What I'm Reading: Brave New War

I've followed John Robb's website Global Guerrillas for a while, but I always felt like I was missing some foundational pieces of the puzzle; I read interesting nuggets of information on the site, but was missing the overall framework to put them together. So I finally ordered his 2007 book Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization. It's a quick, easy read but packed with interesting ideas.

Robb argues that we are facing a global open-source insurgency, which allows "nonstate networks to challenge the structure and order of nation-states." These global guerrillas use "systems disruption" to halt the engine of globalization. Because our globalized world is so complex and interdependent, insurgents can launch simple, inexpensive attacks that cause cascading failures through networks. A $2,000 attach on oil pipelines in Iraq in 2004, for example, caused $500 million in lost oil exports. States are virtually defenseless against these sorts of attacks; there are too many decentralized groups capable of executing them, the entry costs for new global guerrillas are low, and state reactions are expensive and often make things worse. A protracted war against global guerrillas is unsustainable because of relative costs; indeed, al-Qaeda's grand strategy has been to lure the United States into bleeding wars in far-away lands. Robb calls this "superpower baiting."

Robb argues that the best defense against "global guerrillas" is to build resilience into our networks. We cannot identify and stop every attack; we must expect that they will occur. We should continue to fight these open source insurgencies with all the tools at our disposal, but we should simultaneously fortify our networks to survive disruptive attacks. Robb defines survival as "the ability to dynamically mitigate and dampen system shocks." Consolidating power in a centralized, knee-jerk police state is the wrong response; instead, states must decentralize power and control. Robb is big on things like local food and power production, private security and disaster response capabilities, and crowdsourcing. On his website he follows trends like the US's unsustainable economic problems, transnational crime/terrorism, and conflicts between states and disruptive guerrilla groups around the world.

My recent post titled Warnings from Post-Apocalyptic Science Fiction was partly based on Robb's ideas about social disruption and resilience. I'm not worried about alien invasions, but I am worried about our resilience to disruptive events and the breakdown of effective governance.

Here are some of the other things I'm thinking about after reading the book.

1. Robb shows how easy it is for an individual or small community to obtain the means of terrible violence. He writes, "The threshold necessary for small groups to conduct warfare has finally been breached, and we are only starting to feel its effects... this threshold will finally reach its culmination--with the ability of one man to declare war on the world and win."

There's a great science fiction novel lurking in there, but as audacious as it sounds, Robb is right. Superempowered individuals will only get more powerful as technology improves and proliferates. Look at what bombers can do with explosives, or what hackers can do with computers; what will superempowered individuals be able to do with biologically engineered viruses or self-replicating nanomachines? What do terms like "war" and "security" mean when any individual with an Internet connection, a garage, and some free time can unleash mass destruction? Are we condemned to a future of random, unchecked violence? Will an uneasy stability like Mutually Assured Destruction arise between individuals? Or....

2. ... will life go on as normal? Robb shows how easy it is for a disgruntled individual or team to disrupt modern networks. What he doesn't convincingly show, in my opinion, is that very many people will have the motive to do so. At least in the developed world, most people have a stake in the operation of the system. Not many people desire the collapse of their infrastructure, economy, and government. Will global insurgency really be attractive, or will people be too busy living their lives and participating in the global economy to declare war on the system?

3. If the "crowd" is so effective at attacking and destabilizing states, can the crowd play a role in the defense and/or counterattack? I've mused about crowdsourcing security here and here. Given that the vast majority of people in a society care about preserving their lives and the system, perhaps there are ways we can harness them to help provide for their own security. Everybody these days carries a cell phone that is also a complex sensor platform capable of shooting pictures or video or recording audio. If you could weave these together and identify the useful information, you could create a vast intelligence network that would identify threats, alert relevant authorities, coordinate responses, and provide on-the-ground intelligence to responders. Robb has broader ideas of the role that the crowd can play. They can grow their own food, contribute locally produced power to the electrical grid, or offer privatized security or disaster response services.

4. My biggest critique of the book is that it considers this "global guerrillas" trend in isolation. Society and war are always evolving in complex, diverse ways. Robb is spot-on in identifying this trend towards network-disruption by open source insurgent groups, but it is only one trend out of many. Much of the discussion in the US military about conventional war vs. counterinsurgency vs. hybrid war revolves around the complex ways war is evolving.

