New Age Warfare
There's a new trend emerging in the world of warfare, and it's not just guerilla war. Guerilla warfare has been around for ages -- the name was coined for the Spanish resistance to Napoleon's invading French (guerre being French (and maybe Spanish too, I think) for 'war' and a guerre-illa being a 'little war') but it's been around by other names for long before that.
This time, however, as we can see in Israel/Lebanon/Palestine, and in Iraq, it's different. Technological advances have made the western powers, and in particular America, great and powerful, but they've also created a vulnerability. That vulnerability is the media, and 24-hour news cycles. More specifically, it is the media's ability to influence the west's other great triumph -- democracy, and with it, the western concern for human rights. In the eyes of anti-democratic opponents, this is the west's greatest weakness, and their stated strategy is now to target that weakness ruthlessly.
Take Hezbollah in Lebanon. First, they commit an act of war against Israel, knowing (and indeed hoping) that Israel will retaliate. They deliberately hide their military assets in civilian regions, partly for protection, and partly because when Israel's strikes inevitably kill civilians, it makes wonderful propaganda. Make no mistake about it, Hezbollah wants Israel to kill as many Lebanese women and children as possible. Their strategy relies on it. Public opinion is then inflamed, the Arab media goes ballistic, world leaders condemn Israel's 'overreaction'... suddenly everyone's talking about Israel as the bad guy, the Islamists and angry Arabs are sending all kinds of support, etc.
This isn't a new concept either -- hoping to provoke a reaction is a pretty common way for people to start fights, everywhere from warzones to pubs. But if your ideology is willing to sacrifice anything in order to achieve a stated goal (in Hezbollah's case, the destruction of Israel) then it actually becomes in your interest to suffer as many civilian casualties as possible... After all, in Hizbollah's ideology, they all become martyrs anyway, and everyone wants to be a martyr, right? That's also why the so-called 'Iraqi resistance' has degenerated into a series of bomb attacks on crowded marketplaces and mosques. Innocent casualties are good, if your only intention is to use the media to upset the majority (though in Iraq, this is being done as much in hope of sparking a local civil-war as it is of upsetting the majority of American voters to lose hope and call for withdrawal).
The sickest and most difficult part of this strategy is that it uses the west's very humanity against it. The Hizbollah and Palestinian strategy today is to basically point a gun at their own heads (or more correctly, the heads of their wives and children) and say 'do what we say, or we'll shoot'. Now, if we didn't care about their wives and children, we'd just shrug, and the strategy wouldn't work. Israel would have free license to carpet-bomb Lebanon, and yeah, that would probably work, as far as dealing with Hezbollah goes. But we do care, evidently much more than Hezbollah does. And Hezbollah is relying on us to care, and to act as Israel's handbrake... thus, from Hezbollah's perspective, evening the odds. This is the bind that Israel, and any western force, finds itself in when fighting these kinds of people.
I think there needs to be some sort of new political/military doctrine written for what to do against such an enemy. Obviously we can't stop the media from reporting it all (though it would be nice to insist on some context now and then), and we can't halt democracy, even if it means terrorists can change election results, like they arguably did in Spain with the Madrid train bombings. Democracy and free press may be short-term weaknesses, but they're also long-term strengths, and a good strategist should never abandon long-term strength for short-term gain. I'm not really sure what should go into this new doctrine, but I've a few ideas.
a) When the west acts militarily against such people, it will inevitably get a public-relations blowback... so make sure you actually achieve something long lasting. This was the biggest criticism of Bill Clinton's period, he made a few craters around folks who upset him, 'bounced some rubble' as some military people call it, and nothing long lasting resulted. I'm a little concerned now that Israel is only getting the worst of both worlds -- all the bad publicity of civilian casualties, without any long-term effects against Hezbollah. Of course, actually destroying Hezbollah as a strategic power will involve MORE force, and certainly a ground invasion, probably followed by some kind of UN buffer force to cover the Israeli withdrawl to follow. That's a lot to achieve, and has its own costs... yet if Israel gets no long lasting result from this present action, it's a big net-victory for Hezbollah, no matter how disproportionate the firepower seems at the moment.
b) Spin is in. This is a sad, sad thing to realise, but western governments, and indeed militaries, now have to work at propaganda just as hard as the terrorists do. Western media coverage is a part of the terrorists' gameplan, so it should also be a part of the military's. I'd suggest establishing working groups, preferably of media or ex-media people, to figure out how to play the media back... the success of Tony Snow as the White House's new press secretary is a good example of the value of having insiders who know how it works. Let people KNOW that media coverage is a crucial part of the terrorists' gameplan. Emphasise it. Run it like an election campaign -- figure out 'the message', and hammer it home, so every official making comment knows exactly which talking points to raise. I certainly don't see that now with Israel, some of the public statements have been all over the place. Their media campaign needs to be as well organised as their air campaign, but it's not.
