Revolution In Military Affairs - 1990 up to the present

Transformation of world society and state through worldwide military revolution

Keywords: Revolution In Military Affairs, Net-Centric Warfare, Net-Centric Operations, Weapons Of Mass Effect, Effects-Based Operations, Sense-and-Respond, Cooperative Engagement Capability, Sensor Grid, Information Grid, Engagement Grid, Global Information Grid, Ubiquitous Computing, Smart Grid, Information Warfare, C4ISR, C2, Andrew Marshall, Office Of Net Assessment, John Boyd, Donald Rumsfeld, Arthur K. Cebrowski, Thomas M. Barnett, Alvin Toffler, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Conflict Short Of War, Military Operations Other Than War, Noncombatant Evacuation Operations, Panopticon, Social Networking, Office Of Force Transformation, Blue Force Tracking, Data Mining, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Smart Meter, Full Spectrum Dominance, Cybersecurity, Energy Efficiency, PositiveID, Radio Frequency Identification (RF ID), Asymmetrical Warfare, Asymmetric Threat, Counterinsurgency, Precision Engagement, Force Multiplier, Cognitive Capacity, Carbon Credits, Psychological Operations, Dataveillance

Abstract Notice: Personal opinion has been withheld as much as possible. All of the claims within this document have been documented and sourced. As little as possible is left to the author’s own interpretation of the facts.

1 Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3


Transition to the 21st century 2 From the industrial age to 2.1 Alvin Toffler . . . . . . . . 2.2 Andrew Marshall . . . . . 2.3 Samuel Huntington . . . . 2.4 Other noteworthy writers

the . . . . . . . .

information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

age . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

3 5 5 6 8 8




Revolution In Military Affairs / Conflict Short Of War 3 Network-Centric Warfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Information/Sensor/Engagement Grid . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Sense & Respond (S&R) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Effects-Based Operations / Shock And Awe . . . . . . 3.3.1 Shock And Awe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 Observe, Orient, Decide and Act - OODA Loop 3.3.3 Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

9 9 10 12 13 15 16 18 19


Implementation of the RMA 3.4 9/10/2001 - War on Pentagon Bureaucracy . . . . . . . . . . 4 Privatization of the intelligence agencies/military contractors 4.1 In-Q-Tel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Blackwater USA/Blackwater Worldwide/Xe . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Keyhole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Rollout of the ’Global Information Grid’ . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 The role of IPv6 within the GiG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 The adversary and the archetype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Asymmetric threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data mining/clusters/social networks . . . . Social Networking . . . . . . . . . . Datamining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Threat inference . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

19 22 24 24 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35


The result of the ongoing Revolution in Military Affairs 6 Private sector in the information age enabled by the RMA . . . . . . . 6.1 Governing of intellectual ’ideas’ - and rights pertaining to these ’ideas’ 6.2 Utilisation of the ’Sensor/Information Grid’ by the private Sector . . .

35 40 40 41


Next step for the RMA - Transhumanism/Singularity 7 Utopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Dystopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Start of transhumanism (Application within the

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RMA) .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

41 43 44 44 45


Evil in the RMA 10 Dehumanization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 Dehumanization of war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Dehumanization of the person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 Dehumanization of surveillance and intelligence gathering

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

45 50 50 51 53


Explanation of concepts 11 Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54 55

1 Synopsis


VIII References Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55 59


• The Global Information Grid and the Internet of Things are computer network-related and are completely dependent on IPv6 as the underlying protocol. • The ’Internet of Things’ will engulf the entire Planet - a so-called ’Object Naming Service’ will take on the role of DNS-server so that all these ’things’ can be identified by uniquely addressable, human-comprehensible names. • Network-centric warfare is codified by a three-layered network, consisting of a ’sensor grid’, an ’information grid’, and an ’engagement grid’. Users access this network by way of C4ISR-systems (C4ISR stands for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance - it is a military buzzword that can be accurately summarized as referring to a shared ’network’ where practically everybody within the Defense Department all communicate to each other with, allowing them to jointly execute and co-ordinate missions. The biggest difference between earlier iterations of the same systems - C2, C3I - is the central role that ’computers’ now play within that systematic process) • Almost all of the technology that is being purpose-made for the ’Revolution In Military Affairs’ is being spearheaded by ongoing technological developments within the ICT private sector - ’sense and respond’ at the same time allows for a new supply chain for both business affairs as well as those of war. A precedent can be found in the utilization of Operations Research and Game Theory in general - Operations Research was a shared doctrine between the Allied Forces during World War II before being widely adopted as a business doctrine worldwide. • The ’Revolution in Military Affairs’ is inextricably linked to the ongoing transition to the ’information age’. The ’information age’ is driven first and foremost by computers - ’content’ and ’information’ is now king, and this, it is argued, will change the entire fabric and social stratification of society.

1 Synopsis


Fig. 1: "Screenshot courtesy of the presentation - "Data Fusion in Tomorrow’s Network-Centric Warfare"[26] - a comparison is made between a ’digital immigrant’ and a ’digital native’. Everyone born before 1985 is for all intents and purposes classified as an ’old world fossil’ according to Fred Stein of MITRE Corporation. This is because he has not grown up within a net-centric environment, meaning - he was not raised in a world where one’s first source of information is Google instead of visiting your local library - he has not been raised on ’videogames’ - he does not communicate in chat language and therefore can not communicate rapidly by SMS or phone, etcetera."


Part I. Transition to the 21st century
2 From the industrial age to the information age
Since the early ’70s, various futurists have lauded the coming of a great societal shift arriving at the beginning of the 21st century. The current society would be completely transformed - from an ’industrial age’ to an ’information age’. At the same time, Russian military strategists speculated on the additional possibilities provided by the information age to the Defense department. This became known as a ’Revolution In Military Affairs)’. Below is a summary of some of the most prolific authors that came up with the current framework of the ’Revolution in Military Affairs’.


Alvin Toffler

Alvin Toffler is one of the most prominent futurists - RMA-evangelists have long regarded him as a lone voice in the wilderness, and as a cheerleader for their cause. His books initially began as a rallying call to arms for a ’third wave’ - this is a term coined by Alvin Toffler that refers to a ’third-wave society’, To give a short summary: 1. First Wave - The agrarian age that replaced the previous ’hunter-gatherer’ society. 2. Second Wave - The industrial age that replaced the ’agrarian age’. Power was now centralized in the hands of the companies with finance capital to back them up instead of plantation owners. This coincided with a major relocation to the major cities. 3. Third Wave - The ongoing ’third wave’ that intends to replace the ’industrial age’. This ’third wave’ is characterized by rapid, continuous change continual habituation to the new norms and an information-centric ’economy’ that won’t really sell real tangible ’products’ as much as it sells ’information-based services’ and intangible products. For instance, consider the example of a mobile communications provider such as Vodafone - the ’product’ that is being sold is not so much the mobile phone unit, but the ability to communicate with each other worldwide for a certain agreed-upon price. This ’ability’ (or rather ’service’) is not in the hands of the individual user, but in the hands of the provider - and can be revoked or its terms of conditions changed at any given time. The first books penned by Toffler were rather optimistic in tone and rather incredulous in terms of the claims and predictions being made. This rapidly made way in the ’90 for more militaristic follow-up books that laid the emphasis on the ’revolution in military affairs’ that would actually bring the ’information age’ into being.

2 From the industrial age to the information age


His most noteworthy book is his bestseller from 1970, entitled ’Future Shock’[29]. The titular ’shock’ from the book Future Shock refers to the ’shock effect’ that people experience when rapid changes are being wrought in their society. In the book, Toffler proposes that the rapid pace at which these changes will be rammed through will bring Joe and Jane Average into a disillusioned state of affairs - suffering from a ’Future Shock’. On a related note, ’Information overload’ has today become a very real problem that was first introduced in this book - the information age opens the floodgates to ’information’ in such a way that it can impair and empower the individual in equal measure, to the extent that those who cannot handle will far outweigh the ones that do. The book is actually more relevant today than it was back in the ’70s - precisely because such terms as ’information overload’ are now easily recognizable and identifiable in today’s society - think of the Internet and the daily flood of e-mails, forums, news sites, differences in opinions, rumors, controversies, scandals, and so forth.


Andrew Marshall

The 81-year old Andrew Marshall has earned the nickname ’Yoda’ within Pentagon defense circles - a reference to the wise Jedi Master by the same name in the Star Wars series. He is credited with laying the foundations for the American take on the ’Revolution in Military Affairs’ (which was originally an idea and concept originating from Soviet Russian military strategists). The Pentagon was very receptive to Marshall’s long-term ideas and planning, to the extent that he finally reached the position of Director of the Office of Net Assessment, a prime time Pentagon think tank. Marshall came up with his ideas for a ’Revolution in Military Affairs’ after sampling a number of scholarly papers written by high-ranking members of the military establishment in the Soviet Union. Prior to Marshall, practically nobody in the American defense department was talking about force modernization projected 20+ years into the future - Marshall regarded this as a sign of vulnerability that the Soviets would eventually exploit to their own ends. Operating under this dialectic (’we have to do this because the Soviets are doing it as well’), Marshall initiated an ever-increasing number of neophytes into the RMA believer-camp. A power struggle ensued between the RMA evangelicals and the moderate military hawks who were still licking their wounds from the mistakes learned during Vietnam and were hesitant to any talk of ’revolution’ and ’force transformation’. They in part would serve as the ideological ’enemy’/’threat’ to the RMA agenda. It would take until 2001 for the RMA crowd to finally gain the upper hand in this ’clashing of ideologies’ . Some well-known individuals, such as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, are considered to be some of Marshall’s most well-known protégés’.

2 From the industrial age to the information age


Fig. 2: "Alvin Toffler’s book Future Shock[29] concerns itself with a societal shift from the industrial age to the information age. This is the ’future shock’ alluded to in the title - this change will be so disruptive, and the pace of technological development will be so rapid, that large segments of the population will experience stress, mass disorientation, an increase in domestic violence and be engulfed in general crisis situations. While in this ’future shock’, people will be suffering from an affliction known as ’information overload’ - too much information can cause a detrimental effect in people by overloading one’s cognitive senses, This is being taken advantage of from a psychological warfare perspective. 99 percent of modern-day wars is psychological and is waged with the distribution and control/denial of information."