Why Non-Experts Should Still Blog

Blogging has serious limitations. Critics point to the low quality of postings, the lack of research, and the lack of added value. One of Andrew Exum's two reasons for retiring from Abu Muqawama was his dissatisfaction with blogging as a medium; it forces him "into more or less split-second reactions to complicated policy events before I have had the opportunity to research and weigh opposing views" (the other reason was threats to his personal safety, including a call for his crucifixion). One military flag officer (I think it was Admiral Stavridis, but I can't find the quote) is a big supporter of blogs, but admits that most blogs he's seen don't add much value. He cites Small Wars Journal as an example of a quality blog that provides a valuable service. That's fantastic for SWJ, but if that's our standard, most of us should give up now.

When faced with such serious limitations, why should we still blog? What are the benefits?

First, we need to understand that all blogs are not created equal. Different blogs have different roles and should not be measured by the same standard. Some bloggers are established journalists (like Tom Ricks or Spencer Ackerman) or scholars (like Stephen Walt or Marc Lynch) who use blogging as a new medium to share their work and connect with readers. Other bloggers have expertise in specific areas, and blog to share that expertise with niche communities. Good examples arejihadica, which sifts through jihadi websites on the net and provides relevant information and analysis to a Western audience, and CNAS's Natural Security blog. Still other blogs serve as communication channels for governments, military units, corporations, think tanks, and other organizations. All these blogs are "expert" in nature, and in many ways, traditional standards for good scholarship and journalism still apply.

And then there are the rest of us: the non-experts who still feel we have something to say. The role we play is qualitatively different. We are not usually doing journalism or scholarly research; we are having a conversation. If Small Wars Journal is akin to a peer-reviewed military journal, the blogs of junior officers like myself are akin to the conversation you have around the squadron bar or your dining room table. When you're sitting around the bar having a debate about Afghanistan strategy or health care reform, you don't have time to do on-the-spot research and load your argument with citations from scholarly sources. Most of the participants in the conversation are probably not experts. Most participants probably do not fully understand an issue, and probably hold some wrong opinions. These limitations do not mean conversation isn't useful; it has tremendous value. Everybody comes to a conversation as they are, equipped with whatever knowledge is in their heads. They tackle an idea, vigorously debate, and attempt to shoot down each other's wrong opinions. Hopefully everybody learns something, hopefully everybody is motivated to do further research, and hopefully a sense of community is fostered. Just because conversation is informal does not mean it can't be intelligent; I love nothing more than a spirited discussion with intelligent friends.

Non-expert blogging brings this kind of conversation into a public space. Bloggers read one another's work, reinforce or counter each other's arguments, debate ideas in comments, and link to other sources. Even if an individual post does not meet high standards of scholarship, hopefully "truth" emerges from the discussion in the broader community. Most importantly, amateur blogging creates relationships. My blog does not draw many comments, but I have made many new relationships with readers. Several younger officers have written to tell me they are learning from what I write, to ask for reading suggestions, or to ask career questions. I've met peers who are equally interested in shaping the military into a more dynamic, flexible learning organization. I've also received a few e-mails from senior military leaders and defense experts who took me under their wing. Thanks to this blog, I have simultaneous opportunities to be mentored, to mentor, and to network with my peers--as well as keep up lively discussions about hot issues. Blogging is a powerful tool for bringing people together in learning communities.

Most critics of blogging apply the same standards to all blogs. They assume that amateurs are trying to write "expert" blogs and punish them for failing to meet that standard. For centuries, our civilization has equated the written word with scholarship. It is deeply counterintuitive to accept that this new form of writing--blogging--is something much less formal, more akin to conversation. With that said, even non-expert bloggers should still strive for quality, accuracy, and intelligence in what they write. Reasoned, informed conversation is always preferable to ignorant, misinformed conversation.

As for myself, I am making a slight mid-course correction to this blog. Since I began Building Peace, I've struggled to define my purpose. What can I bring to the conversation? What value can I add? I think I've finally settled on an answer. Thanks to the American government and the generosity of my sponsoring foundation, I am receiving the education of a lifetime--learning Arabic and spending two years in graduate studies in the Middle East. I also have abundant time to read and learn. The best thing I can do with this blog is multiply the effect of my education... to chronicle what I'm experiencing here in Jordan, what I'm reading and thinking, and what I'm learning. Perhaps others can virtually tag along on this journey and learn as well. What will this mean in practice? A lot will remain the same, but now that I have a clearer purpose in mind, it will probably be easier for me to post more often. I also plan to begin posting regularly about the books I'm reading. I'm also thinking about a series of posts titled "Things I've Learned." Finally, I changed this blog's subtitle to better reflect this purpose: One officer's education in war and peace: how can we build a better world?