(And just an idea... if the New York Times keeps printing leaked, classified information, why not feed them false stuff? Leak false stories, let them breathlessly print it, only to discover it's not true, thus making them look stupid, and distrusting every other leak story they get. Of course, this may create some serious bad blood between the media and the military, and create all kinds of questions regarding the military's obligation to be transparent in a democracy... but how transparent is any military during a war? And as for bad blood, I understand most US soldiers in Iraq right now would rather lick sandpaper than talk to journalists...)
Those are the only two I can think of for now, maybe I'll think of others later. Of course, I'm not entirely sanguine about the western militaries learning better ways to manipulate the media, and I may live to regret it. But I think there's a nexus developing here between information technology and warfare that will only get stronger into the future, and it's a pity science fiction writers haven't tried to understand it better. But most military SF is about blowing stuff up, and most SF generally tends to see technology in terms of direct consequences, not second-and-third-stage-removed political consequences. It's significant because it has the potential to govern the future of warfare. If a side is militarily insignificant, yet has command of the information war, it's possible for them to win by losing... which in turn governs what kind of conflicts we're likely to see in the future.
This time, however, as we can see in Israel/Lebanon/Palestine, and in Iraq, it's different. Technological advances have made the western powers, and in particular America, great and powerful, but they've also created a vulnerability. That vulnerability is the media, and 24-hour news cycles. More specifically, it is the media's ability to influence the west's other great triumph -- democracy, and with it, the western concern for human rights. In the eyes of anti-democratic opponents, this is the west's greatest weakness, and their stated strategy is now to target that weakness ruthlessly.
Take Hezbollah in Lebanon. First, they commit an act of war against Israel, knowing (and indeed hoping) that Israel will retaliate. They deliberately hide their military assets in civilian regions, partly for protection, and partly because when Israel's strikes inevitably kill civilians, it makes wonderful propaganda. Make no mistake about it, Hezbollah wants Israel to kill as many Lebanese women and children as possible. Their strategy relies on it. Public opinion is then inflamed, the Arab media goes ballistic, world leaders condemn Israel's 'overreaction'... suddenly everyone's talking about Israel as the bad guy, the Islamists and angry Arabs are sending all kinds of support, etc.
This isn't a new concept either -- hoping to provoke a reaction is a pretty common way for people to start fights, everywhere from warzones to pubs. But if your ideology is willing to sacrifice anything in order to achieve a stated goal (in Hezbollah's case, the destruction of Israel) then it actually becomes in your interest to suffer as many civilian casualties as possible... After all, in Hizbollah's ideology, they all become martyrs anyway, and everyone wants to be a martyr, right? That's also why the so-called 'Iraqi resistance' has degenerated into a series of bomb attacks on crowded marketplaces and mosques. Innocent casualties are good, if your only intention is to use the media to upset the majority (though in Iraq, this is being done as much in hope of sparking a local civil-war as it is of upsetting the majority of American voters to lose hope and call for withdrawal).
The sickest and most difficult part of this strategy is that it uses the west's very humanity against it. The Hizbollah and Palestinian strategy today is to basically point a gun at their own heads (or more correctly, the heads of their wives and children) and say 'do what we say, or we'll shoot'. Now, if we didn't care about their wives and children, we'd just shrug, and the strategy wouldn't work. Israel would have free license to carpet-bomb Lebanon, and yeah, that would probably work, as far as dealing with Hezbollah goes. But we do care, evidently much more than Hezbollah does. And Hezbollah is relying on us to care, and to act as Israel's handbrake... thus, from Hezbollah's perspective, evening the odds. This is the bind that Israel, and any western force, finds itself in when fighting these kinds of people.
I think there needs to be some sort of new political/military doctrine written for what to do against such an enemy. Obviously we can't stop the media from reporting it all (though it would be nice to insist on some context now and then), and we can't halt democracy, even if it means terrorists can change election results, like they arguably did in Spain with the Madrid train bombings. Democracy and free press may be short-term weaknesses, but they're also long-term strengths, and a good strategist should never abandon long-term strength for short-term gain. I'm not really sure what should go into this new doctrine, but I've a few ideas.
a) When the west acts militarily against such people, it will inevitably get a public-relations blowback... so make sure you actually achieve something long lasting. This was the biggest criticism of Bill Clinton's period, he made a few craters around folks who upset him, 'bounced some rubble' as some military people call it, and nothing long lasting resulted. I'm a little concerned now that Israel is only getting the worst of both worlds -- all the bad publicity of civilian casualties, without any long-term effects against Hezbollah. Of course, actually destroying Hezbollah as a strategic power will involve MORE force, and certainly a ground invasion, probably followed by some kind of UN buffer force to cover the Israeli withdrawl to follow. That's a lot to achieve, and has its own costs... yet if Israel gets no long lasting result from this present action, it's a big net-victory for Hezbollah, no matter how disproportionate the firepower seems at the moment.
