My own personal 5GW dream
Monday, October 16, 2006 at 5:19AM Here's the post that drives my comeback, which I was going to post there, on Weeks' site, but then I started to feel proprietary about it, meaning I was beginning to like the point enough to want it on my own site so I could find it months from now when writing Vol. III, which will definitely include an exploration of 5GW from my own peculiar perspective, as fueled by all this excellent stuff coming out of ZenPundit, Dreaming 5GW, Robb's Global Guerillas (which I admit I tend to read second-hand through translators who strip out the darkness and move it close enough to my own thinking that I can locate the hand grips), Coming Anarchy (who painstakingly endeavor to connect me to Kaplan) and others. I have no ambition to lay out some theory of 5GW beyond the one I've already essentially laid out in both books (and which Weeks logically grabs ahold of in his very interesting interpretations of my work)--namely, the use of System Perturbations to alter existing rule sets or to replace them entirely with new ones. "Socializing your problem," as I put it in a recent post, is a tactic. The systematic alteration, or replacement of, an existing rule set is your strategic goal. You're not happy with things the way they are, so you make those around you unhappy enough that they too, are unhappy with the ways things are. Shock them hard enough, and you can trigger their own movement toward new rule sets that move the pile for you. Most of the time, what you trigger with an SP will look pretty negative in the short term, meaning objectively bad for all and subjectively bad for you--the instigator. In reality, though, my idea of the aggressive 5GW warrior is that he's uncommonly cool with that sort of ambiguity, a stance that can only be justified by the long-term perspective. In short, sometimes you'll take beatings in order to give better beatings later on. Nietszchean, I know, but to me, 5GW is more about shaping (and yes, manipulating isn't a bad word either) your own population's morale than it is disabling your enemy's population (whom you seek to reduce through the best sort of seduction).
So I don't disagree that the more you employ a 5GWish grand strategy to shrink the Gap by buying it off pre-emptively, the more 5GWish resistance you will engender (Weeks' great point). Entering the battlespace always activates the battlespace, and first responses are typically symmetrical (i.e., our enemy realizes we're trying to win his "date" from him, so he naturally does whatever it takes to keep her cowed and afraid and in his corner). To me, it's just about getting there first. The bribers will come into that space, selling all sorts of hope in a better future. Most will be liars, seeking power for themselves ultimately. We'll be the true revolutionaries, empowering the masses (and, of course, "enslaving" them to the market, according to our foes). But we should openly subvert our targets with the truth: in our path, they end up with more stuff and more freedom in how to use it; in our enemies' path, they end up with less stuff and less freedom in how to use it. Granted, not everyone wants empowerment, as plenty find it extremely disorienting. But better we go 5GWish on their asses than have our enemies beat down those who naturally thrive under such conditions, usually driving them away. When we lose those people in a society, we lose the society to enduring Gap status. Sure, we win the best & brightest from their populations in the meantime, but that's like the liberal Catholics going Episcopalian and the conservative Episcopalians going Catholic: the end result is that the Episcoplians only get more liberal and the Catholics only get more conservative. That's not the outcome we seek in the Gap, because that does not drain the swamp but merely deepens it.
There are many who would focus their attention primarily on those who exit the Gap individually and enter the Core, fearing their potential as fifth columnists (the Sageman obsession that reflects his spy-versus-spy paradigm), but to me, that's a defensiveness that keeps us trapped in a 4GW mindset here at home, when we should be all about acting offensively 5GWish inside the Gap (Steve DeAngelis' real point with Development-in-a-Box): altering the observed reality as rapidly as possible to liberate those who will thrive in that "chaos" and keeping as disoriented as possible the right-wing authoritarian types (and the personalities that naturally follow them, seeking submission) so that they spend all their time and attention trying to turn back the clock at home rather than speed up the clock here in the Core (pushing us down authoritarian pathways out of fear).
In truth, that's what really pissed me off most about the NIC's NIE: it basically ceded the away game to the opposition, feeding the mindset that we should play 4GWish at home and eschew the dangers of the 5GW offensive strategy inside the Gap (in effect, protect your own rule sets at home rather than have the ambition of altering those abroad).
To me, then, 9/11 was Osama's reach for 5GW-level strategy: yes, it scored on 4GW levels by striking fear deep in the heart of the homeland, but it's meta-goal was to trigger the U.S. engagement inside the Middle East (taking a beating to give a better beating and put the board in play that you could not otherwise manipulate). In short, Osama was counting on our tendency to play revolutionary power--he wanted that response.
I wanted to give Osama that response, and so I supported the invasion of Iraq. I was willing to accept the likely beating in order to give a better one down the road (the necessary changes within the U.S. military). That's not a cavalier decision. That's simply understanding that, under the current rule set, if you continue to play as before, you'll lose because your enemy's gone onto the next generation of warfare to turn your strengths into your weaknesses. Osama wins when he keeps America in this loop: we try classic 3GW, find it only gets us 4GW in response, and so we retreat, eschewing the 4GW battlespace and thus surrendering it to him.
