps.edu with "Subscribe" in your subject line. Subscriptions are free, and your address will be used for no other purpose.

References

1. United States Constitution, Article I, section 8, paragraph 11.
2. As Alexander Hamilton put it: "But when a foreign nation declares or openly and avowedly makes war upon the United States, they are then by the very fact already at war, and any declaration on the part of Congress is nugatory; it is at least unnecessary…" quoted in: David Gray Adler, "The Constitution and Presidential Warmaking: The Enduring Debate", Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 103, No. 1, 1988, p. 19.
3. United States Constitution, Article I, section 2.
4. Adler, p. 19.
5. Richard Neustadt, Presidential power: The politics of leadership, New York: Wiley, 1960 quoted in: Timothy S. Boylan, "The Law: Constitutional Understandings of the War Power", Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 3, September 2001, p. 525.
6. See more: Louis Fisher, "The Korean War: On What Legal Basis Did Truman Act?", The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 89, Issue 1, January 1995, pp. 21-39.
7. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Imperial Presidency, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1973, pp. viii, ix quoted in: Timothy S. Boylan, "War Powers, Constitutional Balance, and the Imperial Presidency Idea at the Century's End", Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 2, June 1999, p. 232.
8. "United States: War Powers Resolution", Public Law 93-148, 93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542, November 7, 1973, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 68, Issue 2, April 1974, pp. 372-376.
9. Thomas M. Franck, "Rethinking War Powers: By Law or by 'Thaumaturgic Invocation'?", The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 83, Issue 4, (The United States Constitution in its Third Century: Foreign Affairs), October 1989, pp. 766-776; Jacob K. Javits, "War Powers Reconsidered", Foreign Affairs, Fall 1985, Vol. 64, Issue 1, pp. 130-140; Michael J. Glennon, "The War Powers Resolution Ten Years Later: More Politics Than Law", The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 78, Issue 3, July 1984, pp. 571-581; Louis Fisher and David Gray Adler, "The War Powers Resolution: Time to Say Goodbye", Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 113, No. 1, 1998, pp. 1-20.
10. Victoria A. Farrar-Myers, "Transference of Authority: The Institutional Struggle Over the Control of the War Power", Congress & the Presidency, Vol. 25, No. 2, Autumn 1998, p. 192.
11. Edward N. Luttwak, "Toward Post-Heroic Warfare", Foreign Affairs, Vol. 74, Issue 3, May 1995, p. 121.
12. Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, Section 3(a), (accessed 16.08.2003).
13. Quoted in: "Congress Abdicates War Powers", The New American, November 4, 2002, p. 5.
14. James Adams, The Next World War. The Warriors and Weapons of the New Battlefields in the Cyberspace, London: Arrow, 1999, p. 4.
15. Quoted in Adler, p. 36.


"Terrorist attacks are, in fact, media events" - the RMA exposed
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=165427.msg983447#msg983447

Offline NastyNorthNyc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
Elements from TZM will cause one here, a fake one. You'll see, they target the college crowd big time with that movement

Offline agentbluescreen

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,435
PULLLEEEZE!

"strengthening virtual Presidential war powers , while weakening the position of Congress."

as in bend over and cover your heads with the constitution?

A president is the grunt of the Congress with zero "war powers", period!

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Special Warfare
The Professional Bulletin of the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School
PB 80–96–1
January 1996
Vol. 9, No. 1 Page 2

http://www.soc.mil/swcs/swmag/9601.pdf

With the proliferation of sophisticated weapons systems and the increased efficiency of intelligence-gathering and information processing, technology offers a variety of options in dealing with our current ambiguous operations spectrum.

Special-operations forces place a high premium on technology — the nature of our operations demands that we take advantage of every means to provide an immediate, effective response. In this issue, Steven Metz and Lieutenant Colonel James Kievit discuss how emerging technology and the ensuing revolution in military affairs can be applied to conflict short of war, an area in which SOF are often involved. But through a hypothetical scenario, they also show the hidden costs that such an application of technology might entail. While we consider the importance of technology and the need to stay abreast of it, we must not become so enamored of technology that we forget the reason behind our need for it: soldiers. We have always said that humans are more important than hardware.

We must never allow this human emphasis to diminish. Soldiers are the strength of our special-operations force. As Larry Cable points out in his article, the intercultural skills of our Special Forces continue to be an important factor in the indirect-action roles we face. Around the globe, whether on the Pacific Rim or in Latin America, the person-to-person contact of our special-operations forces allows the U.S. to protect its interests with a minimum of involvement. It also builds friendships and earns host-nation respect. Special Forces soldiers such as the late Dick Meadows, who is profiled in this issue, exemplify the self-effacing performance of duty summed up in the term “quiet professional.”

As we consider ways of dealing with our current and future conflict spectrum and what Metz and Kievit call its “frustration and indecisiveness,” we may be lured by the siren song of technology, but we must remember that the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.

The main thing is best stated by General Dennis Reimer, when he says, “The idea of war in the Information Age will conjure up images of bloodless conflict, more like a computer game than the bloody wars we’ve known in the past. Nothing could be further from the truth. Warfare may change — its impact on nations, armies and soldiers will not. The fates of nations and armies will still be decided by war, perhaps more rapidly than in the past. Losers may still spend generations recovering from the consequences of defeat. Soldiers will always be the key to victory. Technology and the ability to handle it may be increasingly important, but soldiers will always win or lose wars. The battlefield will always be a dangerous, frightening and lonely place.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Developing New Technologies to Manufacture Fake Revolutions
http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/shrivenham_index.php?m=b&sid=126
Hasenauer, H
Soldiers (ISSN: 00938440), Volume 62 Number 10 Oct 2007, pp12-17

By improving communication, sensor, and command and control capabilities new technologies are developed to [manufacture fake reviolutions]. Such technologies include a Joint Tactical Radio System offering situational awareness and information sharing; a Soldier Radio Waveform allowing transport of voice, data, and images; non-lethal lasers, IED smart sensors; and the Cerberus System that offers perimeter [domination and precision strike deception assassinations] by using tracking methods.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated


ONE: Phoenix Program

TWO: HISTORY of US Government Human Experimentation:
Eugenics
Human Radiation Studies
Elmer Allen Granddaughter Testimony
Agent Orange

THREE:
Cold War
Doolittle

McCarthyism
Operation Paperclip
Reinhardt Gehlen
Operation Mockingbird
Operation Northwoods

FOUR:
MKULTRA-1950âs
Brainwashing- USSR, China, US
Helms, Gottlieb
Allen Dulles
Estabrooks
Cameron
MKULTRA-1960âs, 1970âs â
Helms, Aldrich
Pandora
Delgado
Jolly West

MKULTRA VICTIM TESTIMONY:
Valerie Wolfe, Claudia Mullen, Chris DeNicola
Programming levels

FIVE:
Nonlethal weapons
Greenham Common
DOD/DOJ
Iraq

SIX:
CULTS
Aquino
Moon
FMSF
Remote viewing

SEVEN:
Trojan Horse

EIGHT:
Cointelpro

NINE:
CIA Blowback:
Golden Triangle
Ed Wilson
Katherine Griggs
Guatemala organ donors

TEN:
Directed Energy Weapons USSR
Woodpecker

ELEVEN:
Directed Energy Weapons Scientists

TWELVE:
SDI/HAARP

THIRTEEN:
Military Doctrine
MindWar
The Aviary

FOURTEEN:
Patents/Spin-offs
Implants
ADS
Milliwave radar

FIFTEEN:
CIA/Corporate Proprietaries
SAIC
Hadron
DynCorp
Operation Cyclone

SIXTEEN:
Law
Girard
John Glenn
Akwei
Milgram
Street Theater
TI experience
Weed and Seed

SEVENTEEN:
End Game

MONARCH: THE NEW PHOENIX PROGRAM

Phoenix Program:

The Phoenix Program, created by the CIA in 1967, was aimed at "neutralizing"âthrough assassination, kidnapping, and torture, the civilian infrastructure that supported the Viet Cong insurgency in South Vietnam. It was a terrifying "final solution" that violated the Geneva Conventions. The Phoenix Program's civilian targets of assassination were VC tax collectors, supply officers, political cadre, local military officials, and suspected sympathizers. Faulty intelligence often led to the murder of innocent civilians, rival Vietnamese would report their enemies as "VC" in order for US troops to kill them. In 1971, William Colby, head of CIA in Vietnam, testified the number killed was 20,857. South Vietnamese government figures were 40,994 dead. CIA officer Ted Shackley managed (600 military and (40-50) CIA liaison officers) who were working with South Vietnamese officers in 44 provinces. Ted Shackley and Robert Komer played key roles in recruiting Phoenix Program personnel. Many Covert Action officers were Cuban refugees from the Bay of Pigs fiasco. They ran the CIA's Counter-Terror (CT) Teams, which were in fact assassination squads. Colby, Komer, and Shackley reported to DCI Richard Helms and the White House. From the beginning the Phoenix Program was conceived by the White House and supported by the CIA. Phoenix called for "neutralizing" 1800 targets a month. About one third of VC targeted for arrest were summarily executed. Green Berets and Navy SEALs would assassinate suspected VC sympathizers or cadres, as well as South Vietnamese collaborators and double agents. In 1982 an Ex-Phoenix operative revealed that sometimes orders were given to kill U.S. military personnel who were considered security risks. He suspects the orders came not from "division", but from a higher authority such as the CIA or the Office of Naval Intelligence.

The following is testimony of Vincent Okamoto, combat officer (Lieutenant) in Vietnam in 1968, and recipient of Distinguished Service Cross, the second highest award conferred by the US Army. Wounded 3 times. "The problem was, how do you find the people on the blacklist? It's not like you had their address and telephone number. The

normal procedure would be to go into a village and just grab someone and say, 'Where's Nguyen so-and-so?' Half the time the people were so afraid they would say anything. Then a Phoenix team would take the informant, put a sandbag over his head, poke out two holes so he could see, put commo wire around his neck like a long leash, and walk him through the village and say, 'When we go by Nguyen's house scratch your head.' Then that night Phoenix would come back, knock on the door, and say, 'April Fool, motherf**ker.' Whoever answered the door would get wasted. As far as they were concerned whoever answered was a Communist, including family members. Sometimes they'd come back to camp with ears to prove that they killed people."

Penetrations into the Viet Cong Infrastructure was accomplished by blackmailing or terrorizing a member of a targeted individual's family to gathering information. Every Vietnamese 15 and over had to register and carry identity cards, these records were computerized and eventually it evolved into a highly computerized and statistical means of generating 1800 names a month for the target list, coordinating the information on suspects from 30,000 plus informants. When the strategic Hamlet program failed, CIA and military intelligence concentrated on the Phoenix Program, a terror campaign aimed at the civilian population. Instead of winning hearts and minds, using the threat of assassination and a state of terror to defeat the NV. Many non-political Vietnamese were arrested and tortured and in effect forced into the resistance army. Phoenix Program architect Robert Komer, after leaving the Pentagon said, "I would have done a lot of things differently and been more cautious about getting us involved." He called the war "a strategic disaster which cost us 57,000 lives and a half trillion dollars."

Phoenix USA: The Vietnam War was the formative experience for a generation of CIA and military intelligence personnel involved in the Phoenix Program. They viewed the military defeat in Vietnam as a betrayal on the home front, a loss of will by domestic political enemies, not a military failure against a nationalist revolution fought as a guerilla war. The Phoenix Program, assassinating suspected VC sympathizers in a systematic manner, worked well and is the blueprint for the current black op targeting thousands of loyal Americans using state of the art microwave (MW) and radio frequency radiation (RFR) weapons. The motivation to suppress domestic dissidents and to assassinate loyal American opposition stems from the perception of dissent against the war as treason. This philosophy is stated very clearly in the MindWar paper written by NSA General Aquino. The DOD has a huge stake in futuristic technology that kills by ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, leaving little or no trace. The indiscriminant killing of the Phoenix Program continues on American soil. The terms soft kill, slow kill and silent kill refer to the new way of killing the enemy in conflicts short of war and the small wars of the future. The counterinsurgency doctrine has now been applied to the home front, so that the perceived betrayal of the military in Vietnam will not be repeated. The generation of CIA and military intelligence led by Shackley, Helms, Casey, Abrams, Singlaub, Secord, John B. Alexander, Michael Aquino, Paul Vallely, and others have built the perfect beast, using selective assassination that leaves no trace. The ability to cull the human herd with Silent Kill technology allows a few personalities to remake the entire society in their own image. Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) technology kills with ionizing and non-ionizing radiation or slowly drives the target crazy with silent sound, similar to CIA MKULTRA psychiatrist Ewen Camerons psychic driving technique used

to break down the targets personality. The new buzzwords at the Pentagon are silent kill, synthetic telepathy and psychotronics. Another means of attack on targets is the Smirnov patent that uses subliminal suggestion to manipulate human behavior. This patent was purchased by the remote viewing company Psi Tech Corporation. Military intelligence officers involved in developing these "non-lethal weapons" include Col. John B. Alexander, NSA General Michael Aquino, Harold Puthoff, and others, also control Psi Tech. Emotional manipulation is accomplished using Dr. Michael Persinger's work to remotely project emotional states that the brain entrains or locks onto and emulates. One can broadcast rage or fear at an individual target to manipulate and control them. As if these methods were not enough to torture and murder people, add to this nightmarish toolbox, active gang stalking. CIA created cults and other cause-oriented groups are used to induce further trauma in the target by actively harassing them in public in a neutralization technique described in counterintelligence operations manuals that are aimed at enemy agents. In the race to develop a new weapon system it has always been necessary to test it on human beings. Perfecting the latest weapons designed to kill slowly and silently as well as perfecting the process of controlling the human mind are no different. Once the weaponry has been perfected on these few thousand people the same techniques will be applied en mass to the general population, and then to humanity as a whole.

Col. John B. Alexander stated in an interview with the Washington Post in 2007,

The military and intelligence agencies were still scared by the excesses of MK-ULTRA, the infamous CIA program that involved, in part, slipping LSD to unsuspecting victims. "Until recently, anything that smacked of [mind control] was extremely dangerous" because Congress would simply take the money away, he said. Alexander acknowledged that "there were some abuses that took place," but added that, on the whole, "I would argue we threw the baby out with the bath water." But September 11, 2001, changed the mood in Washington, and some in the national security community are again expressing interest in mind control, particularly a younger generation of officials who weren't around for MK-ULTRA. "It's interesting, that it's coming back," Alexander observed. While Alexander scoffs at the notion that he is somehow part of an elaborate plot to control people's minds, he acknowledges support for learning how to tap into a potential enemy's brain. He gives as an example the possible use of functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, for lie detection. "Brain mapping" with fMRI theoretically could allow interrogators to know when someone is lying by watching for activity in particular parts of the brain. For interrogating terrorists, fMRI could come in handy.

Alexander also is intrigued by the possibility of using electronic means to modify behavior. The dilemma of the war on terrorism, he notes, is that it never ends. So what do you do with enemies, such as those at Guantanamo: keep them there forever? That's impractical. Behavior modification could be an alternative, he says. "Maybe I can fix you, or electronically neuter you, so it's safe to release you into society, so you won't come back and kill me," Alexander says. It's only a matter of time before technology allows that scenario to come true, he continues. "We're now getting to where we can do that." "Where does that fall in the ethics spectrum? That's a really tough question."

HISTORY OF US GOVT HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION:

In order to understand the current state sponsored human experimentation, it is necessary to begin with previous programs that began in the early 1900âs, and continued to the present day.

EUGENICS MOVEMENT

Eugenics originated in England with the work of Francis Galton who studied hereditary traits in families and began the nature versus nurture debate and its ultimate focus on twins to answer the question of what was more powerful heredity or environment. He proposed positive Eugenics, encouraging the reproduction of eminent men and families. He cautioned against drawing premature and harmful conclusions from his work, but like his cousin, Charles Darwin, his work was used as justification for some of the greatest crimes in history. Negative Eugenics is the application of means to discourage the breeding of the âunfitâ, including anti-race mixing marriage laws, segregation (institutionalization), sterilization, and euthanasia. Eugenics is not a true science and though it is dressed up in mathematics to give it legitimacy it has more in common with the quack science of Phrenology. Phrenology was the study of the head size and shape to determine intelligence and character.