2 From the industrial age to the information age



Samuel Huntington

Samuel Huntington is especially notable for his cosmological explanation behind terrorism in the 21st century. ’The Clash of Civilizations’ portends that in times of great change, civilizations with incompatible beliefs and rule sets will fight amongst each other. This hypothesis began as an editorial within the pages of Foreign Affairs12 entitled ’The Clash Of Civilizations?’[18] (with specific emphasis on the question mark) before becoming a best-selling book.). War in the 21st century would be characterized by a number of conflicts occurring between civilizations with incompatible ’rule sets’ and ’social norms’. A few of the civilizations that Huntington highlighted as being potential troublemakers included: • Judeo-Christian/Anglo-Saxon civilization • Islamic civilization • Hindu civilization • Chinese civilization • Japanese civilization


Other noteworthy writers
“The conception of a control mechanism, giving the position of any element within an open environment at any given instant (whether animal in a reserve or human in a corporation, as with an electronic collar), is not necessarily one of science fiction. Felix Guattari has imagined a city where one would be able to leave one’s apartment, one’s street, one’s neighborhood, thanks to one’s (dividual) electronic card that raises a given barrier; but the card could just as easily be rejected on a given day or between certain hours; what counts is not the barrier but the computer that tracks each person’s position - licit or illicit - and effects a universal modulation.” - Gilles Deleuze, Postscript On The Societies Of Control[11]

Gilles Deleuze (a disciple of Michel Foucault) was obviously acquainted with Foucault’s critical perspective on Bentham’s panopticon, but preferred a different name for the up and coming ’Panopticon’ society: “society of control”. According to Deleuze, the “society of discipline” (his preferred term for the current system) was at the present date on its last legs and would rapidly whither
1 Foreign Affairs is the official bimonthly magazine by the Council On Foreign Relations, the institute that dictates foreign politics the government of the United States - it has sister institutes in Great-Britain and the European Union. 2 The European version is called the ’European Union Council On Foreign Relations’; its British equivalent ’Royal Institute of International Affairs’. It has a branch within every Commonwealth country; they were also being referred to as the ’round-table groups’ by Carrol Quigley in his book, Tragedy And Hope.


away and make room for a “society of control”. The primary modus operandi, as the name alludes, is “control”. How this differs from the pre-2001 western society is that previously, mere engendering of ’discipline’ and application of best-practice doctrines was enough to ensure ’good’ behavior - ’good’ in the sense that the individuals’ personal needs were subordinate to that of the ’common good’, like having to fulfill your role as a ’homo economicus’ to keep the current economic system afloat, paying your taxes to pay off the national debt, contributing to society (very ambiguous in nature but commonly employed as a slogan), and so on. In direct contrast to all of this, the ’society of control’ does not ’encourage’ discipline - it enforces compliance, and makes sure that your compliance is guaranteed. The stakeholders within this system (’chief information officers’, corporate bureaucrats, social workers, defense establishment figures) no longer consider the concept of ’personal responsibility’ as being a crucial factor to maintaining a healthy and stable society, but rather, prefer a more conformist approach - ’good behavior’, self-discipline is now ’quantified’, and rational approaches exist (such as surveillance; questionnaires, data mining of forum posts/tweets/e-mails) to measure and determine individual and mass public behavior/opinion.Deleuze covered all of this in his postscript “The Societies of Control”, as well as alluding to the fact that in order for this to succeed, the unions had to be on board with this new ’society of control’, lest they be classified as a potential threat to the new system.

Part II. Revolution In Military Affairs / Conflict Short Of War
What, exactly, is a ’Revolution in Military Affairs’ ? These kind of ’revolutions’ take place at key junctures in world history, and change the ’fabric’ and the ’character’ of warfare forever. War is the primary means of instigating social change in societies3 . Examples of a ’Revolution in Military Affairs’ in past times include Blitzkrieg, ’Carrier Warfare’ (1921-1939), the Atom Bomb and the Manhattan Project (1941-1945), and the age of ICBMs (1955-1965).


Network-Centric Warfare
"Network-Centric Warfare. This RMA candidate was proposed by Vice Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski and his colleagues in Joint Staff/J-6 (Cebrowski and Garstka, 1998). The network-centric war-

3 This as attested by Carroll Quigley in his book, ’Tragedy and Hope’. (Carroll Quigley was a professor at Georgetown University that holds the distinction of being one of Bill Clinton’s mentors). In his book, he said of war on p831: “Any war performs two rather contradictory services for the social context in which it occurs. On the one hand, it changes the minds of men, especially the defeated, about the factual power relationship between the combatants. And, on the other hand, it alters the factual situation itself, so that changes which in peacetime might have occurred over decades are brought about in a few years”

3 Network-Centric Warfare


fare concept employs an operational architecture involving three grids to enable the operational objectives of JV2010 [Joint Vision 2010]: an "Information Grid", a "Sensor Grid" and an "Engagement Grid". The Information Grid provides the computing and communications backbone for the other two grids. The Sensor Grid is an assemblage of space, air, ground, sea, and cyberspace sensors and sensor tasking, processing, and fusing applications, providing battlespace awareness. The Engagement Grid, an asemblage of platforms and weapons, exploits this battlespace awareness to enable the JV2010 force employment objectives of precision engagement, dominant maneuver, and full-dimensional protection. Each of these three grids is connected and functions in a network fashion.” - Past Revolutions, Future Transformations - What can the history of revolutions in military affairs tell us about transforming the US military?, Richard O. Hundley, RAND Corporation[17] Network-centricity is a concept that was coined by Sun Microsystems4 . It was later given a new lease on life by Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski[7]. Cebrowski was promoted to the Director of Office of Transformation under the leadership of then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. With this promotion, Cebrowski was given free reign to spearhead the post-9/11 ’force transformation’, and reshape the armed forces along with it.


Information/Sensor/Engagement Grid

Network-Centric Warfare is a concept that can only be achieved by integrating three separate network layers. These three networks will subsequently be interconnected to each other over a wider network, such as the so-called ’Global Information Grid’ - more on that later on. Let’s delve into these three networks first. Keep in mind that these three overlapping and interconnecting layers are not only rolled out in war zones but in civilian areas as well. 1. Sensor grid The sensor grid is a network consisting primarily of ’ground sensors’, RF ID transponders, and even cameras. The sensor, as the name would lead one to suspect, takes notice of certain events and actions (’sensing’). This sensor can be an optical one (such as a CCTV camera), an auditory sensor (for instance, a sensor that can perceive sounds above a certain decibel output and upon detection can emit a disrupting sound that will compel
4 Cebrowski talks about network-centric warfare to a reporter at a press conference, debating its origins [which she erroneously believes to be the US Navy]: “However, the idea really comes from Sun Microsystems, when the president of Sun [Microsystems] talked about that it’s not the computer, but it’s the computer in the networked condition or the networked environment, it’s about network-centric computing - in other words, it is just a word which goes on the phenomenon of the Information Age.”

3 Network-Centric Warfare


Fig. 3: Network-Centric Warfare is characterized by three overlapping networks. The blue-colored network is called the ’information network/grid’, the red-colored network is called the ’sensor network/grid’, and the greencolored network is referred to as the ’engagement grid/network’. (For further clarification: the cameras on the streets and in malls form are part of a bigger ’sensor network’, the WiFi access points in snackbars and your local Starbucks form part of a bigger ’information network/grid’, and the ’engagement grid/network’ is in part enabled by these two aforementioned networks - and the principal actors in this ’engagement grid’ are the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and other robotic vehicles that are now starting to be deployed in western cities by law enforcement.

3 Network-Centric Warfare


an assembly of noisy teenagers to flee a certain area), or a motion sensor. Within ’Network-Centric Warfare’ doctrine, the ’sensor’ is regarded as an ’information supplier and creator - based upon what the ’sensor’ can perceive, ’information’ is being produced and uploaded to the ’information grid’ that could be of use in its unfiltered state to any one of the interconnected users on the wider ’grid’. 2. Information grid We previously established that the ’sensor grid’ is mostly concerned with everything that can be sensed, perceived and/or detected (aurally/visually). Once an event has been triggered (by way of the sensor having picked up something - such as a certain person entering a building, or an enemy entering a demilitarized zone), the sensor will broadcast a notification of that event to the information network so that other devices and users are able to learn of this new event occurring in real-time. All information that is being dispersed from sensors, and the entire flow of information between users in the network-centric environment all propagates throughout this information grid. In this sense, the ’sensor grid’ could not sustain itself without the ’information grid’. But the dependency is mutual on both sides - an ’information grid’ would be useless without ’sensors’ spreading their ’information’/’broadcasts’/’sensed events’ over the information network. 3. Engagement grid Lastly there is the ’engagement grid’. The ’engagement grid’ is on occasion likened to the executable layer within ’Network-Centric Warfare’ - because it is within this grid that the actual ’transaction’ occurs, whether that ’transaction’ entails death for the enemy that was just perceived by one of the sensors, or an ’information assault’ on the hapless individual that was just ’sensed’ by a commercial company’s sensor grid at a shopping mall. op basis van het ’sensor netwerk’ die een evenement heeft gedetecteerd en het ’informatie netwerk’ waarover alle onderlinge communicatie tussen soldaten, machines en vliegtuigen plaatsvindt, is er ook een derde soort ’netwerk’ dat men in staat stelt om iets te ’doen’ aan dit evenement wat zojuist is opgetreden.


Sense & Respond (S&R)
“RF ID could disrupt the way we think about things by doing much of the thinking for us. The technology is helping create a "sense-andresponse supply chain," says Paul” -, ’An Internet of Things[15]’

Network-Centric Warfare / Network-Centric Operations allows for a new supply chain that will revolutionize the way business and war is conducted. Without an information network that uses ’sensors’ as the basic building block to feed

3 Network-Centric Warfare


’audiovisual’ temporal input into the wider information flow, this new supply chain would be impossible to achieve. What Sense & Respond (S&R) basically entails is this - based upon an ’incident’ that has been perceived by a ’sensor’, an ’event’ is broadcasted onto the wider interconnected network. In case some unit on the wider network perceives this ’event’ to be of strategic importance, a suitable reaction can be planned and coordinated instantaneously - this is what is understood as the so-called ’respond’ end of the supply chain cycle. To put this within the context of pre-existing communicative concepts, think of B.F. Skinner’s ’stimulus-response’ theory, and add to that a relationship between a machine/process and an organic subject, such as an individual or groups of people5 . Once arrived onto the scene of the ’sensed’ event, the UAV, by way of its built-in camera, will determine that the subject that caused the ’event’ to be generated (the ’event’ in this case being the detection of ’movement’ within a certain area) is an enemy belonging to one of the local militias. Next, the UAV ’sends’/’broadcasts’ on the information network/grid video footage or a still image of the threat so that the other entities on the network have pictorial evidence of this threat, and know where to hit it (this is what is also known as ’situational awareness’ - the ability for everyone - whether it be soldiers, machines, unmanned drones and whatnot - to have one shared holistic overview of the battlespace). Based on the ’threat level’ posed by the enemy, a decision can then be formulated as to whether to engage the enemy/neutralise it (a nice-sounding euphemism essentially for killing it), or take no action at all. For the purposes of this hypothetical example, the decision has been made to take out the enemy. Further, in this example, it is not up to a human to make this decision to kill the enemy - this is agreed upon without human intervention by the system itself. This brings us to the so-called ’system of systems’, or the so-called ’emergent behavior’ that will be exhibited by these interconnected UAVs/warfighters/systems - everything will participate, strategize and communicate with each other using a technique called the ’Cooperative Engagement Capability’ whereby each and every single device, while still operating as one in a so-called ’swarm network’, will have its own mechanism/algorithms to be able to come to a definitive conclusion on whether to engage the enemy based upon the threat assessment or leave it up to the other units. The ’engagement grid’ now comes into play. The engagement grid is a network that makes use of the ’sensor’ and ’information’ grids to perfectly pinpoint the ’target’ to be ’engaged’. Given the ’units’ available on the ’engagement grid’ (as in - the warfighters - armed UAVs that are currently patrolling the area), the ’target’ can then be taken out with precision military strikes. Example The following is a military example illustrating how the three layers of the ’grid’ combine to enable ’sense and respond’ ’Network-Centric

Sense and respond can also be applied in the areas of logistics, distribution of goods.

3 Network-Centric Warfare


Fig. 4: ’Information sensors’ enable new ways of warfare - the new supply chain ’sense and respond’ is both applicable to business problems as well as those of war.