In that path, we don't defend globalization, letting the enemy rally his troops around the friction naturally triggered by the global economy's spread, when what we should be doing is speeding globalization up as much as possible, accepting both the 4GW burden of countering resistance both within the Core and throughout the Gap and the meta-strategies implied by an offensive 5GW approach (releasing the "dogs of 4GW" war only bonds us further with fellow Core powers, by: 1) moving us collectively away from the temptations of classic 3GW scenarios (like Taiwan) and 2) replacing those temptations with new fears of collective exposure to 4GW dangers, thus pushing us toward aggressively building out the Core).
I know this may all come off as slightly rambling and inchoate, but I'm in that reaching mode toward Vol. III more and more. To me, PNM was all about moving off 3GW and recognizing the realities of 4GW, while BFA suggested the institutional changes and strategic alliance choices necessary to move us beyond 4GW engagement (the Long War, as we call it now) and into what I would call 5GW shaping of the future battlespace (by locking down Asia and gaining its strategic aid in shrinking the Gap in all those places where our enemies are--to date--not yet strong, such as the entire Gap outside of the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan/Pakistan).
Along those lines, I am willing to take the beating in Afghanistan and Iraq in order to give the ultimate "beating" (as in, beating them to the punch) elsewhere throughout the Gap, but I need New Core pillars to make that effort with me, because I know that Old Core Japan and Europe simply aren't up to it. The quickest way to do that, in my mind, is to leap-frog toward strategic alliance with China (and yes, I won't even wait on the solution set on North Korea to emerge before pursuing that). The longer we wait on that, the better the chance that Osama and Co. can create enough doubts about our strengths to convince China that the safer path is hunkering down and building-out their own version of globalization there. Osama wants that because a three-bloc world (Old Core, China-centric New Core, Gap) keeps his strategic goals in play in the Middle East. I want China locked in ASAP because a two-bloc world (strong Core working to shrink the Gap versus a global jihadist movement fighting to keep Islam off-line) basically preordains the outcome.
So giving the jihadists their "cause celebre" in Iraq is just fine and dandy to me, as cynical as that may sound, because that tie-down of their resources and strategic attention gives globalization more time to work the rest of the Gap during this unprecedented global expansion triggered by the rising East and those three billion new capitalists. By tainting anti-globalization through association with the grotesquely frightening masks of the Zarqawis and bin Ladens, I push China toward the self-realization of strategic alliance with the United States in a number of ways: 1) letting their "infiltration" of the rest of the Gap go unchecked (Oh, how lax of me!) and 2) by moving them closer to the identification as the new "face" of globalization (the "Chinese model" as flytrap to the Egypts of the world, thus depressing the old reflexive reach for the notion that globalization = westernization = americanization so good anti-globalization = good anti-americanism).
The great danger, of course, is that by "staying the course" too long on Iraq and Afghanistan, we drive up anti-Americanism among our enemies and their targeted population pools that we reflexively pull away from the Long War (Americans want to be liked, even when waging war), but there again, that danger only speaks to the speed to which we need to lock in Asia's strategic affection.
Our failsafe in all of this? Bush and Co. must go by Jan '09, which is why it's so crucial that we get somebody in who can see the whole board here and not just the need for an exit strategy in southwest Asia. Historically speaking, I'm more than willing to accept the "loss" in the Middle East if that loss suitably triggers the new strategic relationships I need to win the rest of the planet, and to me, the quickest route to that desired end is locking in China to lock-down Asia and set up the combination of our Leviathan and their SysAdmin for closing down future potential pathways for the global jihadist movement to move out of its current center of gravity in southwest Asia into places we should jointly lock-down pre-emptively with China, India, Russia and Brazil--such as Central Asia, southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America.
Doing this right, in a 5GW sense, will make it seem as those our New Core pillars are "laughing all the way to the bank," to use Chris Lydon's phrase. This was the cracking-the-code moment for me in the New Map Game: we set the table (Leviathan) and China eats the meal (SysAdmin). We seem to "lose" and China seems to "win," first in East Asia on the East Asian NATO/North Korea solution set, and then in Latin America (where the Chinese-Brazilian "axis" dominates) and Africa (where the Chinese model gets most of the credit).
Throughout this years-in-the-waging 5GW strategy, America will "lose" much global power to China, allowing them to shrink muck of the Gap for us (along with fellow rising India and Brazil and to a lesser extent, demographically moribund Russia). Meanwhile, the Middle East/Islam (to most people) will remain unsolved and screwed up, our "addiction" to oil will go seemingly unaddressed, Europe will be lost to the invasive species known as Muslims, and the West will be in near collapse... (so you see, I do find types like Steyn wonderfully useful...).
