Other folks have already pointed this out, but the new Army field manual (FM3-0) is here. The gears continue to grind…

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).

Big news today.

Say hello to DoD Directive 3000.5. Or, for those of you keeping score at home, the SysAdmin Directive.

Tons of important stuff in there and I am not even going to pretend that I’m going to be able to unpack it all for a while.

I will say, however, that this is BIG BIG BIG. Did I mention BIG?

Of course, there are still many questions. Such as, do we really expect our entire force to be trained for stability ops?

Some defense scholars have urged the Pentagon to create constabulary units and other specialized forces to handle stability operations, saying that such troops could be kept abroad longer and provide skills not easily developed in conventional troops. But military commanders have considered the idea impractical, and Pentagon officials involved in drafting the new directive rejected it.

“As we looked at that question,” said Jeffrey “Jeb” Nadaner, the deputy assistant secretary for stability operations, “we felt it was better to have the skills across the force.”

In other words…

…the Pentagon wants all deployed forces trained in nation-building to make a smoother transition from major combat to humanitarian work.
“They need to rapidly be able to jump back and forth,” Mr. Nadaner said.

Not surprising really. This is only one step. And Nadaner is keeping his eyes on the prize:

It is required, [Nadaner says], because a major Bush-administration goal is to prevent al Qaeda and other terrorist groups from setting up shop in so-called ungoverned areas, or failing states, around the world.

I shouldn’t get greedy. Appreciate the moment, get back in the fight tomorrow.