The industrial age had thrown millions of people off the farm and into the city to work in low paying factory jobs. The sheer scale of the problems of mental illness, alcoholism and crime seemed overwhelming. Added to this, millions of Eastern Europeans and Italians came to America and made native the population uneasy. They were viewed as bad stock compared to the more âNordic typesâ that made up earlier waves of immigration from Western Europe. Suggestions for solving these problems took the form of segregation, sterilization, and mass euthanasia, however the Eugenics movement leaders were smart enough to realize that America was not prepared for euthanasia.

The Eugenics movement took shape in America with the founding of the Eugenics Recording Office at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in 1910 by Charles Davenport with money from the Carnegie Institution. The ERO compiled millions of files on ordinary Americans.

The adherents of Eugenics included some of the most influential doctors and scientists of the era, including Alexander Graham Bell, Luther Burbank, W.M. Kellogg, David Starr Jordan, the President of Stanford University, William Welch of Johns Hopkins University. Professors at Harvard, Columbia, Yale, and other universities taught 375 courses on Eugenics. The hypothesis that mental illness, crime, and poverty were inherited factors and could be cured through negative Eugenics had by the 1920âs been accepted by American Society as fact. Contests for Fitter family were common at state fairs and Eugenics publications and ideas were widespread. This could not have been possible without the hard work of many eminent men and the application of large amounts of money.

The great fortunes of The Carnegie Institution, The Rockefeller Foundation, Harriman family, Ford foundation, Milbank Memorial Fund, and others funded the ERO, The American Eugenics Society, The American Eugenics Party and others. The American Eugenics movement actively encouraged foreign countries to participate, concentrating most heavily on Germany. The opening address of the Second International Congress of Eugenics in 1921 was repeated in German.

Only 3,000 people had been forcibly sterilized by the time the famous case of Buck vs. Bell reached the Supreme Court. Carrie Buck was a 17 year old girl who became pregnant out of wedlock in 1920âs Virginia. She was ostracized by her community and her baby Vivian Buck, was reported to the ERO as appearing not normal. Carrie and her motherâs files were examined, both had previously been classified as MORONS and court proceedings were begun to have Carrie forcibly sterilized without examination. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes delivered the verdict of the court in 1927.

âIt is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S. Ct. 358, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.â

This decision validated Virginiaâs Eugenical Sterilization Act and set in motion the forced sterilization of 30-60k American citizens. Eventually similar laws were passed in 34 other states. Carrie Buck was not a promiscuous and disruptive moronic slut as she had been portrayed at trial by the testimony of her school superintendent. She had been raped by her foster familyâs son. She had been on the honor roll. Her forcible sterilization was a result of lies, incorrect diagnosis, and a plot to pass the Virginia Law.

A review of the case uncovered a conspiracy between Carrieâs defense lawyer and the Colony of Virginia to ensure the constitutionality of Virginiaâs new law. The state was trying to save money by sterilizing the growing population at its mental health facilities.

The greatest impact of Buck vs. Bell was in Germany. In 1933 the Nazi government adopted the Prevention of Hereditarily Ill Offspring Act which was based on Buck vs. Bell and led to the forced sterilization of 375,000 people and the banning of marriage and sexual relations between Germans and Jews. The Rockefeller Foundation funded the Eugenicists at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute including the work of Ernst Rudin, a leading psychiatrist who became an architect and prime director of the murderous medical experimentation programs conducted on thousands of Jews, Gypsies, and others. American money also endowed the work of Otmar Freiherr von Verchuer who headed the Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics. He wrote in his Eugenics Journal that âGermanyâs war would yield a total solution to the Jewish Problem.â Verschuer had a longtime assistant. His name was Josef Mengele. On May 30, 1943, Mengele arrived at Auschwitz. Verschuer notified the German Research Society, "My assistant, Dr. Josef Mengele (M.D., Ph.D.) joined me in this branch of research. He is presently employed as Hauptsturmführer (captain) and camp physician in the Auschwitz

concentration camp. Anthropological testing of the most diverse racial groups in this concentration camp is being carried out with permission of the SS Reichsführer (Himmler)." Mengele began searching the boxcar arrivals for twins. When he found them, he performed beastly experiments, scrupulously wrote up the reports and sent the paperwork back to Verschuer's institute for evaluation. Often, cadavers, eyes and other body parts were also dispatched to Berlin's eugenic institutes. Several doctors who had been sent to Auschwitz for aiding Jews were forced to work as his assistants and described him thusâ¦His experiments and observations were carried out in an abnormal fashion. When he made transfusions he purposely used incorrect blood types. He would inject substances and then ignore the results. He did what he pleased and conducted his experiments like a mad amateur. He was not a savant. He had the mania of a collector. He was also fascinated with gypsies and dwarfs as human specimens. His experiments, lacking scientific value, were no more than foolish playing and all his activities were full of contradiction.

In other words, he was a hack with an MD and a Ph.D. in Eugenics, a quack science.

âThe toll of Eugenics Laws would fall heavily on non-Jewish Germans as well. The chronology of events is instructive. First patients in German mental facilities were sterilized, then it was decided to gas them. CO gas was used in the beginning but was discarded in favor of Zyklon B gas for reasons of economy and effectiveness. Next all the residents of the old age homes in Germany were either starved, given lethal injection, or gassed and then cremated. Finally German citizens who had physical disabilities, many quite mild or correctable, were euthanized. Between 50,000 and 100,000 were eventually killed.

The program was referred to as a mercy death however nothing could be farther from the truth. Witnesses said that the floor, walls, and even ceiling of the gas chamber were stained with blood, vomit, urine and feces. At the center of the room would be an enormous pile of bodies in the general shape of a pyramid as people struggled to climb on top of each other to reach the last remaining breathable air near the ceiling.

American Eugenics movement leaders went underground and changed the name of their organizations. The lifelong friendships between people like Verschuer and the leading members of the American Eugenics Movement continued even after the Holocaust. He and many others were never punished and remained influential men in society. Their portraits hang in many major universities, both in Germany and America. The names of their victims are mostly lost to history. They included the powerless, people who couldnât fight back. Carrie Buckâs daughter died at the age of 8 years old due to an illness. In her short school career she had made the honor roll.

Human radiation studies:

In December 1939 as Europe was poised on the brink of war, two German radiochemists split the uranium atom in their Berlin laboratory. They confided the results to Lise Meitner and Otto Fritsch who calculated the released energy at 200 million electron volts for one atom. The significance of the event was understood immediately in scientific

communities in all nations. Virtually unlimited energy could be produced in a controlled reaction and an uncontrolled reaction would yield an explosive of incredible power. The University of California at Berkeley was where plutonium 238 half life 86 years and plutonium 239 half life 24,000 years were first created. Seaborg, Segre and McMillan used cyclotrons to produce one microgram of plutonium. After months of work their product could be detected but was too small to be seen. Plutonium was described as a crazy metal, small amounts spontaneously combust in air so it must be handled in an environment free of oxygen. Depending on the chemical form it might be blue, green, purple, yellow, red, brown or pink. Seaborg said âunder some conditions it might be brittle like glass or soft like lead. It will disintegrate at room temperature, undergoing five phase changes between room temperature and the melting point. It is fiendishly toxic, even in small amounts.â Robley Evans who studied women exposed on the job to radium wrote that as little two micrograms, two millionths of a gram, was fatal. Ernest Lawrence told government officials that plutonium 239 âcould be used to make a super bomb.â It was 1941 and the United States would be in the war in a matter of months. Albert Einstein, Leo Szilard, and Arthur Compton were instrumental in persuading FDR to study the feasibility of building a nuclear bomb. The Manhattan Project was the secret effort to build the atomic bomb. It was a gamble that represented several billion dollars and a significant percentage of the war time budget. The Oak Ridge plant in Tennessee was 56,000 acres devoted to making uranium-235 and the Hanford Washington site made plutonium. These facilities had taken the bench scale process and increased it a billion fold. General Leslie Groves was tapped to head the massive project. He appointed Robert Oppenheimer to be in charge of the design, construction, and testing of the weapon. Los Alamos, New Mexico was chosen as the site of the facility to build and test such a weapon.

MUCH MUCH MORE: http://www.archive.org/details/MindControlMonarchTheNewPhoenixProgram
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Review of Team Collaboration Tools
for Crisis Response
in the Military and Government
Command and Control Research and Technology
Symposium
June 20-22, 2006
George Edw. Seymour
Michael B. Cowen
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego, CA
Program Sponsor: Dr. Michael Letsky, ON
http://www.dodccrp.org/events/2006_CCRTS/html/presentations/037.pdf

Collaboration
Tools in the Military?
Remember these…

Digital Collaboration: DoD
“Collaboration technologies will be employed to assist users in making sense of the data that is pulled. For example, subject matter experts from diverse units or organizations are frequently called upon to come together to make sense out of special situations. The ability to pull expertise from both within a unit, as well as from across the Department is a value-added feature of a net-centric environment.” (Stenbit, 2003)

Digital Collaboration: DoD
“Leaders need to reevaluate their approach to defense spending because the character of warfare is changing. The military is finding that small numbers of large, expensive systems are not appropriate for irregular types of warfare, which are seen more and more, …Rather, we are moving into the age of the small, fast and the many. To do that, we need an entirely different approach to what things cost,” he said. “We need to change the way we shop.” (Cebrowski , 2005)

Digital Collaboration: DoD
“Communication!”
The Honorable Thomas F. Hall’s single word reply when he was asked for his opinion about our lessons learned from Katrina.
(Mr. Hall is the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, and provided the kickoff address at West 2006 in San Diego, CA January 10, 2006).

Defining Collaboration
“Defining ‘groupware’ is nearly impossible; various groupware packages from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Sharepoint to Novell Groupwise provide a wide range of functionality and capabilities.
Typical functionality includes:
▪ Shared contact lists usually with some auditing capability.
▪ Task lists and projects management.
▪ Facilitation of shared document maintenance.
▪ Document version control.
▪ Scheduling and resource management.
▪ Facilitation of meeting scheduling.”Page 7

Agenda:
▪ Objective: Update Seymour (2002); It’s all About…
▪ Not That Long Ago: 1899 and 1919
▪ Disruptive Innovation: Exponential growth
▪ Background Research: Two document searches
▪ The Interim: What’s been happening?
▪ Current U.S. Military Tools: “Officially”
▪ Now Imagine . . . .
▪ Behind the Curve: High Tech UnofficiallyPage 8

Objective
▪ At the DoD Human Factors Engineering Technical Advisory Group annual meeting in San Diego on April 29, 2002 Dr. Seymour briefed the then current status of digital collaboration tools. His list numbered more than 700.
▪ That brief URL: http://tinyurl.com/64hqo
▪ What is the status of military collaboration?
▪ What’s new in collaboration technology and tools today?

It’s all About…
• People: Mostly stay the same over time (cognitive and physical abilities and liabilities).
• Information: Has exploded. We have too much information and not enough task-specific situational knowledge.
• Collaboration Tools: Have exploded. Collaboration tools evolved slowly until the last few years. Page 10

Not That Long Ago: - 1899 -
“U.S. Navy's Manual for the Care and Training of Homing Pigeons was published. This manual required that a flying book be kept on each pigeon and recorded such information as number of flights, length, and rate of miles per hour. According to a Bureau of Navigation enlisted code book of 1919, pigeon trainers (or Pigeoneers as they were known) were a part of the Quartermaster rating and were identified as Quartermaster (Pigeon), Q.M.(P).”
Sources: http://www.linking.to/Navy/ and http://www.2-sir.com/customers/Bustl.html

Cher Ami was an American carrier pigeon, “one of 600 birds owned and flown by the U.S. Army Signal Corps" which carried messages during World War I in Europe. Today we take telephones and satellite communications for granted, but communication has always been critical….”

Not That Long Ago: - 1994 -
Early InterNet use was mostly a color-free, mono-font, silent, text based experience:
▪ MSG, SNDMSG, RD, RDMAIL, etc 1971 (Unix based)
▪ ftp: 1972 ftp://ftp.usask.ca/pub/hytelnet/README
▪ BBS: CBBS was first in 1978: <link>
▪ Usenet: 1979 ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/news.announce.newusers/
▪ IRC: 1988 http://daniel.haxx.se/irchistory.html
▪ ELM / PINE: 1989 UW (remember control-V for “page down”? )
▪ Gopher: 1992 gopher://gopher.floodgap.com/
▪ WWW: 1993-4 http://www.livinginternet.com/w/wi_mosaic.htm
▪ PowWow: 1994 http://powwow.jazy.net/Page 12

How Much Information?
“Worldwide production of original information, if stored digitally, in terabytes circa 2002. Upper estimates assume information is digitally scanned, lower estimates assume digital content has been compressed” (Lyman & Varian, 2003)

How Much Information II
▪ “Print, film, magnetic, and optical storage media produced about 5 exabytes of new information in 2002. Ninety-two percent of the new information was stored on magnetic media, mostly in hard disks.”
▪ “How big is five exabytes? If digitized, the nineteen million books and other print collections in the Library of Congress would contain about ten terabytes of information; five exabytes of information is equivalent in size to the information contained in half a million new libraries the size of the Library of Congress print collections.”
▪ “Information explosion? We estimate that new stored information grew about 30% a year between 1999 and 2002.”

Terabytes Today—Tomorrow?
▪ Wal-Mart “operates a data warehouse with, at last count, 583 terabytes of sales and inventory data built on a massively parallel 1,000-processor system.”
▪ “With real-time or near-real-time data, the value of those insights increases exponentially. "We know how many 2.4-ounce tubes of toothpaste sold yesterday, and what was sold with them," says Dan Phillips, Wal-Mart's VP of information systems.”

A Decade of Technology
Computer, Telephone, and Cellular densities in the USA / 100 inhabitants.

Information < One Decade Ago
In 1997 this was incredible; Windows 95 / 3.1 / NT 3.51 SVGA, 256-color monitor supporting 640 x 480 provided 2 CD Encyclopedia that features over 31,000 entries, 14,000 photos, etc.
In 2006 Information Week described the $135 billion market showcase at the annual Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. NB:
▪ Google (9/98) = 8 billion web pages + +
▪ Wikipedia (1/01) = 922,900 English articles

Value of the Internet: 2005
How is the Internet being Used Today:
1. e-mail,
2. general Web surfing,
3. reading news,
4. shopping,
5. entertainment news (searching and reading),
6. seeking information about hobbies,
7. online banking,
8. medical information (searching and reading),
9. instant messaging, and
10. seeking travel arrangements and travel info….

Disruptive Innovation
▪ “Disruptive Technology” was coined by Clayton M. Christensen in his 1997 book The Innovator's Dilemma.
▪ The term “Disruptive Innovation” was used in a later book because he recognized that “few technologies are intrinsically disruptive or sustaining in character. It is strategy that creates the disruptive impact.”
▪ COTS collaborative technologies are disruptive.

Background Research
▪ Ad Hoc Research
▪ Systematic Document Research:
✓Government Accountability Office (GAO) advanced search for the term “collaboration tools” anywhere in the document. Six documents were identified.
✓Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) for any of these three terms, “collaborative software,” “collaborative assistants,” or “collaborative tools” during the most recent decade. Eighteen documents were found that met the criteria, nine of which were used.

The Interim
For example, in 2003 the National Institutes of Health performed an internal survey to identify collaboration tools being used by NIH at that time. Of the fourteen tools identified, eleven were recommended for use in the next two years: Conference Server, eRoom, Exchange 2000, Groove, Key Flow, Place Ware, Plumtree, Project Server, Share Point, WebDA, and WebX.

Current U.S. Military Tools
▪ Air Force Portal, Army Knowledge Online, Navy Knowledge Online…….(themes)
▪ Collaboration at Sea (CAS)
▪ Collaborative Information Environment (CIE)
▪ Defense Collaboration Tool Suite (DCTS)

* Evoke and Groove *
▪ InfoWorkSpace (IWS)
▪ Strategic Knowledge Integration Web (SKIWEB)
AKO = 97K to 1.8 m users; 3/6: new login record = 754,943/ day.