Except great power war will be a distant memory, the global economy will have successfully migrated through its greatest expansion ever, the Gap will be effectively shrunk everywhere save the permanently f--ked-up Middle East (which we ceded to Iranian domination), China will be our permanent strategic ally, and life will be very good.
Of course, in that 5GW victory (that will suspiciously seem like a defeat throughout its making), we'll only be setting ourselves up for future domination by the Chinese, much like the Japanese currently subvert us with sushi, Pokemon, anime, etc. Blade Runner's sloppy mix of Asian-American global culture will have been achieved, radical Islam will have been hopelessly marginalized, and Europe will achieve the permament third-tier status it so richly deserves for setting up this huge task called shrinking the Gap, which China and America (two former European colonies) so kindly got together on and finally solved.
There you have it, my personal 5GW dream...
But again, the key dynamic here: the more we "lose" and are perceived to "lose" in the Middle East, the more we are forced to seek (hat in hand) strategic alliance with China (where Kim serves his only useful purpose in life). The more China sees itself as rescuing itself, globalization, and the world from American recklessness, the more self-confidence we build in an ally that will be perceived to eclipse us just as we were perceived to eclipse Great Britain across the 20th century while nonetheless basically doing its strategic bidding throughout the planet for decades on end (the lap dog's tail is wagging its "master"), saving them in two World Wars and a Cold War. Now, if we play our cards right, we suffer similiar such "indignities" at the hands of the Chinese throughout the Gap.
I know, I know. I'm selling America down the river in order to build a stable world order that keeps us fat, rich, and safe for the long haul, getting others to do the heavy lifting for the Gap's pursuit of happiness. It'll never happen because it's too devious and duplicitous to unfold, and all this talk of winning-while-appearing-to-lose simply won't wash. You simply can't manipulate people and countries like that.
All good points. And the more strongly people make them, the better.
Remember when our defeat in Vietnam forced us to make peace with the Sovs and Chinese in the early 1970s, setting up their rapid ideological expansion around the planet? Yeah, we got totally screwed on that one (I mean, look where we are now). What were those 5GW geniuses Nixon and Kissinger doing there?
Apparently giving the world away to the Commies. Worked like a charm, didn't it?
Reader Comments (11)
Tom.
You've worked "on the inside". How do we possibly manage to get a critical mass of people with a consistent enough vision over a long enough time to get things done?
The translation from strategy to policy seems insurmountable. Entrenched bureaucracies have so much *power*.
bitter and cynical,
J.J.
implicit in all of this talk of winning and losing is the fact that we're not playing a zero-sum game. this is the path forward for everyone to win the most. got a better one?
it's also the price we pay for getting to have and wield the Leviathan and living high off the hog as others buy our debt. wish you were the country getting to monetize/market shrinking the Gap? you have to trade a lot of what we love. you have to have a pile of cheap labor on the farm that's willing to expedition as SysAdmin, road builder, and energy extractor for a dollar a day.
JJ: the ciritical mass will come from the inevitabilities. China is peacefully rising. globalization is expanding. the Gap cries out to be shrunk for a neat profit.
the question here, stateside, is: how long before enough people see the inevitabilities and get on board? the earlier, the better. lock in China at today's prices, or pay through the nose down the road. it's our choice...
yes, entrenched bureaucracy is powerful. but they can be led by the money to be made in the private sector. and if they don't pay attention, they miss all those profits/benefits, publically and privately.
don't despair yet ;-)
you're gonna lose
you have to lose
you have to learn how to die
if wanna wanna be alive
Dr Barnett, Loved your last comment about Vietnam. We drew a line in the sand there (remember the Domino Theory) and forced the Soviets to expend time, resources and focus to keep the NLF and NVA in the fight. It went on for 15 years and when it was over the remaining dominoes around the Pacific Rim had become so strong economically that they stood firm, no longer plums for easy communist takeover. It worked out just like JFK hoped it would when he started the whole thing back in 1961.
"Dr Barnett, Loved your last comment about Vietnam. We drew a line in the sand there (remember the Domino Theory) and forced the Soviets to expend time, resources and focus to keep the NLF and NVA in the fight. It went on for 15 years and when it was over the remaining dominoes around the Pacific Rim had become so strong economically that they stood firm, no longer plums for easy communist takeover."
We spent about 125 gigabucks there, plus 58,000 lives. The Soviets spent maybe 5 gigabucks there, and about zero lives. And I'd like to know the countries outside Indochina that were "... plums for easy communist takeover.".