b) Spin is in. This is a sad, sad thing to realise, but western governments, and indeed militaries, now have to work at propaganda just as hard as the terrorists do. Western media coverage is a part of the terrorists' gameplan, so it should also be a part of the military's. I'd suggest establishing working groups, preferably of media or ex-media people, to figure out how to play the media back... the success of Tony Snow as the White House's new press secretary is a good example of the value of having insiders who know how it works. Let people KNOW that media coverage is a crucial part of the terrorists' gameplan. Emphasise it. Run it like an election campaign -- figure out 'the message', and hammer it home, so every official making comment knows exactly which talking points to raise. I certainly don't see that now with Israel, some of the public statements have been all over the place. Their media campaign needs to be as well organised as their air campaign, but it's not.
(And just an idea... if the New York Times keeps printing leaked, classified information, why not feed them false stuff? Leak false stories, let them breathlessly print it, only to discover it's not true, thus making them look stupid, and distrusting every other leak story they get. Of course, this may create some serious bad blood between the media and the military, and create all kinds of questions regarding the military's obligation to be transparent in a democracy... but how transparent is any military during a war? And as for bad blood, I understand most US soldiers in Iraq right now would rather lick sandpaper than talk to journalists...)
Those are the only two I can think of for now, maybe I'll think of others later. Of course, I'm not entirely sanguine about the western militaries learning better ways to manipulate the media, and I may live to regret it. But I think there's a nexus developing here between information technology and warfare that will only get stronger into the future, and it's a pity science fiction writers haven't tried to understand it better. But most military SF is about blowing stuff up, and most SF generally tends to see technology in terms of direct consequences, not second-and-third-stage-removed political consequences. It's significant because it has the potential to govern the future of warfare. If a side is militarily insignificant, yet has command of the information war, it's possible for them to win by losing... which in turn governs what kind of conflicts we're likely to see in the future.
2 Comments:
I've also heard what you describe as New Age warfare as assymetrical warfare. It is however not new to Hizbollah either. The IRA were engaged in similar tactics not too long ago (how quickly we forget). The British dealt with the IRA but it took time and nuance. But the "troubles" didn't really end until americans stopped supporting them.
Egypt had a problem with radical islam (can't remember the dates but I believe it was the 80s). It ended when popular opinion turned against the terrorists and eventually the terrorist groups started turning on each other. This is the kind of resolution we need but I suspect its not attainable with tanks and airstrikes.
You can take an even more cynical view and ponder wether Israel's ruling elite want peace with their neighbors. If not playing Hizbollah's vicious little game may just very well be in their interests too.
Hi Jose
The IRA were a little different in that they did not manoeuver the Brits into positions where they had little military option but to use airstrikes on civilian areas. The IRA also did not seek the destruction of England, preferably accompanied by the genocide of fifty million English.
I'm reluctant to have any opinion on 'the troubles', because there's so many Irish out there who know far more about it than I do, but it seems to me that was a nasty little conflict that for all its brutality, was still played by a set of rules, however arcane. The IRA could be bargained with, to a degree, and understood what thinking people might call 'logic', however extreme or perverted. Hizbollah just don't have that.
What I find alarming about it is how the most extreme ideologies or religious beliefs become empowered by new technologies in the new age. Two hundred years ago, extreme militants like that could be wiped out pretty easily, or marginalised. Now, they have access to border-crossing weapons, media apparatus, and can employ self-sacrifice (of their own civilians) to win global sympathy despite being themselves the cause of the conflict. Politically, this places democratic nations in a double-bind, where they can either retaliate, and be condemned, or do nothing, and invite further attack. Damned if they do, and if they don't.
I think Israel certainly wants peace with its neighbours, it's just that its neighbours hold to ideologies that hold Israel's destruction as their central pillar, and are funded by religious nuts who are developing nuclear weapons. As world technology marches on, pretty soon every nut in every tinpot dictatorship or fanatical organisation will be able to have his very own nuclear arsenal and the means to deliver it. WMD will become ubitquitous, just as DVDs have in every western home. We need a new world order of some kind by then, the kind that does more than just talk and pass resolutions, or this century will see significant portions of humanity erased by terrible weapons. And as much as I sympathise with those who want peace, I don't think most of them realise what'll happen if that political order isn't enforced, one way or another.
Post a Comment
<< Home