Collaboration at Sea
Collaboration at Sea (CAS): Collaboration at Sea is based on the popular IBM / Lotus collaboration toolset, and is used today mostly by the planning (J5 and N5) groups because of their need to support operations with coalition partners. Early uses of CAS included the “USS John C. Stennis and USS George Washington Battlegroup's use during 1999-2000, and following that, the USS Carl Vinson’s success with Knowledge Web (K-Web) in 2001- 2002” (Natter, 2002). The Commander, Joint Task Force (CJTF) 950 and the Second Fleet/ NATO Striking Fleet Atlantic have used CAS. Since then the Navy has shared CAS with a large number of its coalition partners. CAS is the first collaboration system being used by the Navy that is moving into a program of record (i.e., acquisition funded as opposed to using O&M funds).Page 24

Collaborative Information
Environment (CIE) Collaborative Information Environment (CIE): The JFCOM J9 supports CIE. Beginning “in November 2003, CIE developers and engineers provided actual working prototypes of the CIE to U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) and U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM).” Recently, CIE “garnered the U.S. Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) a prestigious award. The award from the E-Gov Institute was for ‘best practice in a public sector organization for innovative knowledge management (KM).’”

Defense Collaboration Tool Suite
Supported by DISA, DCTS is a “flexible, integrated set of applications providing interoperable, synchronous and asynchronous collaboration capability to the Department of Defense’s agencies, Combatant Commands and military services…. Initial fielding of DCTS V1.1.12 began in April 2002.” According to Powers (2004), as of “January 2004, DCTS V2 P1 is installed at 138 sites worldwide, at all combatant commands, major components and services, with another 218 planned for 2004. DCTS will remain in place until the Next Generation Collaboration Service (NGCS) is on-line in 2005 or 2006.” This suite was “recommended as the interim standard DoD tool set by the OSD/Joint Staff Collaboration Tiger Team.” “It provides real-time and asynchronous collaboration using voice, video conferencing, document and application sharing, combined with instant messaging to assist in the planning and management of crisis situations. It is used by many military commands to support the mission planning process.”

InfoWorkSpace (IWS)
IWS is the official collaboration tool for Joint intelligence commands, including J2 and N2. It is used in the JBMC2 project at JFCOM, and also at PACOM, EUCOM, TRANSCOM, and CENTCOM. According to Powers (2004), “IWS is comprised of several third-party products including Placeware/Microsoft, Oracle, IPlanet/Sun One Directory Server and Web Server, and the Tomcat Servlet Engine/Apache. IWS provides a secure virtual office organized into buildings, floors and rooms where users can build online meeting places to interact on projects in realtime. Accessed via a Web browser or Java client, it includes a number of features, including an instant-messaging client (LaunchPad), text chat (public and private), audio, Web video, application casting, desktop conferencing, Virtual File Cabinet, a bulletin board, Collaborative Whiteboard and shared Text Tool, threaded discussions (news groups), mail, and a calendar.” IWS is owned by Ezenia.

Strategic Knowledge Integration Web
SKIWEB is used by USSTRATCOM to provide real-time command status, scrolling news, significant events and announcements, as well as, uniquely, a blog function. In other words, anyone in STRATCOM can get on SKI WEB and see what's going on and have a threaded discussion. The Commander will ask a question and anyone, regardless of rank, is encouraged to get on and add his or her input in a rolling discussion. Very high usage and the commander “loves it”. He operates in a very short time frame, so doesn't like the old staffing of issues through formal taskers - generate discussions on line in a chat room, for lack of a better term, and get thoughts and ideas from the E-1 through O-10, civil servants, and contractors.

Groove
▪ Ray Ozzie founded Groove Networks in October 1997. They shipped the first beta version of Groove in October 2000. Microsoft acquired Groove in April 2005.
▪ In four years Grove had become one of the most frequently used military COTS collaboration tools.
▪ The U.S. Department of State “used Groove to coordinate the establishment of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Gallaher and O’Rourke (2004) reported that 27 percent of their Naval Postgraduate School survey respondents reported using Groove.

The Rise of Wise Groups
▪ Howard Rheingold publishes Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution,
▪ James Surowiecki publishes The Wisdom of Crowds.
▪ Ever hear of “collective online brain trusts?”
▪ The “architecture of participation”
▪ The tactical role of social behavior is increasing only for those who know it.


Groups + Technology =
▪ Hamachi = free software that lets you create a quick, simple, and secure virtual network between any two or more computers with a connection to the Internet.
▪ iMediaPOLL = “integrates the smartest features of a dynamic online poll, and allows you set the look of your poll. And what about having it for free?”
▪ Jot Spot Live = allows you & others to take notes on the same web page at the same time. You can see changes other are making, drag to rearrange, edit in real-time.
▪ netomat = keeps you connected to friends at home on your computer or on the go with your cell phone. It works through the creation of netomat “hubs.” It’s free.
▪ Skype = A proprietary protocol VoIP system built using Peer-to-peer (P2P) techniques. Free for non commercial use . “It’s over.” FCC Chairman.
▪ Vlog It = the world's first video blogging software.
▪ Zoho Writer = online word processor that edits, stores and shares your documents from anywhere. Page 31

Recent “Disruptive” Technologies
▪ Cell phone
▪ Digital camera
▪ E-learning
▪ Internet
▪ Mini steel mills
▪ Open source
▪ Transistor
▪ Blogs
▪ Bridge Blogging
▪ Chat / IM
▪ Podcasting
▪ RSS
▪ VoiceXML
▪ Webcasts
▪ WikisPage 32

Now Consider:
▪ Disruptive Technologies (1997) becomes Disruptive Innovations in 2003.
▪ Military Transformation: Drivers = Asymmetric war & Budgets & Democratization * of Communication.
▪ Seymour (2002) identified >700 COTS / GOTS collaboration tools available to, or in use by, the U.S. Military.
▪ Since then, hundreds and hundreds of world-wide collaboration technology companies each hired dozens and dozens of young “geeks” who work overtime striving to create the next greatest application, service, or tool. Can anyone keep up to date?
▪ Seymour (today) identifies 14 “disruptive” collaboration technologies (not tools).

Collaboration: 2006
∀ For thousands of years, information creation has been structured, institutionally based, and flowed one-way (Scribes, Books, Dictionaries Newspapers,, Encyclopedias).
∀ Today all that has changed. We’re web enabled.
∀ These 14 digital-based technologies (not tools)
are driving innovation/change everywhere:
ℜ Blogs
ℜ Pocketcasting
ℜ RSS
ℜ VoIP
ℜ Bluetooth
ℜ Podcasting
ℜ Videoconferencing
ℜ VPOs
ℜ Chat / IM
ℜ RFID
ℜ VoiceXML
ℜ Webcasts
ℜ WikisPage 34

BLOGS
▪ Word “blog” coined by Peter Merholz in 1999.
▪ On July 30 2005, Technorati tracked > On July 30 2005, Technorati tracked >14.2 million weblogs, twice the number found 5 mos. previously.
▪ Warwick University gives all their students and staff the opportunity to develop a blog http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/
▪ Oxford University Press: http://oupblog.typepad.com/oupblog/
▪ Soldiers serving in the Iraq war created "milblogs" and provided readers a new perspective on the realities of war. Currently 284 participants contribute to the Milblog Ring.
▪ Today, however, we have audioblogs, moblogs (mobile blogs), photoblogs, etc.
33.7 million / double @ six months / LP

CHAT / IM
Chat and IM are not the same:
▪ IRC allows you to connect to any channel and talk in real-time to people with the same interests. Jarkko Oikarinen (Finland) developed Internet Relay Chat (IRC) in 1988.
▪ In March, 1991, there were more US-based IRC servers (69) than non-US. based ones (66) for the first time.
▪ IM was popularized by AOL starting in 1992.
▪ As of August, 2005, AIM had 53 million active users.
▪ Interoperability is a big issue. The major players are AOL, Google, ICQ, MSN, PSI, Skype, Windows, and Yahoo.
▪ In December Google & AOL agreed to combine IM usage. IM 50-70%

Milblogs
The following five popular military blogs support the notion that technology will be used, and that consequently it is better used when managed:
▪ A soldier's thoughts (misoldierthoughts.blogspot.com)
▪ Boots in Baghdad (bootsinbaghdad.blogspot.com)
▪ Life in this girl's Army (sgtlizzie.blogspot.com)
▪ 365 and a wake up (thunder6.typepad.com) and
▪ Ma Deuce Gunner (madeucegunners.blogspot.com)

Milblogging.com currently has 1,125 military blogs in 23 countries with 1,119 registered members.


RSS 2005: The year of RSS
▪ Feb 23: “The Associated Press begins to deliver content via RSS feeds. Can you say mainstream?”
▪ May 2: Business Week says that RSS aggregators “could turn the web on its head” by eliminating the need for web surfing.
▪ June 24: “Microsoft announces that it will support RSS in Longhorn (now Vista) and Internet Explorer 7.”
▪ Oct. 10: Yahoo releases whitepaper: RSS – Crossing Into the Mainstream. Key findings include:
> 12% of users are aware of RSS and 4% knowingly use it.
> 27% of internet users use RSS without knowing it.

Videoconferencing
▪ Remember the decade-old VTC promise?
▪ Today VC is alive and being used:
“You look very beautiful today, hon," Capt. Jason Hughes told his wife, Chrissy, who bought a new dress for the teleconference. Sons Christian, 3, and Patryk, 15 months, also were on hand in Clayton.”
From an Army camp in Iraq
Wikis
▪ “Wiki is Hawaiian for "quick," and is a method for many users to create and edit web page content quickly and easily. A Wiki is . . . the simplest online database that could possibly work.”
▪ The author knows of no official military wikis in use, but noted that all branches of the military refer to, and provide links to, the Wikipedia, if not others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Innovation Squared
December `05: Macromedia partners with Jabber. The plan: Integrate Macromedia’s Breeze Meeting and Jabber’s Extensible Communications Platform (Jabber XCP).
“The joint offerings are intended to allow DoD and other federal agencies to deploy a Web conferencing, instant messaging, chat,presence, and awareness solution that meets the standards requirements of the federal government.”
Think VoIP + XML

Collaboration Innovation Drivers:
▪ The number one blog site (Blogspot.com), draws more web-based traffic than the NYTimes.com, USAToday.com, or WashingtonPost.com
▪ Podcasting, a way to publishing audio broadcasts using the Internet , is being used by every branch of the military.
▪ ComVu is first to offer mobile users the ability to transmit live video broadcasts.
▪ instaColl ... a free program that allows for 1:1 online document editing.
▪ MIThril is a next-generation wearables research platform developed by researchers at the MIT Media Lab
▪ MySyndicaat: First true RSS news mastering engine (it’s free for now).
▪ P-ISM: Network gadget packages enhance mobile collaboration.
▪ Podzinger & Podscope: two tools to convert podcasts (audio) to text.

MIThril
The MIThril hardware platform combines body-worn computation, sensing, and networking in a clothing- integrated design. The MIThril software platform is a combination of user interface elements and machine learning tools built on the Linux operating system.
http://www.media.mit.edu/wearables/mithril/index.html

P-ISM: The Future Now
A Pen-style Personal Networking Gadget Package:
P-ISM is a five function pen set of virtual keyboard, handwriting, camera scanner, projector, and personal ID using short-range wireless and cell phone internet technology.

Conferences:
▪ Beyond Blogs & Social Networks (2005)
▪ C2: Connect & Collaborate (2005)
▪ Collaborative Communications Summit (Feb 2006)
▪ Collaborative Technologies Conference (June 2006)
▪ Convergence Conference (2005)
▪ Emerging Technology (Mar 2006)
▪ Emerging Telephony (Jan 2006)
▪ VON (Voice on the Net: Mar 2006)
▪ Web 2.0 (2005)

Selected Resources:
❑ Lyman, P. & Varian, H. (2003). How Much Information. Retrieved from http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/how-much-info-2003
❑ Schneiderman, R. (2005). Preparing for the Disruptive Technologies of Tomorrow. http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/129798.html
❑ Seymour, G. E. (2001). IM: Historical Foundation, Current Status & Proposal. Unpublished document available for review by request to George.Seymour@Navy.mil
❑ Seymour, G. E. (2002). "Enabling the Information Dominance Transformation Via COTS Collaboration Tools" Presented at the Department of Defense Human Factors Engineering Technical Advisory Group annual meeting in SanDiego, April 29.
❑ Warner, N., Letsky, M. & Cowen, M. (2005). Cognitive model of team collaboration: macro-cognitive focus. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Orlando, September.
❑ Warner, N. & Wroblewski, E. (2004). The Cognitive Processes used in Team Collaboration during Asynchronous, Distributed Decision Making. http://www.dodccrp.org/events/2004/CCRTS_San_Diego/CD/papers/092.pdf
❑ Web Conferencing Guide:http://thinkofit.com/webconf/
❑ Web Conferencing Picks: http://www.conferencevillage.com/softdirect.html
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
READY FOR TODAY. PREPARING FOR TOMORROW.

The Joint Operating Environment is intended to inform joint concept development and experimentation throughout the Department of Defense. It provides a perspective on future trends, shocks, contexts, and implications for future joint force commanders and other leaders and professionals in the national security field. This document is speculative in nature and does not suppose to predict what will happen in the next twenty-five years. Rather, it is intended to serve as a starting point for discussions about the future security environment at the operational level of war.

Distribution Statement A: Approved for Public Release February 18, 2010
ABOUT THIS STUDY
United States Joint Forces Command
www.jfcom.mil

http://www.ndu.edu/pinnacle/docUploaded/JOE%202010%20FINAL.pdf

Government requests for the final approved document must be referred to:
United States Joint Forces Command Joint Futures Group (J59)

THE JOINT OPERATING ENVIRONMENT ( J O E )

While U.S. Joint Forces Command’s Joint Operating Environment (JOE) in no way constitutes U.S. government policy and must necessarily be speculative in nature, it seeks to provide the Joint Force an intellectual foundation upon which we will construct the concepts to guide our future force development. We will likely not call the future exactly right, but we must think through the nature of continuity and change in strategic trends to discern their military implications to avoid being completely wrong. These implications serve to influence the concepts that drive our services’ adaptations to the environments within which they will operate, adaptations that are essential if our leaders are to have the fewest regrets when future crises strike.

In our guardian role for our nation, it is natural that we in the military focus more on possible security challenges and threats than we do on emerging opportunities. From economic trends to climate change and vulnerability to cyber attack, we outline those trends that remind us we must stay alert to what is changing in the world if we intend to create a military as relevant and capable as we possess today. There is a strong note of urgency in our efforts to balance the force for the uncertainties that lie ahead. The JOE gives focus to those efforts which must also embrace the opportunities that are inherent in the world we imperfectly foresee.

Every military force in history that has successfully adapted to the changing character of war and the evolving threats it faced did so by sharply defining the operational problems it had to solve. With the JOE helping to frame future security problems and highlighting their military implications, the Chairman’s companion document, Capstone Concept for Joint Operations (CCJO), answers the problems we have defined, stating how the Joint Force will operate. Taken together, these documents will drive the concept development and experimentation that will, in turn, drive our evolutionary adaptation, while guarding against any single preclusive view of future war. None of us have a sufficiently clear crystal ball to predict fully the changing kaleidoscope of future conflicts that hover over the horizon, even as current fights, possible adversaries’ nascent capabilities, and other factors intersect.

We will update the JOE in a year or two, once we have a sufficiently different understanding to make a new edition worthwhile. If you have ideas for improving our assessment of the future security environment and the problems our military must solve to provide relevant defense for our country and like-minded nations, please forward them to J-5 (Strategy), Joint Forces Command.