3 Network-Centric Warfare


Warfare’. The hypothetical example takes place in a warzone where the United States is embroiled in a guerilla war against local insurgents. A broad array of sensors have been installed in this warzone. Now, suppose that the sensors are ’motion capture’-based, and that one of the sensors in this array detects movement in the warzone that does not belong to that of the ’blue team’ (which would be the good guys, the guys on your side), but to the ’red team’ (the enemy). The sensor ’passes’ the notification of this ’event’ (event: a Red Team ’node’ moved inside the warzone) to the wider ’information network/grid’ (in network-parlance, we would use the term ’broadcasting’ instead of ’passing on’ when referring to transmitting something to every node on a network). Following the broadcasting of the notification, one of the UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) that is currently patrolling the area picks up on this broadcast and decides to scour the area. The UAV’s inclination to investigate ’events’ of this nature depends on what all the other UAVs within the vicinity are currently doing - in this case, they are all currently preoccupied with something else, hence it’s the UAV’s prerogative to investigate this ’event’. If it senses that the ’event’ consists of a key enemy hostile, it will destroy the enemy using its onboard weapons. The scenario for this example was an Intelligence-Surveillance-Reconnaisance mission making use of a Sense & Respond supply chain (the sensors that form the sensor grid; the information grid that the sensors and the UAVs/warfighters both use; and finally, the engagement grid [].


Effects-Based Operations / Shock And Awe

Effects-based operations is a new way of conducting warfare in which a solution is sought to defeat the enemy with such precision that he has already lost the fight long before the fight even truly begins. The aim is to destroy the strategic assets and resources of the enemy as quickly as possible so as to disorientate him and break his decision loop (the OODA Loop) and morale. For instance, if the adversary perceives that his logistic supplies are no longer available, or that strategic reserves have been cut off, this will lead to such a dramatic decline in morale that defeat is inevitable - for he sees an enemy on the march from which it becomes much and more difficult to defend against, never mind fight against. This ’decline of morale’ could be part of the ’effect’ that an ’effects based operation’ sought to instill in one’s enemy - once such a certain effect has been cast on the adversary, the opposing side starts destroying more chains in the operational structure - just as long as it takes to disorient the operational cycle of decisionmaking (de OODA loop) to the extent that the enemy is grounded to a halt and has no choice but to surrender. This is but one example of ’Effects-based operations’ - it could also be referred to as ’counter-terrorism’, since every act of ’terrorism’ has as its specific goal the disruption of the current social order to further a new social order of the terrorist’s own liking. Further, a terrorist act serves a dual purpose as a ’media event’ intended to terrorize those not directly affected by the act itself, this as admitted by the Strategic Studies Institute:

3 Network-Centric Warfare


Terrorist attacks ought to be understood as consciously crafted media events, and while that has always been the case, today it is more true than ever before in two ways. First, the terrorist attack is itself often designed and intended for the cameras. Terrorist attacks are designed for an audience. Their true target is not that which is blown up—that item, or those people—for that is merely a stage prop. What is really being targeted are those watching at home. The goal, after all, is to have a psychological effect (to terrorize), and it isn’t possible to have such an effect on the dead.” - p5/135, YouTube War: Fighting In A World Of Cameras In Every Cell Phone And Photoshop On Every Computer, Cori E. Dauber, November 2009, Strategic Studies Institute[10] 3.3.1 Shock And Awe “A President who launches a military operation without a congressional authorization will attempt to make the use of force short and decisive. It is desirable to terminate an engagement within the 60 to 90 day limit imposed by the War Powers Resolution.” - The RMA And War Powers, The RMA and the Imperial Presidency, Lukasz Kamienski, Strategic Insights[19] Shock And Awe is the most prominent example of an ’Effects-Based Operations’ campaign. Just like ’terrorism’, an ’effects-based operation’ seeks to affect people in ways other than the physical realm - and this includes the wider audience that is merely acting as spectators to the ’effects based operation’. The effectsbased operation is a campaign of terror/precision warfare first and a ’media event’ second - as in the case of the ’Shock and Awe’ campaign, which was widely advertised on American television stations such as CNN (on the left side of the political spectrum) and Fox News (on the righthand side of the political spectrum). Both portrayed the war as a triumph of spectacle - the language used to describe the war and the accompanying narrative to support the war sought to sate Americans’ lust for revenge after the 9/11 terrorist attacks (Bush, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney en Rumsfeld had engaged in a perception molding campaign trying to float false and misleading information that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and that he posed a strategic threat to the United States and Britain because he had ’Weapons of Mass Destruction’ in his possession - a subset of ’Weapons of Mass Effect’, and another important area of attention in the ’Revolution in Military Affairs’) Within a short amount of time Iraq’s ’OODA Loop’ was broken - this quick and decisive victory was a vindication of the pursued Revolution in Military Affairs trajectory. There was a lot of confusion in the media surrounding the ’Mission Accomplished’ speech given by George W. Bush - unfortunately, people have a couple of misconceptions surrounding the real intent behind the war. It wasn’t that the War in Iraq was planned up until the fall of the Saddamregime - on the contrary, this was but one step in the pursued RMA Course

3 Network-Centric Warfare


Of Action6 . The next phase in the RMA agenda would involve a counterinsurrection/counter-insurgency scenario where the military needed to respond with military force against an increasingly disillusioned populace ready to go on the offensive. The following document from 1994 lays out a hypothetical scenario concerning the potential implementation of the RMA and its causative effects. There are many similiarities between the real sequence of events that unfolded in Iraq and the fictional scenario provided in this document, with the only key difference being that the ’counter-insurgency’ operation in the fictional scenario took place in Cuba instead of Iraq. “Potential or possible supporters of the insurgency around the world were identified using the Comprehensive Interagency Integrated Database. These were categorized as "potential" or "active," with sophisticated computerized personality simulations used to develop, tailor, and focus psychological campaigns for each. Individuals and organizations with active predilections to support the insurgency were targets of an elaborate global ruse using computer communications networks and appeals by a computergenerated insurgent leader." "Psychological operations included traditional propaganda as well as more aggressive steps such as drug-assisted subliminal conditioning.” - The Revolution in Military Affairs And Conflict Short Of War, Steven Metz, James Kievit, 7-25-1994, US Army War College[20] This document suggests that creating ’computer-generated’ terrorist insurgent leaders to claim responsibility for ’staged raids’ and ’attacks’ would be an integral factor in ’Information Operations’. The intent would be to mislead, to confuse, to lead would-be insurgents and terrorist sympathizers along a specific path that has been anticipated beforehand by the ones running the ’Information Operation’. This would constitute a ’deception operation’, with the specific aim to infer behavior, midnsets and loyalty to a particular tribe or militia. Further on, the document notes that ’deception’, although frequently used by the military, is somehow thought of as ’un-American’, and thereby difficult to sell as being a good thing. Various ’crisis management’/’threat inference’ have been used during the 2006/2007 Iraq insurgency to determine ’hostile intent’ among the insurgents and try to ’infer’ possible ’Course of Actions’ to plan against. For more information, see the References section ([4]).
6 People labouring under the misconception that Bush’s ’Mission Accomplished’ speech was testament to the general perceived incompetence and ineptitude surrounding him as a Commander-In-Chief should read the document “The RMA And War Powers” by Lukasz Kamienski, contributor to the Strategic Insight, a periodical by the Center for Contemporary Conflict (CCC). Written in the immediate aftermath of the 2003 Iraqi invasion, it conceded that: “the RMA is making longer wars that might trigger the War Powers Act less likely, establishing de facto authority for Presidents to make war.”[19]

3 Network-Centric Warfare


Fig. 5: ’John Boyd’s OODA Loop (Observation, Orientation, Decision, Action Loop). 3.3.2 Observe, Orient, Decide and Act - OODA Loop

In a wargame, the battlefield is divided up into two colour-coded regimes. One of them is known as the ’blue team’ area - this area includes all the ’good guys’ - the people on your side. The ’red team’ is the enemy which has to be fought. Several methodologies have been developed over the years to conquer the enemy as quickly as possible using ’wargaming’. John Boyd, US Air Force military strategist, came up with the famed ’OODA Loop’. This is a ’decision cycle’ that has served as the basis for all subsequent ’decision cycles’ that have followed in its wake. OODA stands for ’Observation’, ’Orientation’, ’Decision’, and ’Action’. • Observation:Gathering of data by way of sensors/ISR sensors. • Orientation:The analysis of the data in order to come to a definite conclusion about the data or come to a certain perspective • Decision:The creation of a ’Course Of Action’ based upon the perspective that was formed during the Orientation phase. • Action:The physical execution of the decisions that were formulated and made in the previous steps - bringing them into being. The OODA Loop is an infinitely repeating cycle that lies at the heart of any war (whether waged in the air, on ground, or sea) - the objective is to disrupt your enemy’s decision cycle (his OODA Loop) in order to gain a strategic leverage. One of the ways of doing that is by engaging in ’information warfare’ to achieve ’information superiority’ over one’s enemy. ’Information warfare’ from a war perspective entails - ’incapaciting the enemy by way of deception or deliberate sabotage of your enemy’s mission critical intelligence gathering/information providing systems’.

3 Network-Centric Warfare


The OODA Loop is being used in combination with ’Network-Centric Warfare’ and the ’Sense And Respond’ supply chain to make war as efficient as remotely possible and as a means to achieving near-complete, perfect information on the battlefield - what they call ’predictive battlespace awareness’. Liken it to the micromanagement of the delicate balance between conflict and peace. Just like ’Operations Research’ as a governing principle spread its way from the military to the business and private sector, so too will ’sense and respond’ leave its lasting impact on society at large. 3.3.3 Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) "Cooperative Engagement Capability. This concept has been proposed, developed, and demonstrated by the US Navy. The essence of this concept as applied to a Navy battlegroup is that combat systems for geographically seperated platforms share unfiltered sensor measurement data associated with tracks with rapid timing and precision to eanble the battlegroup units to operate as one [in their engagement of enemy targets]. Rather than a stand-alone RMA candidate, this concept should probably be thought of as an important harbinger of network-centric warfare” -Past Revolutions, Future Transformations - What can the history of revolutions in military affairs tell us about transforming the US military?, Richard O. Hundley, RAND Corporation, p107/132[17] Cooperative Engagement Capability refers to the capability by the military to utilize Network-Centric Warfare in such a way that the battlefield is totally in control of the military. As soon as an ’enemy’ enters the battlefield, a sensor within the battlefield will alert the entire network of the enemy’s presence (in networking terminology, he is ’broadcasting’ this event over the network). Next, a ’fighter plane’ or a ’ground soldier’ will be able to determine via the ’engagement grid’ how best to engage and destroy this enemy. What we just described here is the sense and respond supply chain put into practice. Without the ’sensors’, this entire way of waging war would be a near impossibility. Cooperative Engagement Capability relies heavily on satellite imagery provided by Geographic Information Systems - think of Google Earth and other uses of GIS where satellite imagery is overlaid on top of a topographic map. If systems such as GIS and GPS did not provide CEC-enabled warfighters with the geospatial means to determine where exactly they are in the battlefield and where their supporting cavalries are, it would be impossible to engage an enemy effectively. By giving the warfighter a completely monitored battlefield where every sentient thing on the battlefield is divided up into two categories (blue denoting the good guys - red denoting the enemies), autonomous and unmanned vehicles have the required ’situational awareness’ to wage war as effectively as infantry human soldiers would be able to do[9].