Spotted: Farfour the Terrorist Mouse

In case anyone at the Department of Homeland Security or the FBI is looking for Farfour the terrorist Hamas mouse, I think I saw him at the mall last week. I know, I know--kids all across the Middle East saw him martyred on June 22, 2007 when an Israeli interrogator beat him to death. But maybe that was just a ruse so Farfour could go underground. I think he's going for a copyright-violating-Mickey-Mouse-knockoff look, but the disguise doesn't fool me. You can tell me what you think.

The suspicious mouse I spotted at the mall in West Amman last week.

Farfour, as seen two episodes before his death at the hands of evil Zionists.

DISCLAIMER: Okay, before you go complain that the Jordanian government is harboring terrorist mice, this character actually had nothing to do with Hamas or Farfour... he was advertising an unrelated TV program for kids. Nonetheless, just to be safe, I posted a photo with somebody else's kid... so twenty years from now, if I am someone of political importance, photos don't surface proving that my family consorts with terrorists!

Off-topic, but if you like world music...

The first time I played the video game Civilization IV in 2005, I didn't make it past the startup screen. I was too stunned to click any further; the music was extraordinary. I'm not even sure how to describe it. It sounded African. It was bristling with joy and energy. I'd never heard anything like it before, especially not in a video game. You can listen to it here.

I did some research the next time I was online, and discovered the song was called Baba Yetu. It is a choral rendition of the Lord's Prayer in Swahili, composed by American Christopher Tin. The song was an immediate hit. Dozens of game reviews praised Baba Yetu, it was widely discussed on message boards, and it won several awards.

I've Googled Tin's name every year or two since then, hoping to find more of his music. Yesterday I was finally rewarded for my persistence: I discovered that Tin released an album in October titled Calling All Dawns. The album is a masterpiece. It contains twelve tracks, starting with Baba Yetu. Each song is in a different language--everything from Mandarin to Polish to Farsi to Sanskrit. There are three movements comprising a cycle of Day-Night-Dawn. The final song flows seamlessly back into the opening, closing the circle. You can read a more detailed review here. Suffice it to say, the album is an extraordinary work of art. It is a beautiful, powerful celebration of culture and diversity--in the best sense of those words.

The Album isn't on iTunes, but you can download DRM-free MP3s at Tin's website here. The album is already a hit among Civilization fans who have kept up with Tin, but this guy deserves a wider audience. Check it out.

Coming Soon: Mind-Reading, Silent-Messaging, and Wearing the Net

I've mentioned science fiction author Vernor Vinge a couple times before. His novel Rainbows End depicts what high school life might look like in 2025. For me, the most intriguing idea in the book is that the digital world has moved from glowing rectangles into the real world. Students "wear" the Net through special clothing and contact lenses. Augmented reality overlays digital content over the real world. Texting is long gone; students now "silent message" using their thoughts.

I've written about augmented reality several times because I think the technological transformation will be so significant. If you think I'm crazy, here are a few news stories to show how close the technology is.

Mind-reading headsets are on the way. A company called Emotiv is releasing a mind-reading video game controller in time for Christmas. If that doesn't scare you, I briefly browsed the message boards on the company's website. Hobbyists and hackers--who are remarkably talented at harnessing new technology for purposes that designers never anticipated--are already getting ideas. One college freshman inquired about accessing the raw EEG data so he could work on developing his own apps, such as researching sleep patterns and creating mind-generated music.

I missed this headline when it came out, but in April engineer Adam Wilson tweeted using his mind. Similarly, Ambient Corporation has demonstrated technology to convert thoughts into speech by intercepting nerve signals going to the voicebox.

As for HUD contact lenses, University of Washington researcher Babak Parviz is working on early prototypes. They receive power beamed from a nearby electronic devices such as a cell phone.

Reflecting on Ft. Hood

Watching the aftermath of the terrible Ft Hood killings has been personally agonizing for me. I tend to get personally wrapped up in foreign affairs issues and sometimes feel a crushing amount of responsibility. My wife assures me that this is just a form of pride, and stems from over-exaggerating my own importance. She's probably right. But when you are passionate about trying to build a better world, when you have committed your professional life to understanding the world's most intractable conflicts, and when you live your daily life at the intersection of cultures that misunderstand and fear and hate each other, it's hard not to feel personally involved. Ft. Hood shook me up, both because of the horrific tragedy inflicted on our soldiers and because of the bitter debate that has resurfaced about Islam.