J.N. Mattis
General, U.S. Marines
Commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Part I: the constants


The Nature of War............................................6
The Nature of Change......................................8
The Challenge of Disruptions..................10
Grand Strategy.........................................11

Part II: trends influencing the world’s security

Demographics................................................12
Globalization...................................................16
Economics......................................................19
Energy.............................................................24
Food...............................................................29
Water..............................................................31
Climate Change and Natural Disasters...32
Pandemics...............................................33
Cyber........................................................34
Space.......................................................36
Conclusion...............................................37

Part III: the contextual world
Cooperation and Competition


Among Conventional Powers.........................38
Potential Future Challenges...........................39
China.........................................................39
Russia........................................................42
The Pacific and Indian Oceans.................45
Europe.......................................................46
Central and South America.......................47
Africa.........................................................48
The Middle East and Central Asia......49
Weak and Failing States..........................50
The Threats of Unconventional Power....52
Radical Ideologies...................................52
The Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction..............................................53
Technology...............................................54
Urbanization............................................57
The Battle of Narratives...........................58

Part IV: the implications for the joint forces

War in the Twenty-first Century......................60
Preparing for War............................................62

Part V: future opportunities
Professional Military Education:


The Critical Key to the Future........................69
Defense Economics & Acquisition Policies...71

Concluding Thoughts

The Conduct of Military Operations in the Twenty-first Century.................................64
The Personnel System............................71
Simulation................................................71



INTRODUCTION

The next quarter century will challenge U.S. joint forces with threats and opportunities ranging from regular and irregular wars in remote lands, to relief and reconstruction in crisis zones, to cooperative engagement in the global commons. Our enemy’s capabilities will range from explosive vests worn by suicide bombers to long-range precision-guided cyber, space, and missile attacks. The threat of mass destruction – from nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons – will likely expand from stable nation- states to less stable states and even non-state networks. It is impossible to predict precisely how challenges will emerge and what form they might take. Nevertheless, it is absolutely vital to try to frame the strategic and operational contexts of the future, in order to glimpse the possible environments where political and military leaders will work and where they might employ joint forces. The value of such efforts lies not as much in the final product, but much more in the participation of senior leaders and decision-makers in the discussion. Only by wrestling with the possibilities, determining the leading indicators, and then reading the signposts of the times will the Joint Force have some of the answers to the challenges of the future. The alternative, to focus exclusively on the here and now or to pass this mission to the bureaucracy, will certainly result in getting caught flat-footed, reacting to near-term crises as they arise, at great cost in blood and treasure. Thinking about the future requires an understanding of both what is timeless and what will likely change. As Thucydides suggested in the fifth century BC, “the events which happened in the past…(human nature being what it is) will at some time or other and in much the same way be repeated in the future.”2

Many features will not change. The challenges of the future will resemble, in many ways, the challenges that American forces have faced over the past two centuries. In spite of the current intellectual climate in much of the developed world, conflict will not disappear. War has been a principal driver of change over the course of history, and there is no reason to believe that the future will differ in this respect. Neither will the fundamental nature of war change. War will remain primarily a human endeavor. In contrast, changes in the strategic landscape, the introduction and employment of new technologies, and the adaptation and creativity of our adversaries will alter the character of joint operations a great deal. Here too, the past can suggest much about the future – the nature of change, its impact on human societies, and the interplay among human societies in peaceful and warlike competition. Over the next quarter century, U.S. military forces will be continually engaged in some dynamic combination of combat, security, engagement, and relief and reconstruction. There will continue to be those who will hijack and exploit religion for extremist ends. There will continue to be opponents who will try to disrupt the political stability and deny the free access to the global commons that is crucial to the world’s economy. In this environment, the presence, reach, and capability of U.S. military forces, working with like-minded partners, will continue to be called upon to protect our national interests. Merely sustaining the health of the Joint Force, never mind adapting and transforming, is far more complicated in a period of persistent conflict, with its toll on equipment, people, and national will.

War is a matter of vital importance to the State; the province of life or death; the road to survival or ruin. It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied.1 -Sun Tzu

The nature of the human condition will guarantee that uncertainty, ambiguity, and surprise will dominate the course of events. However carefully we think about the future; however thorough our preparations; however coherent and thoughtful our concepts, training, and doctrine; we will be surprised. Even the wisest of statesmen have found their assumptions about the future confounded by reality. The eighteenth century British leader, William Pitt, the Younger, declared in a speech before the House of Commons in February 1792: “Unquestionably there has never been a time in the history of our country when, from the situation in Europe, we might more reasonably expect fifteen years of peace, than we have at the present moment.”3 Within a matter of months, Britain would become embroiled in a conflict that would last nearly a quarter of a century and would kill more Europeans than any other war in history up to that time.

In the broadest sense, the Joint Operating Environment examines three questions:
• What future trends and disruptions are likely to affect the Joint Force over the next quarter century?
• How are these trends and disruptions likely to define the future contexts for joint operations?
• What are the implications of these trends and contexts for the Joint Force?

By exploring these trends, contexts, and implications, the Joint Operating Environment provides a basis for thinking about the world over the next quarter century. Its purpose is not to predict, but to suggest ways leaders might think about the future.

As war at its essence is a human endeavor, then it follows that one of the most effective ways to understand human nature is by a close consideration of history. As such, rather than futuristic vignettes, the Joint Operating Environment uses history as a principal way to gain insight into the future. The discussion begins with the enduring nature of war, the causes and consequences of change and surprises, and the role of strategy. Part II then describes some trends, discontinuities and potential trouble spots that joint forces may confront. Part III analyzes how these trends and disruptions may combine into contexts that will likely define joint operations over the next quarter century. Part IV describes the implications of these contexts for the Joint Force as it confronts an uncertain future. This section also suggests how senior leaders might think about creating a force that is suited to address the challenges that these contexts will present. This is the unique contribution of the Joint Operating Environment to the broader discussion about the future. Before concluding, Part V offers some “leading questions” about topics that may fall outside the traditional purview of this study, but that nonetheless have important implications for the future Joint Force.

We will find ourselves caught off guard by changes in the political, economic, technological, strategic, and operational environments. We will find ourselves surprised by the creativity and capability of our adversaries. Our goal is not to eliminate surprise – that is impossible. Our goal is, by a careful consideration of the future, to suggest the attributes of a joint force capable of adjusting with minimum difficulty when the surprise inevitably comes. The true test of military effectiveness in the past has been the ability of a force to diagnose the conditions it actually confronts and then quickly adapt. In the end, it will be our imagination and agility to envision and prepare for the future, and then to adapt to surprises, that will determine how the Joint Force will perform over the next twenty-five years. The ability to adapt to the reality of war, its political framework, and its technical and industrial modes, and to the fact that the enemy also consists of adaptive human beings, has been the key component in military effectiveness in the past and will continue to be so in the future.


1 Sun Tzu, The Art of War, trans. and ed. by Samuel B. Griffith (Oxford,1963), p. 63.
2 Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War, trans. by Rex Warner (London: Penguin Books, 1954), p. 48.
3 Quoted in Colin Gray, Another Bloody Century, (London: Penguin Books, 2005),p 40
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated

I truly cannot even fathom the absolute insanity and open treason in what I just read...



Power CT/COIN/STABILITY Strategy:

A GlobalServiceAcademy@GovIsland


http://www.scribd.com/doc/29376744/Smart-Soft-Power-CT-COIN-Stability-Strategy-GlobalServiceAcademy-GovernorsIsland-Part3-of-3

June 11, 2009

RE: Smart/Soft

Dear General Abizaid:

A proposal outlining the above referenced strategy was e-mailed to Dr. Joseph Nye at Harvard on December 25th 2008. It consisted of a three-page letter; partial transcripts of Dr. Joseph Campbell’s six-part series, The Power of Myth; a Governors Island profile; and two NY Harbor School brochures (letter & e-mails attached).

Dr. Nye replied on December 31st (e-mail attached). The binder to which Dr. Nye’s e-mail refers was Fedex’d to him on January 9th 2009 (substantive cover letter & e-mail attached). He provided feedback on January 15th (e-mail attached). Four follow-up e-mails were exchanged (two from me; two from him). The zip folder contains both letters and twelve e-mails (APPENDIX-1=DrNye-081225-090116).

In his last e-mail, Dr. Nye called a Global Service Academy that puts young people from around the world on a path to service rather than suicide “a nice vision.” And when asked directly: “Is the proposal too incomplete? undeveloped? unfocused? amateurish? utopian?”

He replied: “It was one of the most professionally done presentations I have received. If anything, there is too much to absorb.”


With your expertise in Middle Eastern affairs; LTC Conrad Crane (ret.), Maj. William Casebeer, and Mr. James Russell’s grasp of culture, narrative, exemplars, and myth; LTG T.G. Jenes (ret.) and Mr. James Cooke’s experience with M&S; LTG William Caldwell’s integrated, whole-of-government, interoperable, military/civilian, unity-of-effort, stability operations plan; Gen. James Mattis’ Joint Forces Command (JFCOM); and Ambassador Richard Solomon’s US Institute of Peace (USIP) – this nice vision could be welcoming its pioneer class of police cadets and distance-learning techs in October, 2010. DoD and USIP have almost everything needed to develop and operationalize a simulation/training program that equips billions under-25 with the skills, tools, and resources required to return to their societies ready to provide humanitarian aid; post-conflict reconstruction services; and development assistance.

Neither congressional approval or funding is needed. According to the United States Institute of Peace Act, Section 1705 (Powers and Duties), sub-section (h)

(1): “… the Institute may obtain grants and contracts, including contracts for classified research for … the Department of Defense … and receive gifts and contributions from government at all levels.” Ambassador Chester Crocker speaks for many DoD admirers: “The Defense Department … excels at doing jointness. The Defense Department has learned about joint-operations and jointplanning and inter-service coordination – learned the hard-way – but learned, so it’s part of the culture now. DoD’s capacity for planning and actually implementing its plans is spectacular! … And it’s not surprising that State is sort of left in the dust when it comes to planning for joint operations. The second point I’d make is that the State Department was never set up to do operations in zones of conflict.  That’s not State’s role, traditionally – historically. It’s not meant to be conducting programs in zones of conflict overseas. It’s meant to be doing diplomacy. Traditionally, that’s the way it’s been designed. So it’s facing wholly new challenges now: about how to develop at least some operational capacity … that culture of jointness needs to be worked on [at State] – it is being worked on – but it is taking a long time.” (CSIS, 11/27/07, 71:45)

Unfortunately, time is exactly what DoD doesn’t have. Between Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, there are over 49.9 million young people in the 15-24 cohort; 19.6 million 25-29 year-olds; and 91.8 million under-15. The reports and meetings on post-conflict reconstruction strategies refer repeatedly to this abundant source of chronic instability. However, none offer comprehensive, executable plans to address the resentment and rage generated by foreign occupiers openly doing the work these unemployed/unemployable youth so desperately need to give meaning and purpose to their lives. (See Appendix) Adding complexity to the youth glut is the myth vacuum that has globalized since first predicted by Dr. Joseph Campbell over two decades ago.

During his interview with Bill Moyers in 1986, Dr. Campbell warned that we had entered a period of history in which the millennium-old myths/ religions no longer functioned: Myth has to give life models and the models have to be appropriate to the possibilities of the time in which you are living. And our time has changed and changed and changed – and continues to change so fast that what was proper 50 years ago is not proper today. The virtues of the past are the vices of today and many of what were thought to be the vices of the past are the necessities of today. The moral order has to catch up with the moral necessities of actual life in time – here and now – and that’s what it is not doing. … And that’s why it’s ridiculous to go back to the old-time religion. … [W]hen you go back to the old-time religion it belongs to another age, another people, another set of human values, another universe. The world changes – then the religion has to be transformed. When asked by Bill Moyers: “So what happens when a society no longer embraces powerful mythology?”

Dr. Campbell replied: What we’ve got on our hands … if you want to find what it means to have a society without any rituals read the New York Times … [where you’ll find] the news of the day – young people who don't know how to behave in a civilized society. … I imagine 50% of the crime is by young people in their 20's and early 30's that just behave like barbarians.

The analogy Dr. Campbell drew between myths and computer software provides a way forward: I’ve had a revelation from my computer about mythology. You buy a certain software with a whole set of signals that lead to the achievement of your aim. Once you’ve set it – if you begin fooling around with signals that belong to another system they just won't work. You have a system there – a code – a determined code that requires you to use certain terms. Now, similarly in mythology – each religion is a kind of software that has its own set of signals and will work. If a person is really involved in a religion and really building his life on it, he had better stay with the software that he's got. The [future] myth has to incorporate the machine just as the old myths incorporated the tools that people used – the forms of the tools are associated with power systems that are involved in the culture. We have not a mythology that incorporates these – the new powers are being surprisingly announced to us by what the machines can do. We can't have a mythology for a long, long time to come, because things are changing too fast. The environment in which we are living is changing too fast for it to become mythologized. The individual has to find the aspect of myth that has to do with the conduct of his own life.

Dr. Campbell cautioned: You can’t predict what a myth is going to be any more than you can predict what you’re going to dream tonight. Myths and dreams come from the same place. They come from realizations of some kind that have then to find expression in symbolic form. Every mythology, every religion is true in this sense: it is true as metaphorical of the human and cosmic mystery. But when it gets stuck to the metaphor – then you're in trouble. … The real horror today is what you see in [Jerusalem] – where you have the three great Western religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – and because the three of them have three different names for the same biblical God they can't get on together – they're stuck with their metaphor and don't realize its reference. Each needs its own myth … love thy enemy – open up. Don't judge.

Later in the interview, Dr. Campbell advised: The only myth that’s going to be worth thinking about in the immediate future is one that’s talking about the planet: not this city, not these people, but the planet and everybody on it. That’s my main thought for what the future myth is going to be. And what it will have to deal with will be exactly what all myths have dealt with:

1) the maturation of the individual, the gradual, pedagogical way to follow from dependency through adulthood to maturity, and then to the exit, and how to do it;

2) And then how to relate to this society and how to relate this society to the world of nature and the cosmos. That’s what the myths have all talked about. That’s what this one’s got to talk about. But the society that it’s got to talk about is the society of the planet. And until that gets going you don’t have anything. And therein lies the problem: we still don’t have anything.

The American myth – born in 1776, tested in the 1860’s, and dominant for most of the 20th century – was mortally wounded in 2001 and crippled over the last eight years – discredited by tradeoffs made in the name of national security and economic stability. Incompatible with value systems in non-Western civilizations, it just can’t compete in this 21st century face-off between liberal democracy and fundamentalist theocracy. After several decades of godless communism and soulless capitalism, the pendulum swing from material to spiritual systems should come as no surprise. Unfortunately, it has.

The scale and complexity of this human Y2K challenge exceeds all current, pipeline, and projected governmental capabilities and capacity. Top-down is not the solution. Adding to the urgency: our noosphere adversaries have an eight-year head-start in this soft power, idea-sharing, information war being waged in the globe-girdling realm of the mind. (See Appendix)

With a Global Service Academy (GSA), USIP and JFCOM can develop dedicated, disciplined, mission-ready, joint-capable, indigenous, civilian-expeditionary forces based on small, highperforming units comprised of young exemplars who are honest, hard-working, open-minded, and warm-hearted. Indigenous youth modernizing their societies from the inside-out/ground-up without westernizing them is more effective and less expensive than human-terrain-team-guided platoons of foreign occupiers.


Peace will replace persistent conflict when the energy of 546 million young people (15-29) – most unemployed/unemployable – swarming in dozens of primitive/ premodern population centers and spread over approximately 33.8 million sq kms of land on four continents in 70 failed/fragile states is focused on peace-keeping and state-building, rather than war-fighting and caliphates. (See Appendix)

The proposed Academy institutionalizes strategic concepts derived from the insights of the following scholars, scientists, mathematician, futurists, and practitioners:

Dr. Joseph Campbell – comparative myth and religion;

Dr. Jay Giedd – the teen brain;

Dr. Benoît Mandelbrot – fractal geometry and self-similarity;

Dr. Edward Lorenz – butterfly-effects and strange-attractors;

Dr. Stuart Kaufman – self-organization;

Mr. Anthony Judge – human values as strange-attractors;

Drs. Roger Nelson, John Arquilla, and

Mr. David Ronfeldt – global consciousness and noosphere;

Professor Thomas Malone and Mr. Howard Rheingold – collective intelligence and smart mobs;

Dr. Joseph Nye – soft power and international relations;

Ambassador James Dobbins and Dr. Robert Orr – indigenous ownership of state-building;

Mr. Gary Simons – Prep-for-Prep.




The GSA’s tactical theory hinges on the exuberant/plastic early/late adolescent brain (11-23) and the science of change to fill the globalized myth vacuum in the noosphere with the kernel of a narrative that enhances the legacy operating systems on which most of the world still runs.

The goal is to employ chaos theory (specifically – fractal geometry, self-similarity, self-organization, strange-attractors, and the butterfly-effect) to insert a few new values (e.g. peace, tolerance, accountability) without overwriting core beliefs, values, and norms: the task is analogous to updating ISP software without erasing favorites, downloads, and archived e-mail. (See Appendices)


From pop-culture, religion, and politics to think tanks and the US military, all agree. In every dimension and on every scale, narrative is key.