3 Network-Centric Warfare


Fig. 6: "Cooperative Engagement Capability’: by means of the three-layered network (sensor, info and engagement network) all military units interconnected with each other over this network have the shared awareness to determine where the enemy is located at any time, and based upon this shared knowledge, can coordinate and engage in groups or packs as one single autonomous fighting force in order to eliminate the threat.UAVs, satellites, fighterplanes, and so on - all of these constitute the aforementioned ’military units’ that are able to take advantage of this capability. All of this is realized by way of the Global Information Grid. Cooperative Engagement Capability is a new way of coordinating attacks using both human and mechanical/robot military units - this is enabled by ’sense-and-respond’ supply chain logistics, and in turn makes use of the three-layered matrix grid that constitutes ’Network-Centric Warfare’. This warfighting structure is currently being applied to both civilian/residential areas as well as war zones - hence the plethora of cameras and sensors popping up in the major Western countries."


Part III. Implementation of the RMA
“9/11 crystallized the sense of a rule-set gap. So we have been filling rule-set gaps with great abandon ever since. The Patriot Act is a rule-set reset.” - Thomas P.M. Barnett, The Pentagon’s New Map The ’Revolution in Military Affairs’ required a ’raison d’etre’. Various thinktanks, foremost among them the Project For A New Century thinktank, pontificated in a defense policy outline that the ’process of transformation’ would likely be slow, absent the event of a Pearl Harbor-type attack[12]. One of the first possible candidates fitting this basic requirement for a ’precipitating/crystallizing Big Bang’ was perceived to be the Y2K bug on January 1, 2000 - the day the so-called ’Millennium bug’ would be causing computers worldwide to crash, leading to a worldwide asymmetric shock to the financial system. But this never happened. This ’strategic shock’ was to be found a year later on September 11, 2001. This event had two definining characteristics: • It was a ’strategic shock’ to the system. • Two ’events’ were generated in consecutive fashion. Before the towers collapsed, one was dealing with a typical ’firefighting’ and ’evacuation’ operation. All of this changed as soon as the towers started to crumble, however. In an instant, the ’theatre of operations’ was shifted from the roofs of the World Trade Center to Ground Zero - where previously a simple firefighting and evacuation operation would have sufficed, now there was a lot of posionous dust to contend with as well as having to remove all the wreckage, safeguarding nearby citizens and saving any possible survivors that were in the building prior to collapse. This further gave government bureaucrats the excuse to call for ’agile’ methodologies and a rapid joint response force that could react to ’threats’/’events’ that tend to shift from one specific scenario (planes flying into the World Trade Center) to the next (the collapse of the two towers)7 . These two characteristics of September 11 2001 ’crystallised’ - to quote Thomas P.M. Barnett - the necessity for a ’process of transformation’. Before September 11 2001, there was no sense of urgency or need to retransform the entire Defense Department. After September 11 2001, there was no turning back - RMA was the only road to travel. This ’process of transformation’ would include the following: • The bureaucracy had to become more ’adaptable’, to the point where it would enable cooperation and interoperation inbetween various agencies without cutting through too much bureaucratic red tape. This in turn would enable ’jointness’ - ’joint combat’. For instance, the ’Navy’ and the ’Marines’ had to be able to work together as 1 joint team instead of the
7 See the video ’Bioterrorism Threats (02-25-2002)’ available on the C-SPAN Video Archive (see References, ’Bioterrorism Threats’[23])


two having their own demarcated areas of interests and their own (incompatible) communication protocols. This required the standardization of all protocols and bringing all the various disparate forms of communication available to the Marines and the Navy together and interoperable by way of an all-encompassing communications network framework. • Information had to be ’shared’ between agencies and access to the information should be governed using ’role-based access control’. To make a long story short, the ’culture’ of the organisations involved had to be open to change instead of resistant and hostile to change - they had to ’evolve’. Previously, the prevailing tendency within the various disparate agencies was to ’hoard’ information - certain agencies were opposed to each other and didn’t like to share information inbetween each other. All this internal infighting had to make way for a new business culture based on ’sharing’ of information - this would require shared ’communities of interest’, agreedupon semantics, and agreed-upon rulesets amongst the various agencies participating with each other as a joint force. • The commercial sector had to invest more heavily in defense-related projects, and at the same time, the Defense Department shoud incentivize private companies doing so. There was the perception that the commercial sector had outperformed military-grade computer projects and hardware on a much tighter budget - and this ’waste’ in terms of military spending and duplication of technology (the wheel had to be reinvented by the military while a commercial product would do just as well, and be a lot cheaper) was an issue that people like Rumsfeld felt could be avoided by fostering stronger ties with the private sector.


9/10/2001 - War on Pentagon Bureaucracy
“The enemy is closer to home. It is the Pentagon bureaucracy... We must transform the way the Department works, and what it works on.. Some might ask, how in the world could the Secretary of Defense attack the Pentagon in front of its people? To them, I reply: “I have no desire to attack the Pentagon - I want to liberate it. We need to save it from itself. ” - Donald Rumsfeld, September 10, 2001[25]

The shrinking Pentagon budgets during the ’90s (after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union) allowed the private commercial industry sector to spearhead technological development and innovation, rather than the defense sector in the Cold War days. The Defense and the intelligence agencies regarded this as a troubling development. They were of the opinion that the defense department should be able to benefit from the success of the private sector Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld addressed the Pentagon on September 10, 2001 (a day before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001) to declare a


significant change in the way the Defense Department would be run from now on. One of the newspaper headlines read: “Rumsfeld declares war on Pentagon bureaucracy”. In this talk, Rumsfeld heavily criticized the conservative stance of Pentagon bureaucrats and was of the opinion that taxpayer money was being spilt on projects that for all intents and purposes could have been provided by the private sector - and save lots of money and time. Force transformation, agility, interoperability were all among the keynote subjects - but above all, the need for an ’RMA’ was no longer regarded as optional, but rather as a necessity. At the same time, Rumsfeld also acknowledged that not everyone within the Pentagon would appreciate these far-reaching changes, to which he had the following to say: “Well, fine, if there is to be a struggle, so be it.” 8 . A day later, on September 11 2001, a couple of military ’wargames’ had been originally ’planned’, including ’Global Guardian’ and ’Vigilant Guardian’. Curiously enough, some of the ’wargames’ very much resembled the actual September 11 attacks - for instance, the wargame co-ordinated and conducted by the ’National Reconnaissance Office’ had as its premise a plane that would fly into one of the towers of the NRO due to a mechanical glitch.9 A spokesperson of the NRO had the following to say about the ’wargame’: “It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility, as soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise”. Another wargame that had the trappings of a terrorist attack that occurred shortly after September 11, 2001 was known as “Operation Tripod” - however, this one was scheduled to be held a day after September 11, 2001 (which was cancelled after 9/11). In this wargame, a bio-terror threat hit New York (think along the lines of Anthrax or an H1N1/H5N1 virus as being the ’threat’) - during which the entire population of the city had to be ’ring-vaccinated’. Rudolph Giuliani, then-Mayor of New York, as well as representatives of FEMA and the FBI were to have been involved in this stillborn wargame. Bush wasted no time in declaring the ’War on Terror’ following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, with Bush’s first decision being the uniliteral invasion of Afghanistan. The ’War On Terror’ is an euphemism for the ’Revolution in Military Affairs’ it is a ’buzzword’ meant for public consumption that is specifically tailored to fit in with the naming scheme behind various other social doctrines in America that masqueraded as wars, such as ’The War On Poverty’ (LBJ), ’The War On Cancer’ (Nixon), and ’The War On Drugs’ (Reagan)10 .
8 Also mentioned in this keynote address by Rumsfeld was that trillions of dollars were missing/stolen from the Pentagon, and that the Pentagon could not account for the money lost and where it ended up going[25]. 9 The NRO is the branch of the Department of Defense that concerns itself with the utilisation and management of surveillance satellites. 10 Richard C. Lewinton once commented that Americans, allergic to the term ’socialism’ and therefore instantly dismissive of any kind of socialist programs, were instead sold on these ’social change’ programs by the government adopting a misleading slogan to mask the social program, such as ’The War on Cancer’, or ’The War on Drugs’. Others have commented in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that the ’War on Terror’ would play itself out more or less like the ’War on Drugs’ - also hinting further at the socialist change doctrine behind the purported and veiled ’war’ on ’terror’.

4 Privatization of the intelligence agencies/military contractors



Privatization of the intelligence agencies/military contractors

Onder de slogan ’New Federalism’ werden regerings-, militaire- en inlichtingendiensten geprivatizeerd. Ook de terminologie veranderde langzamerhand inplaats van de term ’government’ werd er steeds meer ’governance’ toegepast ter vervanging - het semantieke verschil hier is dat ’governance’ verwijst naar datgene wat een ’regering’ doet - ’governing the people’. Instituten die dus medezeggenschap krijgen in ’international governance’ - zoals grote zakelijke kartels, thinktanks en Non-Governmental Organizations - hebben dus indirect de functies van de regering op zich genomen. Op deze manier hebben de publieke vertegenwoordigers steeds minder grip en macht en wordt de macht gecentralizeerd binnen selectieve kartels van bedrijven. Deze bedrijven lobbyen vervolgens bij supranationale regeringen (zoals de European Union) voor meer regeringscontracten en ’earmarks’. Een aantal voorbeelden van intelligentiediensten die commerciele dochtersondernemingen hebben opgezet is wel op zijn plaats.



In-Q-Tel is a so-called ’venture capital firm’ set up by the CIA[27]. The concept behind In-Q-Tel came from former CIA-agent Ruth A. David[27], now employed by ANSER Institute/Analytic Services (which in turn is a sister company of RAND Corporation). In-Q-Tel served as the proverbial capital injection arm of the CIA that would fund ’high-risk’ companies - for instance, companies that were treading in unexplored territory and therefore would need to take huge financial risks. Wellknown companies in the public eye that have received capital injection from In-Q-Tel include: Google, KeyHole, and Facebook11 .
11 There’s a worrying trend to be noticed here - an ’intelligene agency’ that not only interferes (and collaborates) with the private sector, but through a joint venture capital proxy tries to ’redirect’, ’stimulate’ and encourage ’emerging trends’ that will help facilitate the retrieval of information meeting the demands/needs of the ’intelligence agencies’. After the initiative ’Total Information Awareness’ purportedly fell through because of public controversy, all of a sudden the private sector filled its void with companies such as ’Facebook’, ’MySpace’, ’Hyves’ and ’YouTube’ taking over the baton - all of these services combined more or less fit the inintial sought-after goals of the ’Total Information Awareness’ program, and resemble a sort of LifeLog - a self-maintained ’diary’ held by the individual - the only difference being that the user regards ’Facebook’ as a ’benevolent’ corporation and regards the exchange of his personal information as being ’fun’ and merely a ’socializing/personal’ escapade. The original intent of the Total Information Awareness has thus morphed and made the intrusion into one’s life and the data-and-intelligence gathering abilities of these services such as Facebook seem less invasive and threatening, because of the ’consumer/supplicant’ participating in a ’consumer/supplier’ transaction - the consumer in this case is the ’Facebook user’ making use of the ’free service’ while ’Facebook’ is the ’supplier’ - the Internet communications service provider that segregates and puts people into tight-knit communities/clusters/hives.

4 Privatization of the intelligence agencies/military contractors


Fig. 7: In-Q-Tel was an important experiment by the CIA - create a private company that would serve as a financier (venture capital farm) to all sorts of unrelated daughter companies, each of them having a specific specied area of expertise. Dr Ruth A. David came up with the conceptual blueprint behind In-Q-Tel during her tenure at the CIA[31]. Subsequently, she became the Director of the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security (created long before Homeland Security was created after the 9/11 terrorist attacks - ANSER was set up as a daughter corporation of RAND Corporation and had a special service arrangement with the US Air Force. As head of ANSER, she would create the conceptual framework for a postulated ’Homeland Security’ that would operate abroad and domestically in the United States. The following quote from Wikipedia sums up In-Q-Tel’s involvement with private industry: "According to the Washington Post, virtually any U.S. entrepreneur, inventor or research scientist working on ways to analyze data has probably received a phone call from In-Q-Tel or at least been Googled by its staff. The Constitutional repercussions of this disclosure alarm some critics." The reason why it alarms said undisclosed critics is namely because the CIA does not have the Constitutional authority to operate domestically.