On the one hand, many Americans believe in peaceful coexistence with Muslims, believe that militant Islamism is a minority perspective in the religion, and believe that extremists like Nidal Hasan should not reflect on Islam itself. Indeed, some say, his killing spree had less to do with the fact he was Muslim than the fact he was deeply disturbed. When Muslim-American organizations condemn violence, these Americans are willing to take them at their word. On the other hand, other Americans argue that extremism and militancy are fundamental to Islam itself. They point to a succession of Islam-motivated violence and extremism both within the military and without, and argue that an obsession with political correctness is blinding us to the obvious truth: Islam is the problem. They view Muslim-American organizations like CAIR as fronts for terrorism and view any Muslim condemnation of terror with suspicion. Ft. Hood gave the latter camp fresh ammunition, and they've come out in force. Ralph Peters' article Fort Hood's 9/11 is representative.

Where is the truth? It's obviously in the middle somewhere; black and white answers are almost never true when it comes to messy human issues. I'm honestly trying to work through this for myself, which is partly why I feel so much angst.

I learned pretty quickly when I began my Middle East studies that if you try to be a peacemaker, you make a lot of enemies on both sides. In persistent conflicts, people become so embittered and radicalized that they'll tear you to pieces for even trying to give the other side a voice. I gradually learned a second lesson: that you'll often get stabbed in the back by the people you're trying to represent. They say and do things that make you wonder why you ever bothered trying to defend their side. I regularly experience this with both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These phenomena show how tough, gritty, and messy the real work of peacebuilding actually is--it is not for the idealistic or faint of heart.

I'm feeling both these things in the wake of Ft. Hood. I'm furious at Nidal Hasan for murdering and injuring so many of my Army brethren, but I'm equally furious with him for destroying the credibility of those Muslims who want peace. For someone who allegedly wanted to defend his faith, he did irreparable harm to peaceful American Muslims. I have good friends who are Muslim, both in and out of the military, and I truly feel for them right now. I'm also, in a small way, feeling the backlash from those who see Islam as violent beyond salvaging. I've tried voicing what I thought were sensible and moderate positions in recent discussions with other US military officers, and was either shot down or ignored. It's not an easy time to stand in the gap between Islam and the West.

I don't claim to have many answers, but let me just summarize the things I believe:

There is undoubtedly a deeply-rooted Islamic element to much modern terror. We have to challenge excess political correctness, and ask the hard questions, especially in the wake of Ft Hood: why did nobody catch onto Hasan's extremism? But although many terrorists are Muslim, most Muslims are not terrorists. They abhor violence against innocents and believe these terrorists do not represent true Islam. With that said, we need to understand that many Muslims hold political views that would make many Western non-Muslims uncomfortable: for example, they are largely opposed to the trajectory of US foreign policy over the last eight years, opposed to Israel, and staunch supporters of Palestinians. We also need to understand that Islam does not draw a distinction between religion and state. For these reasons, I don't imagine the relationship between the West and Islam is ever going to be easy or free of conflict. There are modernist strands of Islam, but these are a minority. An Islamic Reformation could come, but it hasn't happened yet.

However, when we determine how to cope with the growing presence of Islam in the West, we need to be very careful how we proceed. Some of the most sensible advice I've read on this comes from Marc Lynch. We cannot (nor should we want to) go to war with 1.3 billion people. We do not want to get drawn into a war of civilizations, which will force moderate Muslims toward a more hardline stance and play exactly into al-Qaeda's grand strategy. We have to reserve our hard power for the genuine threats, and must find ways to coexist with everybody else--as uncomfortable as that might be.

As a side note, Americans aren't the only ones having these debates. I went out to coffee last night with a fascinating group of Jordanians who are well-connected politically. Among them were a Muslim who works on development issues in the Royal Hashemite Court, an atheist who studies languages and foreign affairs, and a Jordanian Catholic. We got into a vibrant discussion about the relationship between Islam, culture, and politics, and whether or not Islam can be sufficiently reformed to bring Jordan more in line with the Western world. The debate wasn't so different from similar debates in the US. The atheist said no, Islam is intrinsically flawed and cannot be reformed. The Muslim and the Catholic believed the opposite; fresh, modern interpretations of Islam are possible.