Dr. Douglas Johnston and his team at the International Center for Religion & Diplomacy (ICRD) have tapped into the narrative fountainhead in Pakistan and are enhancing the intolerant and hateful binder/narrative [that] they are using to prepare suicide bombers and [provide] many destructive ways to get back at the West. For the last five years, Dr. Johnston’s madrasa enhancement project has worked with more than 2000 madrasa administrators and teachers from more than 1300 madrasas to: expand the curriculum; promote critical thinking skills; and provide skills needed to train others.

He has proven that it is possible to reverse the damage done in the ’80’s by the anti-Soviet, social-engineering project/textbook that helped plant the seeds of jihad in the madrasas in the first place. ICRD’s model of engagement and its demonstrable track record of success can point the way forward not only throughout Pakistan, but in other parts of the world where similar tensions exist. (See Appendices) But narrative alone is not enough.

It is only one of three primary factors in the fractal geometry of mythology, where Human=H: H=H(Narrative [epic+poetic] x Rituals [daily+weekly+annual+lifetime] x Symbols [landmarks+relics+sounds+images])

To achieve full force and effect, according to Dr. Campbell, narratives must be enacted in rituals and reinforced by symbols. Doing so taps into the power of myth: the “bits of information from ancient times which have to do with the themes that have supported man's life, built civilizations, informed religions over the millennia – [that] have to do with deep inner problems, inner mysteries, inner thresholds of passage – [they are] the guide-signs along the way, [without which] you have to work it out yourself.

But once this catches you there is always such a feeling from one or another of these traditions of information of a deep, rich, life-vivifying sort that you won’t want to give it up.

Myths are clues to the spiritual potentialities of the human life.” (Joseph Campbell) Myths are for soft power what atom bombs were for hard: chain-reacting force-multipliers. You are now where General Leslie R. Groves was in September of 1942 when he took over the Manhattan Project.

The same integrated military/civilian effort that went into uranium enrichment, atom-splitting, and charge-shaping in the early ’40’s must now go into human-capital enrichment, state-building, and narrative-shaping (ironically, partnering military and civilian expertise this time is urgently needed to avert rather than create a cataclysmic chain-reaction). This triple challenge is complex, but no more so than computer-generated landscapes, genesplicing, or viral marketing.

The difficulty lies in coordinating and integrating the wealth of soft power knowledge and experience scattered around the world currently operating in isolation. Dr. John Hamre, President of CSIS, stepped into the shoes of Vannevar Bush in 2006 when he mobilized the bipartisan Commission on Smart Power to develop a vision to guide America’s global engagement. A few months later, at the launch of the Smart Power Speaker Series, he cut through the complexity and captured all the themes with the timeless keystone question: “What is the broader narrative that binds America together – looking forward? We’ve become in some ways quite a tortured and torn country. The Cold War gave us – through external forces – a kind of consensus that carried us for quite a ways – and we are struggling now – what is that – what could it be?”

On the micro and the macro scale, the need for narrative is universal and eternal. Ambassador Dobbins and Drs. Robert Orr, Larry Diamond, Karin von Hippel, Beth Ellen Cole, et. al. have produced volumes of post-conflict state-building how to’s and what not to’s based on historic cases and hands-on experience.

Earnest efforts by everyone involved have been undermined by difficulty institutionalizing lessons learned, as well as a lack of anticipation, preparation, coordination, indigenous ownership, and consideration for the religious/spiritual dimension of statecraft. Introduced as the “Dean of our field” by Rick Barton at a CSIS Smart Power event in 2008, Ambassador Dobbins is the perfect J. Robert Oppenheimer for this Y2K-Manhattan Project. Given that failed and fragile states are the problem, “informed, strategic, operational, and concerned with results” is exactly what’s needed. Who better to design the curriculum and direct development of the indigenous, civilian-surge capacity required to restore/establish stability and functionality in these ungoverned spaces?

For your National Defense Research Committee (NDRC) you have the foundational luminaries already named and the following extraordinary knowledge-base:

The Hon. Richard Armitage,
Dr. Spencer Wells,
Dr. Jared Diamond,
Dr. Steven Kull,
Dr. Jon Alterman,
Dr. L. Michael White,
Juan Zarate,
Prof. Marc Lynch,
Anupam Ray,
Mitchell Silber,
Arvin Bhatt,
Ahmed Rashid,
Jessica Stern,
Liora Danan,
Prof. Jeffrey Haynes,
Dr. Samuel Huntington,
Dr. Anne O’Donnell,
Dr. David Steele,
Patrick Cockburn,
Karim Sadjadpour,
Dean Victor Kazanjian,
Anna Greenberg,
Charles Firestone,
Michael Furdyk,
Chad Hurley,
Larry Sanger,
Jimmy Wales,
Rebecca Linder,
Evan Williams,
Biz Stone,
Dr. Alpheus Bingham,
Michael Gray,
Dr. James Lovelock,
Dr. John Briggs,
Pierre Chao,
Loren Carpenter,
George Lucas,
Christopher Vogler,
Bryan Fuller,
Greg Garcia,
Brian McAllister,
Ian Cross,
Andrew Niccol,
Tom Forman,
JD Roth,
Will Wright,
Dr. Gerald Lesser,
Gary Knell,
Murray Fisher,
Carol Bellamy,
Dr. Stephen Joel Trachtenberg,
Dr. Vartan Gregorian,
Bryan Alexander,
Dr. Tony Corn,
The Hon. Mac Thornberry,
Dr. Kathleen Hall Jameson,
Dr. Christopher Paul,
Dr. Russell Glenn,
David Brooks,
David Ignatius,
Walter Isaacson,
Ami Dar,
Michelle Nunn,
Capt. Westley Moore,
Alan Khazei,
Flavia Pansieri,
Jay Backstrand,
Chris Myers Asch,
Shawn Raymond,
Dr. James Traub,
Dr. Jessica Matthews,
Dr. Nancy Birdsall,
Jean-Marie Guéhenno,
Dr. Kemal Dervis,
Dr. Lael Brainard,
Stuart Bowen,
Steve Radelet, and
Dr. Gordon Adams;

together with their colleagues at CSIS, RAND, Brookings, Aspen, ICRD, USIP, Carnegie, Stimson Center, NYPD, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford, UCLA, Santa Fe Institute, Annenberg, Edutopia, TakingITGlobal, InnoCentive, UN Volunteers, Idealist, USPSA, et. al.;

have taken the lead in human migration, societal collapse, radicalization, power of religion, complexity, narrative-shaping, education exchanges, wikis, mobilelearning, strategic communication, service, post-conflict reconstruction, and foreign aid reform.


Finally, to operationalize this CT/COIN/STABILITY strategy, a permanent home for smart/soft power equal to that of the regional training centers in UAE and Jordan is required.

The same reasons General Petraeus cited in his Changing Regional Security Architecture speech apply: [W]e can leverage regional training centers for greater collective benefit.

The Gulf Air Warfare Centre in the UAE and the soon to open King Abdullah II Special Operations Training Centre in Jordan are examples of very impressive facilities, and there are others in the region … Leveraging these training centers … and the already substantial number of bilateral and multilateral maritime, air, and ground exercises we conduct, will improve our abilities to work together and hone the experience of our various forces. The training centers represent important opportunities for multilateral training, capacity building, and partnership, and we should seek to leverage them in major multinational exercises … (The Fifth IISS Regional Security Summit, Bahrain, 12/14/08).

Governors Island in New York Harbor is looking for a highest and best use; its history, proximity, and restricted access make it an ideal location. According to Dr. Patrick Okedinachi Utomi, decades ago the precedent was set; 747’s full of young people came to the US to be trained and then returned to their homes to play the roles that they played. (See Appendix) Where better to build General Mattis’ fourth block and begin the 21st century narrative that promotes global service as the honored hero sacrifice – than under the guiding light and watchful eye of Lady Liberty? With gratitude and admiration,

Christine Lederhouse

P.S. Hoping you’ll agree – your first-hand experience/knowledge of the region, irregular warfare, indigenous troop/police training, post-conflict reconstruction, military academy transformation, Pentagon culture, and bureaucratic impediments turn this confluence of coincidences into a Jungian synchronicity. By comparison, a CT/COIN/STABILITY strategy that’s three-parts Road Trip Nation, Globe Trekker, and hero adventure; equal-parts Truman Show and PSYOPS; and thirteen-parts Kid Nation, vocational training, and Endurance – seems perfectly plausible. Playing a part would be an honor. Please be assured, however, no strings are attached to this proposal; getting a Global Service Academy on Governors Island is ALL that matters!

APPENDICES
APPENDIX – 1

Submission To/Response From Dr. Joseph S. Nye, Jr.:
Letters & e-Mail – (12/25/08 - 1/16/09)

APPENDIX – 2 APPENDIX – 3 APPENDIX – 4

Youth Distribution Table * Civilian Capabilities, Capacity, and Comparative Cost * The Power of Myth:
Dr. Joseph Campbell – Bill Moyers’ Interview – Parts 1-6 George Lucas – Bill Moyers’ Interview – Mythology of Star Wars Missing Spiritual Dimension * Myth Vacuum * Radicalizers/Spiritual Sanctioners * Narrative Is Key Myth DNA – Narrative X Ritual X Symbols

APPENDIX – 5 APPENDIX – 6 APPENDIX – 7

Chaos Theory * Noosphere & Global Consciousness * Precedents – Force-Multiplying Engagement Strategies:
Pakistan – Religious – Dr. Douglas Johnston (CSIS – 2/3/09) Nigeria – Secular – Dr. Patrick Okedinachi Utomi (CSIS – 7/28/08)
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Smart/Soft Power CT/COIN/Stability Strategy -> GlobalServiceAcademy@GovernorsIsland (Part2-of-3)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29207276/Smart-Soft-Power-CT-COIN-Stability-Strategy-GlobalServiceAcademy-GovernorsIsland-Part2-of-3
January 9, 2009

Dr. Joseph S. Nye, Jr.
HARVARD Kennedy School John F. Kennedy School of Government

Dear Dr. Nye, My apologies for the piecemeal nature of this Plan B binder, but what seemed to matter most was making sure you had all the information in time to review it, recommend revisions, and perhaps forward it to those charged with fulfilling the promises made by President-elect Obama in The War We Need to Win speech he gave in August, 2007, at the Woodrow Wilson International Center:

As President, I will make it a focus of my foreign policy to roll back the tide of hopelessness that gives rise to hate.

Freedom must mean freedom from fear, not the freedom of anarchy. I will never shrug my shoulders and say – as Secretary Rumsfeld did – 'Freedom is untidy.'

I will focus our support on helping nations build independent judicial systems, honest police forces, and financial systems that are transparent and accountable. Freedom must also mean freedom from want, not freedom lost to an empty stomach. So I will make poverty reduction a key part of helping other nations reduce anarchy. I will double our annual investments to meet these challenges to $50 billion by 2012. And I will support a $2 billion Global Education Fund to counter the radical madrasas – often funded by money from within Saudi Arabia – that have filled young minds with messages of hate. We must work for a world where every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to destroy. And as we lead we will ask for more from our friends in Europe and Asia as well – more support for our diplomacy, more support for multilateral peacekeeping, and more support to rebuild societies ravaged by conflict. I will also launch a program of public diplomacy that is a coordinated effort across my Administration, not a small group of political officials at the State Department explaining a misguided war. [/b]

We will open ‘America Houses’ in cities across the Islamic world, with Internet, libraries, English lessons, stories of America's Muslims and the strength they add to our country, and vocational programs. Through a new ‘America's Voice Corps’ we will recruit, train, and send out into the field talented young Americans who can speak with – and listen to – the people who today hear about us only from our enemies. In the first 100 days of my Administration, I will travel to a major Islamic forum and deliver an address to redefine our struggle.

I will make clear that we are not at war with Islam, that we will stand with those who are willing to stand up for their future, and that we need their effort to defeat the prophets of hate and violence. I will speak directly to that child who looks up at that helicopter, and my message will be clear: ‘You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.’



The two programs President-elect Obama described – America Houses and America’s Voice Corps – do not address the four primary aspects of the 21st century stateless terrorism/local insurgency challenge.

From scholars and journalists to UN agency heads and military leaders four topics keep repeating:

1) billions of unemployable young people in failing/failed states (Everyone);

2) indigenous ownership of the process is key (Dr. Orr, et al.);

3) modernization without westernization (Drs. Huntington & Lewis); and

4) the US military needs civilian counterparts who can carry out economic and political reconstruction missions – sometimes in dangerous places … the wild frontier of our globalized world (President-elect Obama, Secretary Gates, and General Petraeus).

I’m hoping you’ll agree: Rather than recruit, train, and send out into the field talented young Americans who can speak with – and listen to – the people who today hear about us only from our enemies, we need to recruit and train young people from where people are most vulnerable, where the light of hope has grown dark – where we are in a position to make a real difference in advancing security and opportunity by sending them back prepared to provide topflight humanitarian aid; development assistance; and post-conflict reconstruction services. Instead of open[ing] ‘America Houses’ in cities across the Islamic world, with Internet, libraries, English lessons, stories of America's Muslims and the strength they add to our country, and vocational programs, we need to establish a Global Service Academy that will give young people trapped in urban conflict-zones or the wild frontier of our globalized world [with its] wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains a place to learn about freedom and opportunity (both the positive and negative aspects) by experiencing them firsthand.

In addition to creating new Mobile Development Teams that bring together personnel from the State Department, the Pentagon, and USAID [to] work with civil society and local governments to make an immediate impact in peoples’ lives, and to turn the tide against extremism, we need to build a long-term program that turns youth bulges into productive human capital and incubators of resentment and anarchy in weak states into stable, nurturing communities. What better way to show – through deeds as well as words – that we stand with those who seek a better life? How else can we get [t]hat child looking up at the helicopter [to] see America and feel hope instead of succumb to the extremists’ program of hate? Where better to [face] tragedy head-on and [turn] it into the next generation's triumph? To make the service of a new generation of young people the new global American narrative? What stronger demonstration of America’s commitment to [write] a new chapter in the American story than an invitation to ALL hardworking, open-minded, warmhearted young people to come for free to learn how to be free and gain what they need to return to modernize and stabilize their worlds without betraying their core spiritual beliefs and values? Thank you, again, for your time and interest. With deepest respect and gratitude,

Christine
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
This is the story for call of duty 4 Modern Warfare's Islamic themed enemy.



The OpFor (short for Opposing Force) (Arabic: قوة معارضة) is a military-political force that seized power in an unnamed Middle Eastern country in 2011 following a violent coup d'état. They serve as the main antagonists during the first chapter of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare during the USMC segment of the campaign

The OpFor, led by Khaled Al-Asad came to power during a violent military coup in the Capital City of an unnamed Arab country, securing its mineral wealth and cementing itself as a major power in the Middle East. Their coup culminated in the dramatic execution of former President Yasir Al-Fulani on international television.


Following their rise to power, American Marines invaded the country in an attempt to remove the OpFor from power. Though the search for Al-Asad was unsuccessful, the Americans were able to score multiple victories during their brief campaign. In just a few days, the bulk of Al-Asad's forces had been pushed back to the Capital City where they were making their last stand. However, as US forces closed in on the last enemy stronghold, the OpFor detonated a large nuclear warhead, obliterating all American forces in the vicinity.

It later became evident that the OpFor had been aided by the Ultranationalist rebels in order to draw attention away from the Russian civil war. The Ultranationalists had been supplying the OpFor with equipment, including weapons, vehicles, and, ultimately, nuclear ability.

Following Al-Asad's capture and execution by the SAS in Azerbaijan, it is likely that the OpFor either surrendered or were otherwise neutralized as a threat.

A faction called OpFor also appear in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, based in Afghanistan in the missions Team Player and Endgame.

Nationality

The nationality of the OpFor is never explicitly stated. The logo of OpFor is based on the Khanda emblem of Sihkism or the Emblem of Iran, with the military isignia and flags depicting 2 crossed swords, found in the Omani, Saudi Arabian, and 1996-2001 Taliban Era Afghanistan Coat of arms. Reference to the in-game maps does not provide a conclusion either, however, as different missions take place in different locations throughout the Middle East. Exposition given by Al-Asad in The Coup indicates that the nation was formerly a monarchy before President Al-Fulani was elected. While Charlie Don't Surf and The Bog take place within the coastal province of Jeddah in Saudi Arabia, subsequent missions War Pig and Shock and Awe take place in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and the Basra Government, Iraq respectively. This evidence supports the idea that the OpFor nation is in fact fictional, and was created only for story and gameplay purposes. On a television in the mission Blackout, a news reporter describes it as a small but oil rich country, possibly inspired by Kuwait. It is possible they are from a non-existent country that Infinity Ward made up.