4 Privatization of the intelligence agencies/military contractors



Blackwater USA/Blackwater Worldwide/Xe

Blackwater (old name for Xe) is a Private Military Corporation (PMC). A PMC refers to a privatized mercenary corporation that lends its services to state and non-state actors for monetary gain. In addition to serving as a military force drawing on operatives with years of experience working for the CIA and the Army, Blackwater also has its own intelligence service, called Total Intelligence Solutions. The founder of Blackwater, Erik Prince, was cast into the public spotlight after it transpired that Blackwater employees had been responsible for slaughtering an entire city in Iraq, Fallujah, in what was a vengeful act of revenge for a previous attack in which Blackwater employees were killed. His afiliation with certain right-wing leaning Christian movements further damaged his public persona, and that of Blackwater along with him. After having resigned as Blackwater CEO in 2009, it was revealed in the press that Erik Prince had been recruited by the CIA as an agent, with the explicit aim to set up and create a quitessential commercial private army (’PMC’ in politically-correct parlance). Aside from Prince having intimiate ties to the CIA himself, his company was also complciit in the coordination and training of various CIA assassination squads. The lucrative military contracts with the Department of Defense have not been ended after George W. Bush’s tenure - on the contrary, the Obama administration has given preferential treatment to Blackwater (now called Xe) within the PMC sector - gaining even more contracts in addition to the ones that already existed during the Bush administration. The company has decided to adopt a new name, Xe Corporation, to avoid all the negative public connotations attached to the Blackwater name. It first tried to restore its flagging moral representation in the media by tweaking its logo to appear more ’friendly’ and ’benevolent’. For instance, the original logo depicted a targeting reticule over a bear claw - in the sanitized version, the targeting reticule had disappeared from the logo.



Keyhole, a company founded in 2001, specialised in visual satellite imagery applications. Funding was provided by Sony, Nvidia, and, most notably, the CIA’s ’venture capital’ firm, In-Q-Tel. Keyhole was subsequently purchased in 2004 by Google. While the company and its products were relatively obscure prior to and following its acquisition by Google, millions of people to date currently make use of its software/services without them knowing it - Google’s software, Google Earth, was in actuality a spruced-up, branded version of Keyhole’s ’Earth Viewer’ - Google itself having made little to no modifications to the code. The satellites used by Google Earth consists of the KH reconnaisance and Loral Skynet satellites. The company name itself (’KeyHole’) was an allusion to these ’KH reconnaissance satellites’ - these satellites formed part of the original ’eye-in-the-sky’ system for the use

5 Rollout of the ’Global Information Grid’


Fig. 8: Google Earth is a rebranded version of Keyhole’s ’Earth Viewer 3D’, a product acquired by Google after the acquisition of Keyhole by Google. The satellite system utilized by Google Earth makes use of the KHreconnaissance satellite systems owned by the CIA. On that same tangent, Keyhole was a privatized frontcompany by the CIA specializing in satellite imagery.’ of observing and surveilling the Planet. Keyhole enjoyed a major exposure boost during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, when the major news networks such as CNN, ABC and CBS incorporated and made use of 3D flyby imagery from its EarthViewer program for use in their major war coverage programming.


Rollout of the ’Global Information Grid’

We earlier discussed the three-layered network that enables Network-Centric Warfare in paragraph 3.1. To summarize for the sake of clarity - each of the three layers has its own function and purpose - the ’Engagement grid/network’ is meant for enacting a ’change’ on the environment (whether that change be physical in the form of killing an enemy, creating a purpose-made advertisement for a specific person, and so on) , an ’Information grid/network’ (a private network where all the units on the network will correspond with each other and be able to read new ’inputs’/’broadcasts’ from sensors/warfighting units/bureaucrats/troops), and a ’Sensor grid/network’ (an interconnected network of ’sensors’ that respond to specific events of a certain type - motion,

5 Rollout of the ’Global Information Grid’


Fig. 9: Global Information Grid, Operational View-1 - image courtesy of the Department of Defense’ auditoral, scent, visual - and broadcast a notification of such and such event occurring on the wider ’information grid/network’). The ’glue’ that binds all of these three disparate networks together, is what is referred to as an ’enterprise architecture’. But ’enterprise architecture’ is but a conceptual outline for a framework - it cannot exist by itself. Thus, the Department of Defense have developed an actual framework modelled on the Zachman Framework called ’Department Of Defense Architecture Framework’ (DoDAF)12 - its implementation being the ’Global Information Grid’ . This ’global network’ facilitates the army and other stakeholders within the system to coordinate and execute ’Network-Centric Operations’ in joint operations, at any location in the world, at any time. This ’Global Information Grid’ will cover the entirety of North-America as well as the European Union.


The role of IPv6 within the GiG
“Internet of Things would also greatly benefit from a rapid deployment of IPv6, as proposed by the Commission and endorsed by the Council, as this would make it possible to directly address any number of objects needed through the Internet. “ - p8, Commission Of The European Communities, Internet Of Things - An Action Plan

12 This framework was previously referred to as ’C4ISR Architecture Framework up until 2003.

5 Rollout of the ’Global Information Grid’


For Europe[1] To connect all of the ’endpoints’ within the network, (think of all the sensors/cameras/UAVs), every device has to have its own uniquely addressable network address. This is the real reason behind the worldwide migration from IPv4 to the IPv6-protocol - the leap from 32bit adressing (IPv4) to 128bit addressing (IPv6) will lead to an enormous increase in the amount of available end-to-end, point-to-point connected devices/nodes on the Internet. To this end, IPv6 makes it possible to elevate the current-day Internet to a so-called ’Internet of things’ - the addressing capacity is big enough to give every grain of sand on the world’s beaches an IP-address - thereby making each and every grain of sand uniquely addressable. 13 . RFID-transponders on products, identification cards and travel products will also be integrated into this new ’Internet of Things’.


The adversary and the archetype
“The Office of Naval Intelligence will tell you right now - the Chinese are looking ten feet tall. Why? Because Osama Bin Laden does not have submarines. Those who don’t see a reality they can live with have moved towards desire over the 1990s, and they invented a special coded language to describe their journey [RMA/4thGenWar/Transformation]. Problem is, they needed a big sexy opponent to fight against. If they can’t find one, they make one up.” - Thomas P.M. Barnett, The Pentagon’s New Map, Presentation[3]

The Revolution in Military Affairs (or 4th generation warfare, whatever term you may prefer) and the accompanying transformation of the military began with Operation Desert Storm (also known as the first Gulf War). Desert Storm would be the first of a series of 4th generation warfare trial runs that would prove to be a perfect battle laboratory because of the relatively barren landscape - practically no undulations in terrain. Like the aforementioned quote by Thomas P.M. Barnett would highlight - one of Arthur K. Cebrowski’s proteges - the agenda was there before the ’big, sexy opponent’ was determined. This proved to be a recurring problem in the post-Cold War. Where previously the Soviets proved to be useful to the department defense in the sense that every expenditure requested and granted by Congress was in the name of thwarting Soviet expansionism, now that argument would fall flat on its face, since the big, existential ideological enemy was gone. All of a sudden, there was talk of doing away with the entire Pentagon altogether by seasoned military vets, and there was a sudden decline of willingness to put up the cash for ever-more expensive Pentagon weapon projects when an entire stockpile of nuclear weapons was now essentially rotting away, with the likelihood of it ever proving to be of
13 Denk aan het Burger-Service Nummer onder het eID initiatief van de Nederlandse regering - ter vervanging van het Sofi-nummer, maar dan uniek addresseerbaar middels het Internet. Het Burger-Service Nummer is enkel voor diensten met de ’overheid’.

5 Rollout of the ’Global Information Grid’


use increasingly narrowing. Without an enemy, there is no war. Without a war, budget cuts due to a lowered threat assessment. 5.2.1 Asymmetric threat

The ’enemy’ of the RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs) would take on the form of an elastic/ambiguous archetype - the ’asymmetric enemy’. The ’asymmetric’ nature of this enemy needs expanding upon. It refers to the size of the ’enemy’, which is asymmetrical in nature. The characteristics common to the ’asymmetric enemy are the following: • He/she can be state-affiliated or not - the people involved in the ’cell’/’network’ do not necessarily have to be within the same city, state or nation • People who share his/her mindset and interests form a ’community’ of interest - and have the potential to form ’clans/gangs’ (or, less pejoratively, ’communities’) • His/her convictions and ideas do not depend on the mainstream media (television, radio - which is largely centrally controlled) in order to gain traction and be propagated to the mass, but instead exploit new methods of communication and mediums (such as the Internet, Twitter, instant messaging, e-mail) This archetype is very broad in scope since it could be applied to a figure like ’Osama Bin Laden’ or an entity such as ’Al-Qaeda’ just as easily as it could be applied to an innocuous ’social network’ comprised of a gathering of acquaintances. Everyone has certain characterizing interests or thought processes that might not be the prevailing attitudes or interests of the day, but are likely to be shared by a few other unrelated individuals. To offer an example while staying within the realm of computers, take the case of people who like to toy with old computer hardware from the 1980s, such as a Commodore 64 or an Commodore Amiga. This kind of activity would fall outside the norm - you will be hard pressed to find a modern day computer parts supplier or convenience store that will be willing to sell new and/or old/used software for such systems, never mind participate in the buying or selling of old/new/refurbished parts or machines. Yet the Internet enables certain clan’s/’communities’/’groups’ comprised of individuals to set up their own supply- and distribution chains independent of the massmarket system - for instance, they could participate in stocking up second-hand Commodore 64s, repair broken parts and sell them as new on an online webshop. Or to approach this from the perspective of a software programmer - programmers could dedicate themselves towards writing new software for the old machines and organize ’meetup’ parties on line or in real life (IRL) where they will announce or showcase such new software - the means to organization is there by use of e-mail, Internet, instant messaging chat, Skype, and so on. Together, this would constitute a ’community of intereset’. What binds these people together, are ’network connections’ relating to shared ideas, shared convictions and shared interests. The ’network connections’ in