Minutiae? This is the second time I saw this today and about the billionth time in the last few years. "right-wing authoritarian types" and the other was "Ultraright-wing Le Pen Party". Ok, I start in the middle of the political spectrum and as I move to the right, the end of the line looks like anarchists and anarchy. Moving to the left is where I see all the authoritarianism. Am I looking at a circle rather than a line? The "bird dog" says it's 5GW speak, like that.
Hi Tom,
Always happy to put in my two cents. :o)
Justice for All
Barnett writes in PNM, p 186 "...what I hate about the Arc of Instability is that it suggests America is only interested in order, not justice."
This should not be treated as a throw away line.
Rather, I suspect it may be, for Americans, an organizing frame from which we grow an organic understanding of the Core and Gap, and how "Shrinking the Gap" is a long term task that must engage America.
He who frames the argument, wins.
For America to frame the argument about "Shrinking the Gap" as being about Justice, is to invoke a deep frame in our psyche. "Justice for all", is, of course, the last three words of the pledge of allegiance. As such, it resonates both with Progressive and Conservative Americans.
On a logical level, I like the Core and Gap explanation. It has symmetry. It has historical drive. It has complexity. But it has such depth and complexity that it will never win a political debate.
America is a progressive nation. And Justice for all is a progressive notion. One can easily derive from this frame the need for transparent multilateralism within the Core to take on the task of integrating the Gap. It is a matter of justice for the people in Darfur, it is a matter of justice for the people in Iraq, and it is a matter of justice for the North Koreans, starved by their leader cult, that connectivity to economic opportunity and stability be achieved. And it is not a short term task.
I work for a large, non-profit, consumer debt management company. We are not in the business of saving marriages, helping parents with their children, reforming alcoholics, or preventing suicides. But we regularly receive letters from clients who are paying off their debts and can see light at the end of a debt ridden existence, that we have let them save a marriage, resolve conflicts with their kids, and otherwise create hope where none existed. We have learned that a little stability and a little economic hope go a long way.
So, here is the challenge to Dr. Barnett: drill down from Justice for All, and derive the policies defined in PNM and BFA. As foreign policy, transparent involvement of the G20 in justice for all inside the Gap can be sold to the American electorate. We are tired of secrecy and exclusion.
I always "hate myself in the morning" when I wade in on this. There was a vague familiarity when I first came across Dr. Barnett. It was a few years ago when "the brief" had it's own time slot on C-Span, was "free and open to the public" on campus, the "required for class" kids were nodding off slipping to the bottom of the bowl(very rude) and the "required reading" NCO's at the Pentagon were scratching their heads saying "vertical, horizontal, what in the effen world is a perturbation?"(honest to goodness true story out of two guys I met on the golf course - when they told me they worked at the Pentagon, of course I mentioned Dr. Barnett. Kinda wrecked their day). To my point, no secrecy, no exclusion Dave, like I told those two NCO's, Dr. Barnett appears to have taken that radical revolutionary idea called The United States of America(empower individuals, free trade/globalization, representative constantly changing at the top non-meddling government, apolitical military, restrained constructionist judiciary) that the Founding Fathers(strategic forward thinkers, no?)mid-wived and were intent on spreading around like dog poop - everywhere - by force if the need were required. The good Dr. then created a language to describe this large framework(sell a few books too, because one of the motto's of this radical revolutionary idea is "It All Comes Down To Paper", no zero sum here, infinite and EVERYBODY can have some if they so choose - close those pesky Gaps)and the "naieve revolution" was on. I see it as more of a devolution, the name of that Michael J. Fox string of movies comes to mind - "Back to the Future". Too simplistic? Way off the mark? Of course, my hdcp's so high folks say I'm a sandbagger, my dogs won't hunt under threat of a smoking black hole, the "One Word" chain e-mail all came back "nuts", I think I'm hysterically funny, the blank expressions belie that notion, don't know the Left from the Right and I suggested to Dr. Barnett that he started typing the day after he heard my "betcha that you believe ......." related to America bar bets in the bar at the Sheraton on Goat Island. Just gotta love the guy. He's taking us were every American should be, to the heart of our exceptionalism. Eh, what could I possibly know. Hope and optimism?
to J.J.-critical mass will be created by unity of purpose, not unity of organization. and yes, Sean Meade, unity of purpose is not zero-sum. GLASR-It will soon enough no longer be an issue of left versus right but rather that "Protected hierarchies must shift to providing unity of purpose in the vacuum created by the loss of unity of organization or atrophy." and to Dave Fischer, please look at this and comment, I like your drift. Toward Ensembles Acting with Authority is my dream of imminent 5GW, not neccessarily of the present but of the near future. Today we are seeing the atrophy of protected hierarchies which lack unity of purpose, which are relying solely upon unity of organization, and the friction of their passing will be great. TPMB-I too forsee great loss. I try hard to project a generation beyond 4GW and hope you will find the time to read it and respond. I got you going once before, let's see if I can do it again. Thank you, you get me going.