In some scrapped single player levels, such as Designated Training the unknown county is specifically called "Saudi Arabia". This explains why most of the action in the Marine campaign is in Saudi Arabia and why OpFor troops use the G3, a weapon in use in Saudi Arabia. Also, after Aftermath, the camera goes to a satellite image where part of the country is seen, and the coast looks similar to Saudi Arabia. The OpFor is referred by game code as "Arab". This also proves that OpFor is Arabic.

http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/OpFor


All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Swarming and the Future of Conflict
by John Arquilla, David Ronfeldt
102 Pages 2000 RAND CORPORATION

http://www.rand.org/pubs/documented_briefings/DB311.html

Swarming is a seemingly amorphous, but deliberately structured, coordinated, strategic way to perform military strikes from all directions. It employs a sustainable pulsing of force and/or fire that is directed from both close-in and stand-off positions. It will work best — perhaps it will only work — if it is designed mainly around the deployment of myriad, small, dispersed, networked maneuver units. This calls for an organizational redesign — involving the creation of platoon-like pods joined in company-likeclusters — that would keep but retool the most basic military unit structures. It is similar to the corporate redesign principle of flattening, which often removes or redesigns middle layers of management. This has proven successful in the ongoing revolution in business affairs and may prove equally useful in the military realm. From command and control ofline units to logistics, profound shifts will have to occur to nurture this new way of war. This study examines the benefits — and also the costs and risks — of engaging in such serious doctrinal change.

The emergence of a military doctrine based on swarming pods and clusters requires that defense policymakers develop new approaches to connectivity and control and achieve a new balance between the two. Far more than traditional approachesto battle, swarming clearly depends upon robust information flows. Securing these flows, therefore, can be seen as a necessary condition for successful swarming.

Related Topics: Military Force Planning, National Security

Document Details
Copyright: RAND Corporation
ISBN/EAN: 0-8330-2885-5
Document Number: DB-311-OSD
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Commonism
http://turbulence.org.uk/turbulence-1/commonism/



If the cell form of capitalism is the commodity, the cellular form of a society beyond capital is the common. Nick Dyer-Witheford discusses the circulation of commons and the conditions they would create for new collective projects and waves of organising

It has been eight lean years for the movement of movement since its Seattle high point of 1999. Since September 11th 2001 many activists’ energies have been directed to opposing the invasion and occupation of Iraq, other conflicts in Afghanistan and Lebanon, and abuses of civil liberties and media truth. But the war on terror has also had a deadening effect on oppositional hopes and imagination. Or so it seems to me, an academic in Canada whose political energies have recently been absorbed opposing his university’s making tanks for the US Army. Comrades are engaged in labour organising, post-carbon planning, the self-organisation of the homeless, municipal elections and other projects. But the optimistic sense of another world as not only possible but probable, imminent, has given way to something more sombre. Even in this no-longer-frozen North, the upsurge of popular movements and governments in Latin America is an inspiration. Otherwise, however, horizons have contracted.

Global capitalism appears – by profit levels – robust. Cascading ecological calamities, suddenly peaking oil, another 9/11, or an uncontrolled unwinding of US-China relations could all destabilise the world system. But not only are such scenarios contingent; it is uncertain they would be to the advantage of progressive movements. Neo-fascists, fundamentalists and martial law capitalists could be the beneficiaries, unless intellectual and organisational preparation lays the ground for a better alternative.

It therefore seems important to renew the discussion of what we want: to think through not just what we are against, but what we are fighting for (and hence who ‘we’ are), and to consider what might be plausibly achieved in present circumstances. Many movement activists and intellectuals are currently addressing this task, here and in other forums. My contribution will be to propose and discuss ‘commonism’.

‘Commons’ is a word that sums up many of the aspirations of the movement of movements. It is a popular term perhaps because it provides a way of talking about collective ownership without invoking a bad history – that is, without immediately conjuring up, and then explaining (away) ‘communism’, conventionally understood as a centralised command economy plus a repressive state. Though some will disagree, I think this distinction is valid; it is important to differentiate our goals and methods from those of past catastrophes, while resuming discussions of a society beyond capitalism.

The initial reference of ‘commons’ is to the collective lands enclosed by capitalism in a process of primitive accumulation running from the middle ages to the present. Such common agrarian lands are still a flashpoint of struggle in many places. But today commons also names the possibility of collective, rather than private ownership in other domains: an ecological commons (of water, atmosphere, fisheries and forests); a social commons (of public provisions for welfare, health, education and so on); a networked commons (of access to the means of communication).

Let us extend this term ‘commons’ in a slightly unfamiliar way. Marx suggested capitalism has a cell-form, a basic building block, from which all its apparatus of commerce and command are elaborated. This cell form was the commodity, a good produced for sale between private owners.

If the cell form of capitalism is the commodity, the cellular form of a society beyond capital is the common. A commodity is a good produced for sale, a common is a good produced, or conserved, to be shared. The notion of a commodity, a good produced for sale, presupposes private owners between whom this exchange occurs. The notion of the common presupposes collectivities – associations and assemblies – within which sharing is organised. If capitalism presents itself as an immense heap of commodities, ‘commonism’ is a multiplication of commons.

The forces of the common and the commodity – of the movement and the market – are currently in collision across the three spheres we mentioned before: the ecological, the social and the networked.

In the ecological sphere, decades of green struggle have disclosed how the market’s depletion and pollution of nature destroys the common basis of human life. This destruction runs from pesticide poisoning to clear-cutting to species-extinctions. What now highlights this process is global warming. The prospect of chaotic climate change destroying agriculture, water supply and coastland around the planet (although, as usual, most devastatingly in the South) throws into sharp relief the scale of ecological crisis. It also definitively displays the inadequacy of the ‘free market’ and its price system as a social steering system. The scale of intervention now necessary is indicated by George Monbiot’s recent ten-point plan to address global warming: targets for rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, borne primarily by the developed North; individual carbon quotas; high-energy efficiency building regulation; banning and taxation of high-emission devices; diversion of public funds from ‘defence’ and road building to clean energy and public transport systems; freezes and reductions in air travel and out of town superstores. One can debate every point in this prescription. But if Monbiot is even close to correct, the remedy required exceeds anything the market, even as ‘green business’, can do. It demands regulation, rationing and major public investment. Global warming (alongside other ecological crises, from fish stocks to water tables) puts back on the table precisely what neoliberalism attempted to erase: massive social planning.

In the social sphere, the red thread of labour, socialist and communist movements traces the attempt to replace the class divisions of capitalism with various forms of common wealth. Defeating this challenge was the mission of neoliberalism. It has had great success. Precisely because of this, intensifying global inequalities are now having universal consequences. The afflictions of what Mike Davis calls the ‘planet of slums’ cannot be walled off from the planet of malls. They return as disease (HIV/AIDS and other pandemics) or insurgency (‘terror’). In this context, two movement initiatives have picked up the issue of ‘common wealth’ in innovative ways. One is the movement of ‘solidarity economics’ focused on cooperative enterprises of various sorts and associated with the success of the Latin American left. I discuss this later. The other is a set of proposals and campaigns around what is variously known as a ‘basic’ or ‘guaranteed’ income, which, by assuring a modest level of subsistence, saves human life from utter dependence on a global labour market. Such programmes also address feminist political economists’ point about the market’s systemic non-reward of reproductive work (care of children and households). Basic income was initially proposed in the global North West, and in that context can be criticised as a supplement to an already-affluent welfare state. But basic income has recently appeared as a policy initiative in Brazil and South Africa. Some groups have proposed and costed a basic global income of $1 a day. Insignificant in a North American context, this would double the monetary income of the one billion plus people officially designated as living in extreme poverty. If one thinks this utopian, consider the $532 billion 2007 US defence budget. Again, there are more than enough debates to be had about a global basic income: it might, for example, be better conceived not as a cash economy payment but as a basic ‘basket of goods’ or a guaranteed global livelihood. But the failure of trickle-down market solutions to poverty and inequality (even in the midst of a global boom), and the increasing extremity of the consequences, creates opportunities for new common-wealth activism.

In the network sphere, the failure of the market appears in a different way – as capital’s inability to make use of new technological resources. Computers and networks have created the increasing capacities for extremely fast, very cheap circulation of communication and knowledge. These innovations were made outside of the market, in a strange encounter between public funded science (the military/academic sector) and libertarian (and sometimes revolutionary) hackers. Capital’s contribution has been to try and stuff these innovations back within the commodity form, realising their powers only within the boundaries of information property and market pricing. But digital innovation has persistently over-spilled these limits. Peer-to-peer networks and free and open source software movements have taken advantage of the possibilities for the reproduction of non-rivalrous goods and collaborative production to generate networked culture whose logic contradicts commercial axioms. The movement of movements realised these potentials in its early weaving of what Harry Cleaver called an ‘electronic fabric of struggle,’ using the internet to circumvent corporate media and circulate news, analysis and solidarity. Increasingly, however, free and open source software and P2P constitute an electronic fabric of production, equipping people with a variety of digital tools for everything from radio broadcasts to micro-manufacturing. Capital is attempting to repress these developments – through incessant anti-piracy sweeps and intellectual property (IP) battles – or co-opt them. But alternatives beyond what it will allow are expressed in ‘creative commons’, ‘free cooperation’ and ‘open cultures’ movements contesting the intellectual property regime of the world market.

All three domains – ecological, social and networked – evidence major market failures. Each illustrates the failures of a commodity regime, though in distinct ways. Ecological disaster is the revenge of the market’s so-called negative externalities, that is, the harms whose price is not, and indeed cannot be, calculated in commercial transactions. Intensifying inequality, with immiseration amidst plenitude, displays the self-reinforcing feedback loops of deprivation and accumulation intrinsic to market operations. Networks show the market’s inability to accommodate its own positive externalities, that is, to allow the full benefits of innovations when they overflow market price mechanisms. Together, all three constitute a historical indictment of neoliberalism, and of the global capitalist system of which it is only the latest, cutting-edge, doctrine.

Also in all three domains, movements are proposing, as alternatives to these market failures, new forms of commons. These too vary in each domain, although, as I will argue in a moment, they also overlap and connect. In the ecological sphere, commons provisions are based primarily on conservation and regulation (but also on public funding of new technologies and transportation systems). In the social sphere, a global guaranteed livelihood entails a commons built on redistribution of wealth, while solidarity economies create experimental collectively-managed forms of production. In the case of the networked commons, what is emerging is a commons of abundance, of non-rivalrous information goods – a cornucopian commons.

Of course, these three spheres are in reality not separable; any life-activity resonates in all three, so that, for example, ecological and networked activities are always social commons – and vice-versa. Indeed, my argument is that the form of a new social order, commonism, can be seen only in the interrelation and linkage of these domains – in a circulation of the common.

Marx showed how in capitalism, commodities moved in a circuit. Money is used to purchase labour, machinery and raw materials. These are thrown into production, creating new commodities that are sold for more money, part of which is retained as profit, and part used to purchase more means of production to make more commodities… repeat ad infinitum. Different kinds of capital – mercantile, industrial and financial – played different roles in this circuit. So, for example, the transformation of commodities into money is the role of merchant capital, involved in trade; actual production is conducted by industrial capital; and the conversion of money capital into productive capital is the task of financial capital (banks, etc).

We need to think in terms of the circulation of commons, of the interconnection and reinforcements between them. The ecological commons maintains the finite conditions necessary for both social and networked commons. A social commons, with a tendency towards a equitable distribution of wealth, preserves the ecological commons, both by eliminating the extremes of environmental destructiveness linked to extremes of wealth (SUVs, incessant air travel) and poverty (charcoal burning, deforestation for land) and by reducing dependence on ‘trickle down’ from unconstrained economic growth. Social commons also create the conditions for the network commons, by providing the context of basic health, security and education within which people can access new and old media. A network commons in turn circulates information about the condition of both ecological and social commons (monitoring global environmental conditions, tracking epidemics, enabling exchanges between health workers, labour activists or disaster relief teams). Networks also provide the channels for planning ecological and social commons – organising them, resolving problems, considering alternative proposals. They act as the fabric of the association that is the sine qua non of any of the other commons.

Let’s suppose that a publicly-funded education institution (social commons) produces software and networks that are available to an open source collective (networked commons), which creates free software used by an agricultural cooperative to track its use of water and electricity (ecological commons). This is a micro model of the circulation of the common.

This is a concept of the common that is not defensive, not limited to fending off the depredations of capital on ever-diminishing collective space. Rather it is aggressive and expansive: proliferating, self-strengthening and diversifying. It is also a concept of heterogeneous collectivity, built from multiple forms of a shared logic, a commons of singularities. We can talk of common earth, a common wealth and common networks; or of commons of land (in its broadest sense, comprising the biosphere), labour (in its broadest sense, comprising reproductive and productive work) and language (in its broadest sense, comprising all means of information, communication and knowledge exchange). It is through the linkages and bootstrapped expansions of these commons that commonism emerges.

This concept has a clear affinity with the movements of solidarity economics that emerged from Latin America and are now gaining increasing attention in North America and Europe. Broadly defined, these aim to link self-managed and worker-owned collectives, cooperative financial organisations and socially-responsible consumption practices to create expanding economic networks whose surpluses are invested in social and ecological regeneration. Euclides Mance, one of the theorists of the movement, writes of such ‘socially based cooperation networks’ reinforcing their component parts until ‘progressive boosting’ enables them to move from a ‘secondary, palliative or complementary sphere of activity’ to become a ‘socially hegemonic mode of production’. This type of activity – to which, I think, basic income programmes would be complementary – seems to resemble the sort of cell-growth of commons envisaged here.

Mance says that this process is ‘not about the political control of the State by society’, but about ‘the democratic control of the economy by society’. Latin American activists will, however, be much better aware than I that the creation of grass roots alternative networks goes better with protection, support and even initiation at a state level. For that reason, one might think of the circulation of the common as involving not only a lateral circuit between ecological, social and networked domains, but also a vertical circuit between new subjectivities, autonomous assemblies (solidarity networks, cooperatives, environmental and community groupings) and governmental agencies.

The movement of movements has been tacitly split between autonomist and anarchist groups, with strong anti-statist perspectives, and socialist and social democratic movements, committed to governmental planning and welfare functions. Rather than either repressing this tension, or replaying it ad infinitum, it may be both more interesting for both sides and closer to the real practice of many activists to think about the potential interplay of these two poles.

Commons projects are projects of planning: the regulation of carbon emissions (or other ecological pollutants), the distribution of a basic income (or of public health or education) or the establishment of networked infrastructures are all extremely difficult on any large scale without the exercise of governmental power.

The nightmare of previously existing socialisms was the assumption by this governmental planning power of despotic bureaucratic forms. The antidote is a pluralistic planning processes, which involves a multiplicity of non-state organisations capable of proposing, debating and democratically determining what directions governmental planning takes. Thus a requirement of ‘commonist’ government is the cultivation of the conditions in which autonomous assemblies can emerge to countervail against bureaucracy and despotism, and provide diversity and innovation in planning ideas. Planning and anti-planning have to be built into each other: there should always be, to quote Raymond Williams, at least two plans.

As George Caffentzis has pointed out, neoliberal capital, confronting the debacle of free market policies, is now turning to a ‘Plan B’, in which limited versions of environmental planning terms (e.g. pollution trading schemes) community development and open-source and file sharing practices are introduced as subordinate aspects of a capitalist economy. But the question hanging over this encounter is which logic will envelope and subordinate the other: who will subsume who?

Commonism scales. That is, it can and must be fought for at micro and macro, molecular and molar, levels; in initiatives of individual practice, community projects and very large scale movements. If the concept is at all meaningful, it is only because millions of people are already in myriad ways working to defend and create commons of different sorts, from community gardens to peer-to-peer networks.

In my view, however, a commonist project would gain coherence and focus by agreement on a set of high level demands to be advanced in the ecological, social and network spheres at the national and international level, demands that could be supported by many movements even as they pursue other more local and specific struggles and projects. These demands might include some briefly discussed here: for example, a guaranteed global livelihood, carbon-emission rationing and adoption of free and open-source software in public institutions.