5 Rollout of the ’Global Information Grid’


turn are further strengthened by the means to communication that allows these people to organize independent of any broader, mass-market system. People can form ’connections’ between each other where previously there would not be the inclination to form an connection or group in the first place. A gathering of like minded people comprises an information loop, and this information flow is obviously not ’controlled’ or ’authorized’ by a wider massmarket system. This raises all kinds of problems from a jurisdictive perspective. Are people in danger of violating the ’intellectual copyright proprietor’ holders’ rights to selling wares under the Commodore brand when users are selling refurbished Commodore 64 units on the Internet, or setting up dedicated webshops for them? Is it within the holder of the ’intellectual property right’ to demand that this webshop cease any and all activities in selling or profiting from products perusing the Commodore brand - even though the unit that is being sold has been taken out of production for at least the better part of three decades now and the Commodore brand is a part of the original machine title? A couple of tools have been provided to intellectual copyright proprietors over the years to help relinquish their loss of control over uncontrolled information flows - in the form of laws such as the ’Digital Millennium Copyright Act’ (DMCA, North America) and the EUCD (European Union Copyright Directive). Even further still, further binding ’intellectual IP/copyright’ laws are putting the pressure on ISPs, website providers and the like to engage in self-policing on what users can and cannot post or upload due to fear of litigation on behalf of the third party (the ISP, the website hosting provider, and so on). Data mining/clusters/social networks What binds the enemy together, are ideas. In an information age, the primary currency is ’information’. The shift in mindset that brings around (companies will approach business from a different perspective if the key distinguishing factor is ’content’) also changes the priorities and the operating procedures of the military and other defenserelated institutions. In previous bygone ages, a certain ideology or a certain nation-state was singled out as the enemy - every neighboring state or country that was not under Roman law was deemed by the Roman Republic/Empire to be ’barbaric’ in nature - and this value judgment served as a justification towards declaring war on that country, pre-emptively invading it and consolidating it under the Roman Republic/Empire. This was a ’standardization’ of culture - once conquered, the remaining people of the conquered nation who were not sold into slavery could attain Roman citizenship and enjoy the spoils of Roman life - the only ’correct way of life’. The same tendency tended to prevail as the justifying rally for war in medieval times between Christians and Muslims - one way of life being better than the other. Both religion and nation states have taken on a less central role in world affairs due to globalism and the rise of atheism. In this new landscape, ’ideas’ now constitute the ’enemy’, which is ever-changing. Certain ’ideas’/’convictions’ are incompatible with others - intellectual ideas copyrighted by certain corporations, for instance - ideas which can affect the bottom line of the corporation because

5 Rollout of the ’Global Information Grid’


it gives them a strategic leverage against other corporations. For instance, to be against a societal and militaristic revolution such as the RMA would be regarded as a ’potentially dangerous’ idea from the perspective of those who want to ram through this policy14 . To put a long story short - ideas (existing and new ones) have the potential to cause specific harm to pre-existing agendas, and thus could lead to a disruption of the current ’social order’ (a repeating occurrence in nearly every Revolution - the American Revolution of 1776 was looked upon from the perspective of the British Empire and its scribes as a ’terrorist’ and ’subversive’ movement threatening Britain’s alleged rightful dominance over the colonies and the relative social order they proclaimed to have helped bring about). Therefore, it’s imperative for the holders of power to dissect information and infer currently prevailing mindsets, activities and beliefs among vast groups of people. Enter Social Networking. Social Networking

"There are only two places where socialism works – one is a beehive and the other is an anthill." - Sir Ian Stewart-Richardson This often-quoted line by Sir Ian Stewart-Richardson approaches socialism from a purely organizational perspective. The beehive and the anthill both have a rigid hierarchy, with the lower classes (which is composed of infinitely more units
14 A good example is to be found in the recent Sony-Linux fiasco. The PlayStation3 games console has been advertised as of 2006 with the promise of being ’more’ than a games console - touting its ability to install a secondary operating system on the built-in harddrive. This made it possible to install an operating system such as Linux or BSD without voiding your warranty by having to crack the system’s security system. Sony was prepared to allow people this relative freedom because they were reasonably confident no harm could be done while being sand boxed in a ’virtual environment’ governed by the PS3’s Hypervisor - Linux running as a ’guest’ Operating System meant it could not directly address the physical hardware therefore, there was no conceivable risk of a hacker using the Linux OS to hack the underlying security subsystem of the PS3. However, Sony eventually got cold feet when a certain hacker known by the handle ’Geohot’ had succeeded in partially ’cracking’ the hypervisor. Citing socalled ’security risk’s as an excuse to ram through this change in policy, as of April 2010 Sony has decided to retroactively remove the Linux/OtherOS functionality from every PlayStation3 connected to the Internet through a firmware update (Firmware version 3.21). This helped anger and enrage many individuals as well as private universities and defense-run departments such as the US Air Force - what further aggravates the situation is that by not upgrading the firmware to revision 3.21 (the ’Linux-busting’ firmware), Sony deems you a threat/security risk and therefore no longer eligible to access their ’PlayStation Network service or any other service provided by Sony to their PlayStation3 game console for that matter. Even legal users are duped in this way because of so-called security risk’s - the argument Sony is putting forth is that they have only provided you with a end-user license agreement to use the PlayStation3 game console you bought, but that they are perfectly within their rights (as per the EULA you are required to sign before using the PS3) to withdraw or remove any service or feature their system provides if it runs the risk of threatening intellectual copyright or posing the risk of being a security threat. Fiasco’s such as this can only help fuel the controversial debate surrounding ’intellectual copyright’ - the Sony-PS3 Linux case study illustrates that the delicate balance of power between that of the consumer and the producer/corporation has broken down - with the one on the losing end appearing to be the consumer.

5 Rollout of the ’Global Information Grid’


than the higher classes) all having a certain uniformity of thought/purpose. Segueing into the human society for a minute - ’Social networking’ enables people to ’network’/’relate’ with other people who are all for all intents and purposes on the same wavelength - they share the same ideas, the same interests, hobbies or ideas. Together, these people would form a ’cluster’ - or rather, ’social network’. They communicate with each other using sites such as Facebook, Myspace, Hyves and so on. This information that they share and disseminate within their inner circle, as well as the conversations they engage in, are not anonymous in nature, and the information and the conversations are not being relayed from person to person, but instead are stored on ’private servers’ owned by an ’information trafficker’/’middle man’ (Facebook, Hyves, Myspace). These ’information traffickers’ have stipulated certain privacy agreements and Terms of Use agreements to which the ’user’ must conform to - in it, the provider makes certain promises as to what he will and will not do with the information that is being passed over its network, but reserves the right to change its terms of agreements at any time. Rights can be granted just as easily as they can be revoked. What becomes clear is that there is a certain hierarchy and a centralized degree of authority to be detected here - the ’information-service provider’/’information traffickers’ (the Facebook, Hyves, Myspace administrators) are at the top of this hierarchical social structure, while the ’worker-bees’ that form one or many ’social networks’ (and share all of their data with the centralized authority) are at the bottom of the hierarchical foodchain - both in terms of the power they wield over their own information which they post on the site as well as the degree of control they have over who gets to access this information and whether or not it is being sold or passed on to prying eyes such as the authorities. Datamining Datamining is being applied to social networks and mobile networks to segregate and divide people into clusters/segments. The aim is to build up individual ’probability profile’ consisting of information on the following: • interactions with other people • the nature of these interactions (common conversation topics, interests, etc) • the frequency with which these interactions occur (how many times per day do people chat over IM/SMS, with whom, with whom did said person chat the most this week) These disciplines are all lumped together under the broad banner of ’Social Computing’. This is a computer-related sociological engineering branch that makes use of the various disciplines of information gathering/trafficking (data mining, data bases, knowledge bases) to create useable statistical data sources (’proximity networks, ’friendship networks’, ’sexual networks’, ’social networks’, and so on). This data can then be cross-referenced with GIS and GPS-systems

5 Rollout of the ’Global Information Grid’


Fig. 10: An example of data mining in ’social networks’ inferred by one’s mobile phone usage - there are two kinds of ’social networks’ on display here based on the same data source - a ’friendship’ network and a ’proximity’ network. This gives the analyst a reasonably accurate snapshot of the geographical spreading of one’s inner social circle. All of this combines to form a total snapshot of one’s daily social interactions. To view the complete presentation, see ’Inference In Complex Social Systems[13]’ (consult the ’References’ section).’


(Geographic Information Systems and Global Positioning System in subsequent order) to give the analyst even more insight into the nature of the event. For instance, by combining all these disparate data sources he is able to infer where such and such person was located at the time the specific event occurred (for instance - calling someone on the phone, driving in your GPS-equipped car to one of your friends) who he has been in contact with on a weekly or daily basis. Threat inference This analysis can be used for marketing purposes (think Google’s AdSense) - but it can also be used for defense purposes. ’Threat inference’ is concerned with the modelling of insurrections and terrorist threats, and in the process creating a so-called ’Course of Action’. The objective is as follows - what ’threat’ lurks beneath the intentions and deeds of a single individual or a group of persons, and which steps have to be taken to neutralise this threat? A couple of systems by George Mason University (in close cooperation with the US Air Force) are being used to determine the best ’Course of Action’ for any given situation. Starting with Pythia (an improved offshoot of CAESAR II/Eb), sociological factors now play an important part and heavily influence the next most desired Course of Action path to be travelled in the branching tree of possible decisions. A couple of examples of ’threat-inference’ / ’temporal crisis management’ systems : • Commander’s Predictive Environment (CPE) • CAESAR III (George Mason University) • Pythia (previously known as CAESAR II/Eb, George Mason University) • TEMPER (George Mason University) • JSIMS (Joint Simulation Systems)

Part IV. The result of the ongoing Revolution in Military Affairs
This revolution has no clear demarcation point. The title: ’Revolution in Military Affairs’, is similarly misleading. Other alternative titles - such as ’New World Order’ - have been trivialized and ridiculed by the media and don’t really give a good idea of where all of this is leading to. What the ’Revolution in Military Affairs’ hopes to accomplish is the creation of an ’external dimension’ - a ’meta-tag’ dimension. Do not mistake this as some metaphysical plane of existence, for the entire radiowave spectrum and the Internet by themselves would constitute a similar ’external dimensions’ things which are there within the physical realm but are not directly perceivable by the naked eye. Hence, this ’external dimension’ in question consists of a


Fig. 11: An illustration from the PowerPoint presentation ’Dynamic Network Analysis: Automap/ORA/Dynet’[14], courtesy of the Carnegie Mellon University. These juxtaposed networks are all classified as communities of interest in the social computing field ’Dynamic/Social Network Analysis’. As can be seen in the accompanying screenshot, the invasion of privacy into the private lifes of the ’population set’ is quite far-reaching, chronicling the amount of sexual partners one has to the amount of different ’conversation subjects’ in the e-mails he receives and sends. To view the presentation, see the ’References’ section, ’Dynamic Network Analysis: Automap/ORA/Dynet’[14])


Fig. 12: This slide from the PowerPoint-presentation ’Commander’s Predictive Environment[21]’ gives a good insight into the way the emerging sciences of ’threat inference’ and ’crisis management systems’ are being utilized by domestic law enforcement. Everyday ’behavior’ patterns are studied thoroughly and fluctuations in ’normal’ behaviour are observed and analyzed - on a daily basis. The amount of different fluctuations in ’normal behavior patterns’ are studied on a per-day basis, and based upon this data, the ’threat’ such and such specific changing behavior patterns represents will be inferred (for instance, violent or physical altercations on the streets could lead to disruption of the social order; the same with public protests). This leads us inevitably to the ever-increasing role the military will play in domestic law enforcement vis-a-vis ’Military Operations Other Than War’) See the References section for the link to the original PowerPoint presentation.


