DoD 3000 and Global Guerilla Thinking
John Robb has already weighed in on DoD 3000.5 in his typically incisive manner. I admire both Barnett and Robb, and think that they really agree more than they disagree.
First, where they agree: both Robb and Barnett recognize that globalization plays a major role in the strategic dynamics of our world.
Barnett’s writing focuses on the correlation between insecurity and “black globalization,” though he expresses it through a positive assertion: “disconnectedness defines danger.” Long term, the Gap needs to shrink in order for the Core to be safe. Firewalling the Core is not feasible.
Robb’s Global Guerilla writings focus on how GGs use “black globalization” to disconnect a target state from the positive flows of “good globalization.” Tactics such as system disruptions erode the legitimacy of the state and establish temporary autonomous zones (TAZ) that can then be used as hubs in globalization’s “black” network. TAZs are to black globalization what free-trade zones are to good globalization.
Both men are identifying the same dynamics. They just come to the discussion from opposite directions. Robb approaches the discussion from the GG perspective, asking “how can I disrupt this?” Barnett approaches the discussion from the Core (aka good globalization) perspective. His thinking focuses on “how do I keep this going?” Both men recognize that firewalling is not an option. Global Guerillas are a thinking adversary with powerful tactics at their disposal. No attempt to passively armor ourselves will succeed. Resiliency is our goal, not invulnerability.
Now, where they disagree:
Barnett’s focus on the scale of grand strategy makes him talk about the long-term sustainable solution: shrink the Gap. Resiliency is the near-term tactic we use to survive until the Gap is shrunk and the threat is reduced. Robb’s focus on the tactical level makes him cognizant of the challenge we face in shrinking the Gap. In the near term, we face GGs who are intent on shrinking the Core. More failed states and TAZs mean more and bigger markets for black globalization. Robb recognizes the power of the decentralized networks GG use. Therefore he is critical of Barnett’s focus on bureaucratic reforms (such as DoD 3000) because decentralized networks will always overwhelm sclerotic bureaucatic structures. Furthermore, Robb questions the accuracy of Barnett’s grand vision of global peace through a Fukuyama-esque “end of history.”
Robb has many good points on this front. I certainly shudder when I see the big pictures in Barnett’s latest brief showing the interactions between all these federal departments (DoD, State, the new “Department of Everything Else”). We need to think more about how to make our economy and our state more resilient (and how to spread resiliency). We can’t rely on the federal government to be the agent of change here. I don’t think that Barnett really trusts in the ability of centralized bureaucracies to prevail over networked threats (for example, look at his explanation of why he is working with Enterra instead of working for DoD). Barnett is focused right now on reforming the DoD, so it is unavoidable that he is going to be bogged down in the bureaucratic slog of directives, memos and policy papers. Robb’s perspective reminds us that the DoD can’t do this alone (in fact, he seems to question whether the DoD can really do anything about the threat).
“We need to think more about how to make our economy and our state more resilient (and how to spread resiliency). We can’t rely on the federal government to be the agent of change here.”
This is absolutely right. The time we live in offers great opportunities for bypassing the state to accomplish goals. We opperate at a disadvantage when we think vertically, focusing solely on government policy. But if we think horizontally and creatively consider how an entrepreneurial approach can bring to bear the knowledge and talents that are distributed throughout our society then we are acting out of one of our strengths and the reason our society is so resilient. In order to change the bureaucracy you have to have influence and power. Think about how much time, effort, capital and organizational ability are squandered in the competition for power and influence. It would be much better to invest our resources in non-profit or for-profit enterprises specifically geared to the goals of exporting resliliency or shrinking the gap as well as strengthening our own society. But this kind of decentralized, entrepreneurial approach can only work if people are willing to create these kinds of organizations, it’s not just going to happen on its own.
Comment by phil — December 16, 2005 @ 1:19 pm
First of all Phil, thanks for stopping by. I appreciate the feedback (that’s why I started the blog, after all) and am glad to hear we understand each other.
One point you have made me realize I should expand upon here is that I believe that private-sector advances in resiliency will be adopted by the state in order to improve its own resiliency. Much as the DoD looks to private industry to find better ways of managing programs, I expect that in the coming decades the federal government at large will look more and more to resilient companies for ideas on how to improve its strength.
As far as motivating people to create resilient and gap-shrinking organizations, that is where Barnett’s vision comes in. It provides a moral direction (in John Boyd’s meaning of the term - aka a common perspective that unifies a group) that organizes the dispersed efforts of all those individual agents in our society (and the global society). And Barnett has lots of company on this front; he has pointed out the synergy between his vision and what many religious groups (such as evangelical Christians) have been saying for years. Secular groups advocating social justice have been on the case too.
Comment by Wiggins — December 16, 2005 @ 8:27 pm
Wiggins nice post. You’re writing style remind me of someone… keep’m coming.
Comment by anonymously — December 17, 2005 @ 1:10 pm
Thanks, Anon…
I hope that it is a good thing that my writing style reminds you of someone else ;-)
Comment by Wiggins — December 18, 2005 @ 4:20 am
More Black Globalization
Farah touches on the lack of social mobility in Nigeria- due in no small measure to Robb’s Global Guerrillas as evidenced here - and how transnational Nigerian gangs are expanding black globalization into Afghanistan.
It also signals a new danger fo…
Trackback by shloky.com — February 3, 2006 @ 9:31 pm
5GW and Global Guerrillas Theory
In response to a comment by Curtis, I issue a call to arms on defining Global Guerrilla Theory As I see it, there are three possibilities for global guerrilla theory Internally valid, externally valid Internally valid, externally invalid Externally inv…
Trackback by Dreaming 5GW — February 2, 2007 @ 7:08 pm