Such demands would be radical but not, in a negative sense, utopian. Success would not mean we had won: it is conceivable that capitalism could persist with these provisions, although they would represent a planetary ‘New Deal’ of major proportions. But achieving them would mean, first, that the movement of movements had won something, averting harms to, and bestowing benefits on millions; and, second, it would mean that we were winning: these altered conditions would create opportunities for new collective projects and waves of organising that could effect deeper transformations, and the institutions of new commons.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Computer-linked Social Movements
and
the Global Threat to Capitalism

http://www.cseweb.org.uk/downloads/cleaver.pdf
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Transcendental Destination
Where Will the Information Revolution Lead?
RAND CORPORATION 2000

http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/rr-12-00/transcendental.html

World Wide Web traffic emanates predominantly from the United States and Canada. RAND researchers say the information revolution is fostering a global "realm of the mind" that could form the backbone of an American information strategy.


Twenty years from now, by the year 2020, the information revolution will have altered life on this planet even more dramatically than in the last 20 years, according to the experts. Even if they hesitate to specify exactly what the technological changes might be over the next two decades, the experts offer even more intriguing insights into how those technological changes could, in turn, change us as people, as nations, and as a global web of human thought and action.

With regard to technological breakthroughs, the fear of forecasting the future is forgivable. Back in 1980, a mere 20 years ago, almost no one could have predicted the explosive growth of the World Wide Web. The Arpanet was then the U.S. defense department's precursor of the Internet, which later did lead to the emergence of the World Wide Web. But in 1980 there was still no hypertext language for navigating from web site to web site, still no graphical interface, nothing like today's chat rooms, no laptop computers, and no cell phones, let alone cell phones that could deliver e-mail via satellite. Conversely, predictions that once seemed reasonable now appear naïve in retrospect. It's already the year 2000, for example, but cars still can't fly.

With regard to overall technological trends, on the other hand, efforts to anticipate the future are more than exercises in futility. While it is risky to predict the future in detail, it may be even more foolish not to prepare for it at all, especially when the future promises to bring changes as swift and pervasive as those made possible by the information revolution.

Consequently, several U.S. government agencies have asked RAND to take the lead in broadly outlining what may lie ahead and boldly deducing the implications for government and society. The work has proceeded on three fronts:

(1) to chart the future course of the information revolution throughout the world over the next 10-20 years,

(2) to identify potential forms of global governance that might become necessary as a result, and

(3) to suggest a national "information strategy" appropriate for a global information age.

The research sponsors include the National Intelligence Council, a small center of strategic thinking within the U.S. intelligence community; the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which created the original Arpanet in 1969; the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Although the three strands of research have proceeded independently of one another, they build on each other in compelling ways.

To chart the future course of the information revolution, a team of researchers led by Richard Hundley has initiated a series of international conferences of leading computer scientists, defense planners, and policy analysts. One conference, devoted to technological trends, looked beyond Moore's Law--the expected doubling of the density of integrated circuits on a silicon chip every 18 months or so--to envision the likely effects of information technology on various countries, regions, and cultures. Another conference considered the political, economic, and social consequences already affecting many parts of the world. Subsequent conferences will chart the course of the revolution in greater detail in Latin America, Europe, and Asia. The participants already agree that the information revolution will affect all nations, albeit in different ways.

To identify forms of global governance that might be necessary for the information age, Francis Fukuyama and Caroline Wagner highlighted three models of political and social organization that could complement the nation-state: distributed decisionmaking, citizen councils, and nongovernmental organizations. These models function not as hierarchical systems of control; rather, they involve broader swaths of the body politic in transnational deliberations. This attribute will be critical for any new system of governance to be effective, the researchers conclude.

To suggest an American information strategy for the 21st century, John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt drew inspiration from the prophetic writings of a French soldier, paleontologist, and Jesuit theologian of the early 20th century, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (TAY-yar DUH Shar-DAN). The controversial writings of Teilhard during World War I and the 1920s were censored by the Vatican but published posthumously in the 1950s and 1960s. He asserted that evolution and Christianity, far from being at odds with each other, are in fact part of the same process: the evolution of a benign spiritual force through increasingly complex forms of material life on earth. Teilhard foresaw that human beings would rise to a new evolutionary plane characterized by the global coordination of intellectual, social, and spiritual energies. He called this higher plane the "noosphere" (NEW-oh-sphere), defining it as an all-encompassing realm of the mind (from the Greek noos, or "mind"). Teilhard predicted that this realm would eventually supersede the prior evolutionary realms of the geosphere and the biosphere as the supreme milieu of the spirit on earth. Today, Teilhard is occasionally credited with anticipating the Internet.

The all-encompassing realm of the mind, though intangible by definition, forms the backbone of the American information strategy proposed by Arquilla and Ronfeldt. They advance the notion of "noopolitik" (NEW-oh-poh-li-TEEK) as a new form of statecraft for the information age. As opposed to realpolitik, which often refers to a policy of national expansion across geographic terrain, noopolitik would seek instead to advance national ideas, values, laws, and ethics across the "psychic terrain" of the noosphere that envelops the planet. Noopolitik represents an evolutionary leap in statecraft made possible by the information revolution.

RAND researchers foresee that the information revolution will change not just the way people behave thanks to new technological devices, but, more essentially, the way people understand and organize themselves--socially, culturally, politically, economically, governmentally, militarily, and even spiritually. Similarly, the information revolution will transform the way nations behave and understand their roles in the world. These changes ought to be the most pronounced in the United States, the researchers aver. As the global leader of the information revolution, the United States should begin now to redefine its purpose in the world, to redesign its national institutions, and to update its national strategies in ways that befit the revolution it has wrought.



The Future of the Revolution


The first two conferences organized by RAND to chart the likely course of the information revolution each convened about 40 participants. Most came from the United States. Others came from Australia, Britain, Denmark, France, India, Japan, and Russia. The next three conferences in this series will broaden and deepen RAND's understanding of the worldwide course of the information revolution as it pertains specifically to Latin America, Europe, and the Asia Pacific region.

A visitor tests a wearable, wireless Internet device, called the "Charmed Communicator," on display at the China Internet World 2000 exhibition in Beijing in April. The device can be used for computer games, as a web browser, as an e-mail terminal, or as a replacement for a desktop computer.
So far, the participants have agreed on the basics: Over the next 15-20 years, computing will get faster and cheaper, communications bandwidth (or capacity) will increase enormously, and interesting new devices will emerge. As a result, the industrialized countries could expect to encounter a plethora of new technological phenomena, particularly in five areas:

1. Photonics. Optical transmission lines, amplifiers, and switches will allow a tremendous increase in the bandwidth of packet-switching technology. This will lead to major changes in computer architectures, operating systems, and networking protocols. Many present-day leaders in the computer and communications industries will be threatened with extinction.

2. Universal connectivity. Wireless communications will provide seamless data, voice, and video services to anyone anywhere on earth at any time of the day or night. This will have a huge affect on business practices, international financial institutions, and governments.

3. Ubiquitous computing. Computers will be everywhere: in smart home appliances, smart houses, smart offices, smart buildings, smart cars, and smart highways. Smart appliances, for example, could "talk" to one another and sense the presence of humans. Wearable and implanted computers will give people constant access to information services while mobile.

4. Pervasive sensors. Sensors will be everywhere as well. Wireless sensors will include tiny video cameras, tiny microphones, accelerometers, gyroscopes, Global Positioning System receivers, smell sensors, food sensors, biosensors, and polymer-based sensors. They will provide directions, identify spoiled food, detect diseases, detect natural and synthetic compounds, and assist police and the military with instant feedback on individual or group activities. Privacy issues will continue to mount and will demand solutions.

5. Global information utilities. It will be possible to plug information appliances into wall sockets connected to public information utilities in much the same way as we now plug electrical appliances into sockets connected to electrical utilities. Just as we obtain electricity, gas, water, and telephone services from wires and pipes to our homes, so will we be able to obtain information services.

Today, however, high-speed Internet connections exist almost exclusively between the United States and Europe and between the United States and Asia. There are very few high-speed links to or among developing countries. About half of all Internet users reside in the United States and Canada.

Further disparities between industrialized and developing nations could arise in several areas, including health care, education, and commercial supply-chain management.

In health care, "telemedicine" will allow remote diagnoses, remote monitoring of vital signs, and easy transfer of electronic medical records (all of which will require high degrees of security). Telemedicine will probably widen the gap between rich and poor societies, because only those countries with the requisite infrastructure and bandwidth could exploit the full benefits. Even so, some benefits could accrue to the poor. For example, medical students and doctors in poor countries could get improved information and training over the web. And countries short of doctors could reap huge gains from equipment now being designed by the U.S. military. For example, a "smart stretcher" could transmit detailed information about an injured soldier (or civilian) to remote physicians, who could then instruct a medic at the scene to follow specific procedures.

In education, the greatest benefits will probably go to adults who pursue lifetime learning, specialized training, or postgraduate education through "distance learning." Again, the need for an infrastructure would favor wealthy nations the most, but the opportunity for remote access to superior teachers and educational materials could also benefit people of poor nations.

Supply-chain management refers to the effort by businesses and manufacturers to reduce surplus inventories wherever possible and thus cut costs. New computerized management systems already have led to vast improvements in tracking inventories, reducing overhead costs, and allowing managers to understand intuitively the workings of very complex production systems. These kinds of improvements reduce the advantages that accrue to cheap laborers (those who produce and store surplus inventories) and thus could end the flight of manufacturing to the developing world. This could have profound consequences for the global distribution of income.

The conferees expressed additional misgivings. The information revolution, they suspect, will widen the economic, social, and political disparities within societies as well as among nations. Privacy will be increasingly jeopardized. The spread of U.S. culture could overwhelm other cultures. And nations will pay an increasing price for going their own ways.

But the revolution cannot be stopped, the conferees concluded. For better or worse, it is leading to a future that will be characterized by many interrelated economic, social, and political features:

1. the continuing rise of electronic commerce and the elimination of myriad "middlemen," creating greater efficiencies but also greater possibilities for social exclusion

2. a growing fraction of economic activity performed by "information workers"

3. flatter, less-hierarchical business organizations that place a higher value on social networks and informal communications

4. challenges to the power and authority of the nation-state as a result of many factors, including the increasing porosity of national borders and the simultaneous assemblage of a wide variety of interest groups that operate largely beyond the control of individual nations

5. new fault lines within and between nations, by virtue of the widening gulfs between the educated, wealthy, and "wired" of all nations and the less fortunate of all nations

6. many new winners and many new losers among individuals, groups, nations, and regions.


The Direction of Governance

Of particular concern to the U.S. government, naturally, is how to govern the new technologies--or, in other words, how to control, direct, shape, or regulate their use. In an age of globally networked information systems that could be used for good or ill by any user, it is not yet clear what kinds of governmental decisionmaking structures should or could be put into place. Whereas the industrial revolution generated large-scale technologies (telecommunications, airlines, nuclear energy) whose control required centralized decisionmaking by national authorities, the information revolution has produced global technologies whose control resides largely in the hands of individuals. The obstacles to governing such technologies are tremendous.

In fairness, Fukuyama and Wagner recognize that the new technologies have been hailed for supporting the political values championed by the West. Cheap and ubiquitous phones, fax machines, radios, computers, e-mail, and the Internet have all been saluted for helping to overthrow authoritarian powers throughout the world and spread liberal democracy. Modern communications were crucial in undermining the communist states of East Germany and the Soviet Union as well as the right-wing dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. In the future, the information revolution could help to open other closed societies such as China, whose government has tried to control Internet use for political reasons.

Americans also have selfish reasons for wanting to spread the revolution around the world with few constraints. Americans stand to benefit economically. American companies dominate the global information industry. American media and cultural products, from CNN to Disney to MTV, will be disseminated via the new technological innovations. American media will also foster American values, both political and cultural, as the world becomes more electronically connected. It is natural for Americans to argue for minimal government regulation of information technologies, for that would appear to favor American interests and values around the world.

But the Internet poses real problems for America as well. The Internet has evolved well beyond its original function of sharing information into a global commercial trading system. Electronic commerce has strained international trade agreements, jurisdictional powers over taxation and regulation, and legal safeguards for intellectual property. The borderless nature of electronic commerce has also extended the reach of criminal activity. Money launderers, drug traffickers, hate groups, and pornographers rank among the most innovative users. Terrorists have new tools, too. Not only can terrorists organize across international borders, they can also undermine social order by spreading false or misleading information that may be difficult to counteract.

In fact, the Internet could accelerate the fragmentation of civil society itself. In the middle of the 20th century, the mass media gave Americans a common set of cultural experiences, whether through watching the Ed Sullivan Show or reading Life magazine. All forms of media today, not just the Internet, target highly specialized niche markets, with 500 cable channels on television and tens of thousands of online discussion groups on the Internet. In aggregate, citizens have fewer and fewer common cultural experiences and points of reference, with possible negative implications for their ability to associate and work together as a national political community.

The solution might be to build an international political community, according to Fukuyama and Wagner. They do not propose some kind of world government that would weaken U.S. sovereignty. They do, however, recognize that no single nation can govern the new technologies. To control, shape, and regulate them will require institutions as borderless and decentralized as the technologies themselves. Therefore, the researchers propose that the U.S. government work with other governments, organizations, and individuals to create new institutions of governance, as opposed to government. These institutions will need "buy-in" from a wide range of nations, organizations, and average citizens to be considered legitimate and effective. When technology is in the hands of individuals, the only viable regulatory structure will be one endorsed by those individuals themselves.

New governance mechanisms are needed quickly, Fukuyama and Wagner argue. They weigh the possi-bilities for three existing models of governance: dis-tributed decisionmaking, citizen councils, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). All three models have the ingredients of future success: They are nimble, inclusive, decentralized, and global. All three models also have disadvantages.

Jeff Mallett (left), of Yahoo! Inc., demonstrates the Internet to 10-year-old Juan Martinez (right), 9-year-old Jonathan Bermudez (second from right), and 10-year-old Adrian Solorio, all of Los Angeles, at the Hollenbeck Youth Center in Boyle Heights in July. In back is Todd Wagner, of Broadcast.com, who donated computer hardware and training to help the center bridge the "digital divide."

The first model, decentralized decisionmaking, would require many organizations and users to reach consensus on various matters: what technologies to support with research and development money; what technologies need governance; what the norms of use and application should be; and whether, how, and at what level of formality the technologies should be regulated. Although this process of creating common norms would provide a solid foundation for global governance, it often takes a long time to create common norms. And time, unfortunately, is of the essence.

The second approach would be to create citizen councils that would make recommendations to formal governing bodies. For instance, hundreds of citizen councils could be organized across the United States (or around the world) and encouraged to deliberate over the rules and regulations that should govern information technology. Using the formidable networking capacities of the Internet, these councils could share ideas on a series of questions and point toward a governing consensus. A centrally organized group--such as the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Science Foundation, or a public-private coalition--could provide the considerable incentive of coordinated action, could give the councils sufficient information with which to deliberate, and could serve as the clearinghouse for opinions and ideas. Citizen councils like this have been used quite effectively in Europe. However, American culture is less homogeneous than the culture of many a European nation. Citizen councils in America would have to represent the greater diversity of the American people as well as simultaneously accommodate the individualistic nature of U.S. culture.

The third approach would be to promote governance of information technologies by international NGOs. In recent years, numerous NGOs have used electronic communications to achieve outcomes otherwise unattainable by sovereign nation-states. Human rights and other activist groups forced the hand of the Mexican government on behalf of the Indians in Chiapas. Greenpeace and other environmental groups forced Shell Oil to change its policies with respect to the North Sea and Nigeria. Other groups induced the sportswear maker Nike to promise compliance with child labor standards. In each case, NGOs changed the behavior either of a government or of a large multinational corporation when state action had been ineffective. NGOs have the capacity to organize quickly and transnationally in ways that avoid the bureaucracy and rigidity of conventional international institutions.

On the other hand, NGOs are ultimately unaccountable to anyone but their own adherents. Unlike a democratically elected legislature that can be turned out of office, NGOs cannot be removed by popular demand. They lack the legitimacy of formal government institutions that operate by popular consent. Moreover, NGOs usually deal with limited issues in limited ways. NGOs have neither the obligation nor the capability to promote the public interest at large.