coupling of computer networks that lend semantical meaning/relationships between ’objects’ in the ’real world’. These meta-tagged ’objects’ are then given a corresponding presence in the ’virtual world’ - i.e. the ’Internet of things’. In this ’Internet of Things’, these ’things’ will have a couple of properties and a ’status’ attached to them. This ’Internet of things’, serving as just another service-oriented architecture to the Global Information Grid in the grand scheme of things, will allow various agencies such as the Joint Armed Forces, Homeland Security, private intelligence agencies and the like a near panoptical overlay of modern-day society (think of all the cameras on the streets, think of all the different motion-based ’sensors’ currently installed in the major cities, think of all the telephones with a built-in ’camera’ that are currently in use by millions if not billions of people, think of the KH-reconnaissance satellites courtesy of KeyHole that was subsequently bought out by Google in 2004, and what we now know as Google Earth - and lastly, give a passing thought on the Global Positioning System that will be used for taxing-by-the-mile schemes15 ). Bentham’s ’panopticon’ has been applied to the entirety of society. But its ramifications on world society does not stop with merely the means to surveillance - a ’digital copy’ of the real world has been created that integrates all the ’measurable’ and ’controllable’ aspects/resources of the world that is subject to the boundaries of the ’grid’. Personnel locators, CO2 sensors, smart energy meters - all of these devices/sensors feed into this digital overlay of the real world, adding to a more or less complete panoptical overview of entire swathes of people. This further helps facilitate a sense-and-respond supply chain to serve as the backbone for a new era in marketing, advertising, social engineering, and surveillance. Examples of ’sense and respond’ would include - you are using up an exorbitant amount of energy this week, therefore the ’response’ to this ’sensing’ by the energy company will be that your costs will go up accordingly to reflect this change. Another ’sense and respond’ scenario could consist of you going into the mall, a billboard display doing an iris identification check, and upon finding out you’re inside its customer database, the GAP billboard will show a tailor-made advertisement on its screen that will alert you to new tanktops that might be of interest to you[30]. This kind of ’customer data management’ overview of people’s private lives will more or less grant ’perfect information’ to those with power in this new Sense & Respond surveillance society - if one deems it necessary to inquire who said person is that just bought something, then one can go through his psyche profile by making use of the information gathering/data mining that is being performed on forums/instant messaging/chat rooms, as to more or less accurately venture a guess as to what the person’s current ’frame of mind’ is, what specific issues are most important to him at this specific time, etc. de ’status’ van bepaalde RFID-tagged produkten kan worden vastgelegd en gecontroleerd. Door de camera’s in de treinen en bussen (alsmede de RFIDreisprodukten zoals de OV-chipkaart) kan netwerk problematiek uit de Opera15 The Netherlands will be the first country to introduce mandatory, nation-wide taxingby-the-mile by 2012, with government-mandated GPS tracker boxes installed inside every car.


Fig. 13: From the article "Sense and Respond - the Next Generation Business Model[30]" by Seungjin Whang: "Minority Report, Steven Spielberg’s sci-fi movie release in 2002 has the following scene: John Anderton (Tom Cruise), after having eyeballs replaced to escape police detection, walks into an apparal store (the Gap). The camera in the store scans his eyes, and the flat TV panel instantaneously starts an advertisement showing a holographic image of a woman, "Hello, Mr. Yakamoto! Welcome back to the Gap. How did those assorted tank tops work out for you? Come on in and see how good you look in one of our new Winter sweaters." Well, this scene (prepared with the help of MIT Media Lab) demonstrates the next generation of business model - sense and respond."

6 Private sector in the information age enabled by the RMA


tions Research discipline worden toegepast, namelijk: hoeveel mensen rijden er op een gegeven moment in de bus/trein, op welke tijdstippen is de bezetting het hoogst, enzovoorts. The external invisible layer of ’dataveillance’ will fulfill its true purpose eventually once the transhumanist movement starts seeping into the popular culture. The multitudes of sensors, access points and wireless data pushing through the airwaves will engulf an augmented person’s senses - to the extent that that his sensory input and output can be manipulated with or embellished from a remote distance.


Private sector in the information age enabled by the RMA

The commercial/private sector is but one ’stakeholder’ that is envisioning entirely new business opportunities in this information-based society that will depend squarely on the wide-ranging sensor/information grid. To further help empower these booming technology companies, new law instruments have been devised that redefine the concept of ’intellectual property’ and to what extent the laws concerning ’intellectual property’ can be enforced ( Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the US; European Union Copyright Directive in Europe).


Governing of intellectual ’ideas’ - and rights pertaining to these ’ideas’

Intellectual ’ideas’, the prime currency of the information age, can now be patented, and rights pertaining to these ’ideas’ can be defined and enforced using a methodology called DRM. DRM technology is mostly proprietary and non-standardized in nature at the moment, with every corporation having its own specific implementation of DRM16 , but one can already see a consolidated move towards specific standards - in the movie industry with MPEG-7, MPEG21, HDCP, and DTCP-IP, for example (see the accompanying footnote). DRM gives the information provider more authoritative control over what the user is allowed to do with the content/information granted to him as part of the initial exchange (buying ’information’/’content’ for an agreed-upon sum of money). A couple of additional rules and rule sets that can be dictated by DRM would include (for instance), the right to copy the ’single track’ he purchased on iTunes to a non-proprietary MP3 player not belonging to Apple. Another
16 The movie industry, on the other hand, is making a conscious effort to throw its consolidated weight behind efforts such as MPEG-7 and MPEG-21, the two of which will combine to offer the content provider a broad range of DRM features that will enable him to stipulate restrictions on who gets to view the content, who gets to copy it, and so on. To clear up any confusion, MPEG-7 and MPEG-21 are not new videocodecs with strict DRM features, but are merely metadata containers that can be embedded/encapsulated in pre-existing video and audio streams of any kind. MPEG-21 will also be a boon in terms of data-mining - all content inside the audio or video-data can be ’tagged’ - speakers can be identified in an audio clip by name, a music/audio genre can be defined for specific portions of the same audio file, and so on. Furthermore, MPEG-21 offers a query-based language that will allow the data-miner to quickly retrieve relevant information based on a specific search query.

6 Private sector in the information age enabled by the RMA


limitation enforced by DRM could be the right to listen to said single x amount of times before the user has to pay a small charge again. End-User License Agreements and intellectual property rights are bringing about a shift in power between the supplicant and supplier of information.


Utilisation of the ’Sensor/Information Grid’ by the private Sector

As for why industry execs are warming up to the non-military opportunities provided by technologies such as the Sensor/Information Grid, consider a talk given by Jesse Schell, professor at Carnegie Mellon University, at the DICE Summit 2010 (a convention geared for videogame industry executives). In this monologue, Schell makes it known that, from a videogame designer perspective, the ’panopticon’ provided by the Global Information Grid offers game designers the chance to create games out of the most trivial everyday manual tasks. In this prediction of what the future will entail, he foresees a world where nearly everything would be turned into a game because of disposable technology such as embedded sensors and screens in nearly every object, from the packaging of your food all the way to household appliances. The principal reward system in this new society would be based on ’credits’ using the sensor grid and the sense and respond supply chain. For instance, if a person were to look at an advertising billboard, the ’consumer’ would earn a couple of ’credits’; if he reads a book from start to finish instead of merely flicking through it (it is presumed that every page inside the hardbound book will have a built-in sensor that will somehow trigger the ’information network’ whenever the page has been flicked or looked at), he will earn additional ’credits’ than if he were to merely flick through it. The concept of these ’credits’ are already familiar to owners of games consoles such as the Xbox 360 and PlayStation3 - people are rewarded based upon their ’achievements’ and the way they use their ’tools’/’toys’. In this world, the baton of ’social engineers’ would be passed down to videogame developers/designers - who have an innate knack for figuring out what makes a certain mechanical activity ’fun’ - thus opening the door for an even more abusive variant of Skinnerian behavioral techniques that could literally ’train’ and ’re-educate’ people into how to behave. And this seems to be the central crux of Schell’s argument - that even though we might today regard this as being very Brave New World-esque, at the same time, this could help make people strive towards becoming ’better’ and ’more responsible’ people - if one were to take a certain Doublethink disposition and merely put on a brave face. The engine driving the architectural backbone for this behaviorist paradise is the ’Sense & Respond’ supply chain, which was covered previously in paragraph [].

6 Private sector in the information age enabled by the RMA


Fig. 14: Jesse Schell, Carnegie Mellon University professor, recognizes in the worldwide ’sensor network’ the means to a new frontier in ’social engineering’ and ’social control’, but ruled over by game developers instead of conventional social engineers. In this behaviorist landscape, every mechanical action performed manually by the user is turned into a ’game’. Here is a quote from Jesse Schell in an interview with CNN: "New video gaming systems are coming out [Xbox 360] that track every joint of your body [Project Natal]. It’s basically going to become a normal thing for us to allow Microsoft to put a three-dimensional camera on top of your television set looking at you, which sounds like a Big Brother scenario if ever I heard one, but, still, it’s what we’re going to allow. I think people will find a great deal of their lives co-opted by games, sort of like how we saw advertising co-opt huge amounts of our lives in the 20th century. "


Part V. Next step for the RMA Transhumanism/Singularity
Transhumanism is a growing movement of intellectuals/academics/ideologues who want to upgrade their biological body with cyborg/computer parts. This sub sector of futurists is now co-operating with the bio-ethics sector to push through drastic changes in the law that will allow for the possibility to realize a transhumanist future world. What these individuals have in common is a yearning to become ’post’human - to become more than human, a fusion between man and machine, perhaps even totally cybernetic. Transhumanists are not only calling for the right to self-modification/selfmutilation - they also want to extend the concept of ’citizenship’ to the rest of the animal kingdom. A key determining factor in the right to ’citizenship’/’personhood’ is the concept of ’cognitive capacity’ (’cognitive capacity’ is an euphemism for brain capacity). Machines with superior ’Artificial Intelligence’ capabilities would be entitled to citizenship rights under proposed legislation pushed by transhumanists.


“The English Puritans, the Jacobins, the Bolsheviks, were in each case simply power seekers using the hopes of the masses in order to win a privileged position for themselves. Power can sometimes be won or maintained without violence, but never without fraud, because it is necessary to make use of the masses, and the masses would not co-operate if they knew that they were simply serving the purposes of a minority. In each great revolutionary struggle the masses are led on by vague dreams of human brotherhood, and then, when the new ruling class is well established in power, they are thrust back into servitude. This is practically the whole of political history, as Burnham sees it.” - Second Thoughts on James Burnham, George Orwell[22]

Like the proselytes of every revolutionary movement, transhumanists also share this yearning for the creation of a ’perfect society’. In that sense it very much resembles mutilated Marxism - technology, rather than enslaving people, will liberate the masses. Utopians of the futurist school believe that food production and the distribution of goods can be ’shared’ and turned into a ’communal commodity’ because of the fact that machines will perform all the necessary work. A ’global brain’ will guard over the city/town and do all the necessary decision-making at the behest of the ’citizens’. The central premise in all of this is that there’s enough food and enough goods to go around for everyone - nanofactories will be utilized in order to be able to create anything at the molecular level on demand.

8 Dystopia


Another utopian inclination is to regard technology as a great ’equalizer’ for people with disabilities (such as the blind, the crippled, etc.) - by giving them the means to bionic eyesight or the ability to walk again through prosthetics.



An example of the kind of utopian scenarios imagined by transhumanists is portrayed in the 2008 documentary ’Zeitgeist Addendum’. About halfway through the documentary, the public is sold on a tentative project called ’Venus Project’, a project headed by futurist Jacque Fresco. The ’manifesto’ of this future society has clear Marxist overtones - ’money’ is a corrupting ’force’, a swindle that leads to rigid social stratification, and hence the only solution to combat this evil is by making ’redundant’ the very concept of ’money’ - and in effect relegating to the scrap heap the basic reward system that goes with it. This is what Jacque Fresco understands by a ’resource-based economy’ - which would replace the aging ’economic monetary system’. The resources would be administered and rationed out by computers making ’educated’ guesses about the Earth’s ’carrying capacity’ (a buzzword from environmentalist doctrine) - Jacque Fresco believes that by taking the decisions out of the hands of bureaucrats and instead letting computers do the running of the state, this essentially removes the ’state’.