The Destiny of America

In their call for a new form of statecraft for the information age, Arquilla and Ronfeldt decry the "imbalance" they now see in efforts to craft an American information strategy. A good strategy would balance two opposite poles, they explain. One pole is technological--that of ensuring the safety and security of information infrastructures. The other pole is political or ideational--that of harnessing and disseminating American ideals to attract, influence, and lead others.

A man in local Arabic dress browses the Internet at a café in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, in August. Arab rulers have slowly, somewhat reluctantly made the Internet available to their people, attempting to filter out free-wheeling political discussion as well as pornography.
Both poles are important, but the technological concerns have grabbed the bulk of the attention. Meanwhile, the broader sociopolitical objective of sharing ideas has been neglected. It is time for U.S. civilian and military leaders to look beyond the defense of information infrastructures, say Arquilla and Ronfeldt. There is much more at stake in cyberspace than technological vulnerability. There are also unprecedented opportunities. In other words, beyond merely defending against an "electronic Pearl Harbor," America should endeavor to fulfill a new information-age "manifest destiny" of propagating its ideals, values, and ethics around the world.

The original notion of the noosphere, as articulated by Teilhard, was never neutral with respect to values or ethics. He was a priest, after all. In his vision, the higher evolutionary plane of the noosphere would be reached not merely through the coordination of human energies but, more intrinsically, through a devotion to moral and juridical principles. Arquilla and Ronfeldt embrace that idea. They contend that the Internet and other forms of global communication should serve a higher purpose beyond just disseminating information or fueling commerce. Hence, America should harness the new technologies to promote the ideals for which it stands: openness, freedom, democracy, the rule of law, humane behavior, human rights, and a preference for peaceful conflict resolution.

Such an information strategy would be called noopolitik. Unlike realpolitik, which is foreign policy based on raw calculations of power and narrow national interests, noopolitik is foreign policy based on global ideas, values, norms, laws, and ethics. Realpolitik works through the "hard power" of men, missiles, guns, and ships. Noopolitik emphasizes the "soft power" of attraction rather than coercion. Realpolitik asserts that might makes right; noopolitik, that right makes might. Realpolitik tends to be amoral if not immoral. Noopolitik succeeds only by upholding shared principles.

There are immense implications for the U.S. military. To simultaneously disseminate and defend American ideals, the military would need plenty of new capabilities to deal with both friends and foes. On the one hand, the military would need globally interconnected information systems that allow conditional sharing of information with semitrusted allies. On the other hand, the military would need new organizational designs and doctrines for using information-age "swarming" strategies against terrorists, authoritarian regimes, or other adversaries. These swarming strategies would entail striking at foes from many directions simultaneously--sometimes with heat-seeking missiles and other smart munitions, sometimes with truth-seeking teams of "special media forces" armed with the weapons of the media rather than traditional military weapons. The media forces would be dispatched into conflict zones to help settle disputes through the discovery and dissemination of accurate information.

For the time being, the leading practitioners of noopolitik are neither nation-states nor their militaries but, as indicated above, NGOs. They are already utilizing information technologies to promote a global civil society. Prime examples include the Nobel prize-winning campaign to ban land mines; the Greenpeace-led campaign against French nuclear testing in the South Pacific; the transnational defense of Zapatista insurgents in Mexico; and the Internet-based efforts by Burmese and Chinese dissidents, with support from NGOs based in the United States, to press for human rights and political reforms. Such efforts suggest that old tenets of "peace through strength" are yielding to new tenets of "peace through knowledge."

An American information strategy of noopolitik would build on the successes of NGOs. Once again, the researchers do not call for some kind of overarching global government. Rather, they explain that the most effective strategy for the U.S. government would be to form a cooperative network with allied governments and NGOs in pursuit of common global missions. At the same time, an American information strategy for the future could not be confined strictly to American interests and institutions. The inherently global nature of modern information and networking would undermine such a narrow strategy. National interests would still play a role, but they would need to be recast in universal terms.

For example, U.S. foreign policy might face widespread global opposition. In this case, U.S. policy itself might need to be reconsidered. This sort of problem has recently occurred. The United States has refused to join more than 100 countries in signing a treaty to ban land mines, mainly because of the U.S. military's reliance on land mines on the Korean peninsula. Yet the United States could reconsider its reliance on land mines, either by shifting to tactics that have little use for land mines or by developing mobile mines that travel with ground troops. Either solution would resolve the impasse, and both could lead to greater U.S. military effectiveness.

There are certainly risks in pursuing a strategy that could place limits on American freedom of action. A vibrant, global civil society built on an interconnected network of NGOs and nation-states might one day curtail the autonomous exercise of American power. Yet if free flows of information do indeed foster democracy and open markets, the overall benefits of such a strategy are likely to exceed the liabilities. In some ways, such a strategy resembles the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Western Europe and Japan after World War II. The United States used its power to strengthen others against a communist threat, even to the point of creating new economic giants that could rival America's own market power. Similarly, Arquilla and Ronfeldt believe that America stands to benefit, on balance, from the emergence of the noosphere and the pursuit of noopolitik.

At the beginning of this strategy, American hegemony might even be the necessary precondition to consolidate the global noosphere. Much as classic theories of trade openness depend on a benign hegemon to keep markets open and to provide the "public goods" (like freedom of the seas) that make trade possible, a benevolent hegemon may now be required to coordinate a network of NGOs and nation-states as the nucleus of a global civil society. At the end of this strategy, however, American hegemony might indeed fade. But here is the consolation: America would transcend itself on behalf of a greater global good. American ideals, with modest refinements, would write the constitution of a global civil society, even as the American state itself would lose its primacy. That would be a fitting legacy of the primacy of American ideals.



Related Reading


The Emergence of Noopolitik: Toward an American Information Strategy, John Arquilla, David Ronfeldt, RAND/MR-1033-OSD, 1999, 102 pp., ISBN 0-8330-2698-4, $15.00.

The Global Course of the Information Revolution: Political, Economic, and Social Consequences--Proceedings of an International Conference, Richard O. Hundley, Robert H. Anderson, Tora K. Bikson, James A. Dewar, Jerrold Green, Martin Libicki, C. Richard Neu, RAND/CF-154-NIC, 2000, 142 pp., ISBN 0-8330-2850-2, $9.00.

The Global Course of the Information Revolution: Technological Trends--Proceedings of an International Conference, Robert H. Anderson, Philip S. Anton, Steven C. Bankes, Tora K. Bikson, Jonathan Caulkins, Peter J. Denning, James A. Dewar, Richard O. Hundley, C. Richard Neu, RAND/CF-157-NIC, 2000, 127 pp., ISBN 0-8330-2906-1, $9.00.

Information and Biological Revolutions: Global Governance Challenges--Summary of a Study Group, Francis Fukuyama, Caroline S. Wagner, RAND/MR-1139-DARPA, 2000, 140 pp., ISBN 0-8330-2807-3, $15.00.

Swarming and the Future of Conflict, John Arquilla, David Ronfeldt, RAND/DB-311-OSD, 2000, 107 pp., ISBN 0-8330-2855-5, $18.00.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
1994: Army War College Paper Proposes use of Computer Generated Insurgents
http://www.oldthinkernews.com/?p=1272
Old-Thinker News | May 6, 2011


With Osama bin Laden's recent resurrection in the
minds of the world population, the real world
revolutionaries have moved ever closer to meeting
their goals.


By Daniel Taylor

In 2008, Old-Thinker News reported on a 1994 strategic paper published by the U.S. Army War College titled "Revolution In Military Affairs And Conflict Short Of War,” written by Dr. Steven Metz (who works for the RAND Corporation) and James Kievit. Recent events have made this paper even more precient than ever. The document outlines an eerily familiar scenario in which a group of revolutionaries within government hijack control of the levers of power and begin a program of pre-emptive war, psychological operations at home and abroad, and false flag attacks blamed on “…computer generated insurgent leader(s)“.

In July of 1994 the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) produced the paper titled Revolution In Military Affairs And Conflict Short Of War that uncannily forecasted the future in a “hypothetical future history” written in the year 2010. The hypothetical situation contains many disturbing predictions, several of which have come true. After a series of terrorist attacks, foreign policy “fiascos” and various disputes between “supporters of multinational peace operations” and “isolationists”, a small number of “revolutionaries” recruits members in all branches of the U.S. government and shift American foreign policy to a practice of pre-emption.

Computer generated insurgents claim responsibility for attacks that U.S. forces carry out, traditional boundaries between military and law enforcement are abolished, subliminal conditioning is used in combination with propaganda, and bioelectric tags are implanted in citizens. As predicted in the document, 2010 is the year that the revolutionaries’ goals would be met.

2012 Election


With stunning accuracy, the election of 2012 is mentioned in the document as being an extremely important date in America’s history, as “…Americans are beginning to question the economic, human, and ethical costs of our new strategy…” The document continues “…There are even rumblings of discontent within the national security community as the full meaning of the revolution becomes clear.”

Ron Paul’s growing grass roots support epitomizes this resistance, as he is on track to become a frontrunner in the 2012 elections.

Globalist architect Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted last year that “…For the first time in all of human history: mankind is political awakened…that’s a total new reality…total new reality.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZyo9HRGeWw

With Osama bin Laden’s recent resurrection in the minds of the world population, the real world revolutionaries have moved ever closer to meeting their goals. The over-the-top nature of the deception, however, is having the effect of waking up individuals who were undecided as to whether or not they were being duped. One example out of several is this photo of various white house staff that were reported to have “…watched the bin Laden raid in real time.” It has now been revealed that there was a 25 minute “video blackout” during the raid, making it impossible for them to have seen anything at all. Never the less, the establishment is running with its attempt to carry out one of the largest scandals in history.

With this in mind, here are several pertinent excerpts from the Revolution in Military Affairs document:

The Revolutionaries’ rise to power

    “This series of fiascos [terrorist attacks on the United States at home and abroad] led a small number of American political leaders, senior military officers, and national security experts to conclude that a revolution was needed in the way we approached conflict short of war. They held the Vietnam-inspired doctrine of the 1980s and 1990s directly responsible for these disasters. Only radical innovation, they concluded, could renew U.S. strategy and avoid a slide into global irrelevance.”

    “The revolutionaries’ first task was to recruit proselytes throughout the government and national security community. Initially the revolutionaries, who called their new strategic concept “Dynamic Defense,” were opposed by isolationists who felt that new technology should be used simply to build an impenetrable electronic and physical barrier around the United States. Eventually the revolutionaries convinced the president-elect following the campaign of 2000 that Dynamic Defense was both feasible and effective–a task made easier by his background as a pioneering entrepreneur in the computer-generated and controlled “perception-molding” systems developed by the advertising industry. The President was thus amenable to the use of the sort of psychotechnology which formed the core of the RMA in conflict short of war.”

    …

    “The first step in implementing Dynamic Defense was reshaping the national security organization and its underlying attitudes and values. Technology provided opportunity; only intellectual change could consolidate it. With the full and active support of the President, the revolutionaries reorganized the American national security system to make maximum use of emerging technology and new ideas.

    This loosely reflected the earlier revolution in the world of business, and sought to make the U.S. national security organization more flexible and quicker to react to shifts in the global security environment. The old Cold War structures–the Department of Defense, Department of State, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Council, and others–were replaced by two organizations.”

    …

    “This integrated the military, civilian law enforcement, the diplomatic corps, and organizations responsible for gathering and analyzing intelligence. Since so many of the conflicts faced by the United States were “gray area” threats falling somewhere in between traditional military problems and traditional law enforcement problems, the organizational division between the two was abolished.”

    …

    “One of the turning points of the revolution came when its leaders convinced the President and key members of Congress that traditional American ethics were a major hindrance to the RMA. This was crucial: the revolutionaries and their allies then crafted the appropriate attitudinal vessel for the RMA. Through persistent efforts and very sophisticated domestic “consciousness-raising,” old-fashioned notions of personal privacy and national sovereignty changed.

    This was relatively easy since frustration with domestic crime had already begun to alter attitudes and values. In fact, the RMA in conflict short of war was, in many ways, a spin-off of the domestic “war on drugs and crime” of the late 1990s when the military… became heavily involved in support to domestic law enforcement. The changes in American values that accompanied that struggle were easily translated to the national security arena. Once the norms concerning personal privacy changed, law soon followed.”

    …

    “With values changed, technology then opened the door to profound innovation. Vast improvements in surveillance systems and information processing made it possible to monitor a large number of enemies (and potential enemies)… As they advanced into the electronic and bioelectronic era, it was necessary to rethink our ethical prohibitions on manipulating the minds of enemies (and potential enemies) both international and domestic. Cutting-edge pharmaceutical technology also provided tools for national security strategists.”

    …

    “All of this reorganization and technological development was simply preface for the full flowering of the revolution in military affairs. American leaders popularized a new, more inclusive concept of national security. No distinction–legal or otherwise–was drawn between internal and external threats. In the interdependent 21st century world, such a differentiation was dangerously nostalgic.”

The Strategy

    “The actual strategy built on the RMA was divided into three tracks. The first sought to perpetuate the revolution. Its internal dimension institutionalized the organizational and attitudinal changes that made the revolution possible, and pursued future breakthroughs in close conjunction with business, the scientific community, and local law enforcement agencies — the core troika of the 21st century security. The external dimension actively sought to delay or prevent counterresponses by controlling information and through well-orchestrated deception.”

    …

    “The second track consisted of offensive action. Our preference was preemption. In a dangerous world, it was preferable to kill terrorists before they could damage the ecology or strike at the United States… When preemption failed, the United States sought either passive containment where strikes (electronic, psychological, or physical) were used to limit the spread of the deleterious effects of a conflict. For opponents with the ability to harm the United States, the military preemptively destroyed their capabilities.”

    …

    “By 2010, the RMA accomplished its desired objectives.”

Operation Cerberus, computer generated insurgents and subliminal conditioning

    “Probably the finest hour of the new warriors was the Cuba preemption of 2005–Operation Ceberus.”

    “Potential or possible supporters of the insurgency around the world were identified using the Comprehensive Interagency Integrated Database. These were categorized as “potential” or “active,” with sophisticated computerized personality simulations used to develop, tailor, and focus psychological campaigns for each.”

    “Individuals and organizations with active predilections to support the insurgency were targets of an elaborate global ruse using computer communications networks and appeals by a computer-generated insurgent leader.”

    “Psychological operations included traditional propaganda as well as more aggressive steps such as drug assisted subliminal conditioning.”

    “Since all Americans in Cuba had been bioelectrically tagged and monitored during the initial stages of the conflict, the NEO went smoothly…”

    “The attitude-shaping campaigns aimed at the American public, the global public, and the Cuban people went quite well, including those parts using computer-generated broadcasts by insurgent leaders–”morphing”– in which they were shown as disoriented and psychotic. Subliminal messages surreptitiously integrated with Cuban television transmissions were also helpful.”

    “In fact, all of this was so successful that there were only a few instances of covert, stand-off military strikes when insurgent targets arose and government forces seemed on the verge of defeat. U.S. strike forces also attacked neutral targets to support the psychological campaign as computer-generated insurgent leaders claimed credit for the raids. At times, even the raids themselves were computer-invented ‘recreations.’” [emphasis added]

Comment from Old-Thinker News: The saga of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a prime example of this kind of operation occurring in the real world. As the Washington Post reported in 2006, “For the past two years, U.S. military leaders have been using Iraqi media and other outlets in Baghdad to publicize Zarqawi’s role in the insurgency. The documents explicitly list the “U.S. Home Audience” as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign. Some senior intelligence officers believe Zarqawi’s role may have been overemphasized by the propaganda campaign, which has included leaflets, radio and television broadcasts, Internet postings and at least one leak to an American journalist.”

Resistance beginning to emerge as “The Eagle Movement” rises

    “Perhaps most important, Americans are beginning to question the economic, human, and ethical costs of our new strategy. A political movement called the “new Humanitarianism” is growing, especially among Americans of Non-European descent, and seems likely to play a major role in the presidential election of 2012. There are even rumblings of discontent within the national security community as the full meaning of the revolution becomes clear. Since the distinction between the military and non-military components of our national security community has eroded, many of those notionally in the military service have come to feel unbound by traditional notions of civil-military relations. This group has founded a new political party – The Eagle Movement – which is beginning to exert great pressure on the traditional political parties for inclusion in national policymaking. The traditional parties are, to put it lightly, intimidated by the Eagle Movement, and seem likely to accept its demands.”
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<