What flies in the face of these utopian fantasies of a better world are some of the statements made by transhumanist pioneers. For instance, Kevin Warwick, made the following comment in an interview: “Clearly, the world is going to be dominated either by intelligent machines, or cyborgs, or a combination - that’s where the future is going. So, the future for an ordinary everyday human - I guess there will be some sort of subspecies, just like we have cows now - so we will have humans in the future. There will be other creatures of the species - cyborgs, intelligent machines - that are the dominant lifeforms on Earth. And as a cyborg - if a human came to see me and he starts making silly noises - a bit like a cow does now - if a cow comes to me and says: "moo, moo, moo", I’m not going to say: "Yeah, that’s a great idea, I’m going to do what you tell me", so it’ll be with a human. They’ll come in and start making these silly noises that we call speech and human language and so on - and these trivial noises I’m not going to do those silly things - why should I? This creature is absolutely stupid in comparison to me” - Kevin Warwick

9 Start of transhumanism (Application within the RMA)


In the above snippet, Kevin Warwick imagines a future world scenario where ’cyborgs’ (or rather, ’transhumanists’ - to be more human than human) will not consider ’normal human beings’ to be their equals, but rather their inferiors. This would give rise to a new socially stratified class system where the willingness to modify your biological body would get you up the food chain. Instead of creating a more ’equal’ society as the utopian version of this future scenario would have us believe, in Kevin Warwick’s version of this same future world scenario, technological snobism would on the contradictory lead to even more inequality between those with a brainchip, and those without (which would therefore not be able to integrate into a society where logistics and supply and demand are all governed by the ’sense and respond’ supply chain). As computers become an ever-more encompassing part of one’s everyday lives, it becomes likely that those who will hold conscientious objections to having to upgrade their body with machine parts will become stigmatized and pigeonholed as a ’luddite’ or even a new ’Amish’. Richard A. Clarke, prolific counter-terrorism author, has even floated the concept of the future being rife with ’BioLuddites’ anti-transhumanist ’terrorists’ that try to disrupt and prevent the transhumanist society from being brought into existence. It is interesting how opposition to this ’social change doctrine’ leads to one being termed a ’terrorist’.


Start of transhumanism (Application within the RMA)

The first incremental steps towards a transhumanist society is to be found in the implantable ’brainchip’. The US Air Force has already revealed in its Vision 2020 document how it intends to make this mandatory for the average soldier: “The implanted microscopic brain chip performs two functions. First, it links the individual to the IIC [Information Integration Center], creating a seamless interface between the user and the information resources (in-time collection data and archival databases). In essence, the chip relays the processed information from the IIC to the user. Second, the chip creates a computer-generated mental visualization based upon the user’s request. The visualization encompasses the individual and allows the user to place himself into the selected battlespace.” - US Air Force - Vision 2020 - Chapter 4 - System Description[2]

Part VI. Evil in the RMA
Kant made the following statement: Each person has a fundamental right to be respected and treated as a free and equal rational person capable of making his or her own decisions


Fig. 15: Article from Edge Magazine, November 2002 - ’Controversy surrounds the conclusions he derives from these experiments. [Kevin] Warwick sees himself as a pioneer of a new race of human-machines which will eventually take over the running of the world, thanks to their enhanced brains and bodies.’


Fig. 16: Jose Delgado of Yale University was a pioneer in the development of brainchips, the development of which can be traced back to the ’60s. Delgado was able to bring cats, dogs and bulls from a state of near passivity into a fit of rage using a special contraption he called a ’stimoceiver’. After the success he had achieved with animals, he then proceeded to apply the same technology and doctrines onto people (most of the people used as guinea pigs for these experiments were drawn from the prisons and mental wards since they more or less lacked the Constitutional rights and privileges that would protect them from being abused or misled into participating on experiments that might prove extremely detrimental and risky to their own wel-being. The electronic stimulation and control of the mind has been perfected to such a degree now that Intel has proudly announced that it envisions that by 2020 a great many of their customers will have opted for an implantable brainchip. (see ’References’, ’Intel Wants Brain Implants In Its Customers’ Heads By 2020’; also see the article from Playboy Magazine, January 1990, "Mind Control", by Larry Collins’). The study of ’cybernetics’ and the ’Revolution in Military Affairs’ that has as its entire premise the pursuit and utilization of radical new technologies, seeks to deny people these basic fundamental rights - by treating them as cogs in a wheel. No adequate attempt has been made either by government, by the defense establishment or by private companies to explain to them the exact ramifications of the information age. All kinds of ’revolutionary’ steps and measures have been undertaken to help fulfill one specific agenda (namely, creating an ’information age’ by pursuing a ’). Public debate has been stifled and discouraged by way of coercion, the exploitation of fear (fear of terrorism, fear of influenza-like viruses, fear of economic crisis), apathy (’I have nothing to hide’) and the exploitation of naivety and ignorance (for instance, by promoting various social networking sites without warning them of the inherent dangers of sharing one’s private information). A conscious attempt is also made to collude the actual technological progress in the field of ’augmented brainchips’, and the purpose behind them. The US Air Force manifesto, Air Force 2025, written back in 1996, tacitly admits that the aim is to gradually get people to become acclimatized to brainchips, and that they are aware that few would be comfortable with being asked (or, worse


still, forced) into putting brainchips inside their head. The author admits that he hopes these conscientuous objections will have disappeared by the year 2025 to the point where infantry soldiers will be mandated as part of standard protocol to be implanted with them. To allay any fears concerning what exactly can be done with brainchips, a white lie is introduced that could be accurately summarized as: “Don’t worry, this brainchip will only enable the person to ’control’ technology - it cannot be used to control the person itself”. That claim on its face could be discounted out of hand - because the techical capabilities to allow for this type of control have been with us for at least a few decades now. Jose Delgado was vanaf 1965 bezig met experimenten waarbij hij zogenaamde ’stimoceivers’ (elektroden) in het brein implanteerde van apen, muizen, katten, honden en stieren. Door stimulering van de hypothalamus was het mogelijk voor hem om met een remote control applicatie het ’onderwerp’ aggressief, passief of wanhopig te maken. Tevens was het mogelijk om middels deze stimulering het beest met een soort ’joystick’-achtige contraptie te bedienen. Nadat zijn experiment met een stier in de ring een succes bleek te zijn, ging hij deze technologie verder ontwikkelen voor toepassing op mensen. Maar dit document uit 1996 laat de lezer doen geloven dat dit niet de bedoeling is in dit geval - erg moeilijk om te geloven, aangezien het leger altijd al een regimentatief systeem is geweest waarin een duidelijke hierarchie in zit - en dat er gedaan moet worden wat de Commandant of Generaal zegt, zonder dat gewetensbezwaren daarbij in de weg kunnen zitten. Dit is tevens het ’kwaad’ dat ik zie in de manier waarop deze ’transitie’ naar het informatietijdperk wordt doorgevoerd - achterhouding van informatie, natuurlijke angst van het volk voor bepaalde invasieve handelingen wegnemen door ze als kinderen te behandelen, en een bepaald soort hedonisme stimuleren (veel drinken, veel sexuele promiscuiteit, veel oppervlakkig feesten) zodat men afgeleidt is van de maatschappelijke veranderingen die, eenmaal doorgevoerd, voor altijd zullen gelden en voor een lange tijd niet onderhevig zijn aan reformering17 .
17 Some food for thought: utilitarianism is based on the principle of hedonism - the greatest happiness principle operates under the assumption that the only two intrinsic values worth quantifying in this world are ’pain’ and ’pleasure’. Bentham was squarely against the concept of ’intrinsic rights’ (it was also out of similar convictions that he wrote a scathing ’essay’ on the American Declaration of Independence, which formed part of the British government’s official rebuttal to the pbulication of said document in July 1776). Even the concept of absolute moral value judgements were nonsense according to Bentham - instead, he had thought up a couple of variables (or ’vectors’, if you may) that would calculate the ’pain’ or ’pleasure’ effect of any given action. This is what is known as the ’hedonistic calculus’. Coincidentally, it is interesting to point out that in the current era we’re living in, there has been a gradual implementation of the panopticon on the whole of society, while at the same time we have seen an increase in hedonistic behavior (think of the various sexual fetishes of today, the halfnaked starlets such as Lady Gaga, Beyonce and Rihanna posing and singing suggestively in various schlock music clips aired by MTV and TMF, the coma-drinking prevalent in Europe, the constant 365 days per year partying that has become the norm on college campuses, vast promiscuity and a rapid increase in one-night stands and a substantial rise in divorces, the ’normalisation’ of extramarital affairs, infidelity, and so on. What is a constant in all of this? Pain and pleasure - pain is felt when someone has been cheated on by his spouse/partner, while the inverse of pain, namely pleasure, is experienced after having committed the umpteenth


Fig. 17: Ever-increasing hedonism in a panoptical society - Maxim - March 2010 - ’Sex - Cheat And Don’t Get Caught - Women Tell You How’. An extract from the article: "Don’t want to fish off the company pier? Open a branch office, like Danielle, a 29-year old photographer, who cheats only on business trips. "I love my boyfriend, but monogamy is for the birds," she says. "I enjoy fucking new guys, then going home to the man who loves me. I’d never want him to run into them, so I only do it in other cities"

10 Dehumanization


10 10.1

Dehumanization Dehumanization of war

The total ’rationalisation’ of war has been attempted before, but succeeded only in perpetuating more ’irrationality’ instead of less. A good example of this is the policy by Robert McNamara during the Vietnam war to introduce ’body counts’ - by which the ’performance’ of a battalion of soldiers was measured by them reaching their quota for the given week or day. Underachieving battalions could expect to be disciplined or punished for failing to meet their targets hence why every battalion tried to achieve their targets, irrespective of the means by which they had to achieve it. This led to soldiers willfully executing countless innocent civilians to reach the quota - a quintessential example of ’institutionalized’ evil brought about by bad and failed policies, either by sheer malpractice or irresponsible ethical behavior on the part of the policy makers. A similar ’dehumanization’ process is currently ongoing in the current RMA wars - Afghanistan and Iraq. For instance, a video leaked by Wikileaks showed a Western journalist in Iraq being mowed down by the Army, as well as the first responders that came to the man’s aid. There are a couple of factors at play here - in the first place, the UAV/gundrone attender is far removed from the actual battlefield, his only outlook into the real world being this ’monitor’ he peers through and an input device in the form of a joystick - not unlike playing a videogame. He then identifies a perceived enemy, and asks for permission to shoot. Once being authorized to shoot to kill, he proceeds to take him out as quickly as possible. When the ground troops eventually tell him that he even managed to kill and maim several children, the soldier in question reacts nonchalanty: “Dan hadden die kinderen daar maar niet moeten zijn”. There is a real sense of detachment and lack of personal responsibility on display here. The ’self-centeredness’ and lack of a moral compass could be explained by the sense of detachment that tele-existence/tele-presence helps engender in the person ten eerste kan hij de gevolgen van zijn acties niet in levende lijve zien - hij ziet het vanuit een ’monitor’/’TV scherm’. Ten tweede is hij op Pavloviaanse manier geconditioneerd thuis om met een joystick via een computerspel zoals ’Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2’ zogenaamde ’search-and-destroy’ operaties uit te voeren. The man-machine interface consists of a HUD, a gun and a visor, and every target that pops up on the screen has to be neutralized. Current-day firstperson shooters are commonly developed in co-operation with defense contracators and have the added psychological side effect of ’hardening’ the would-be soldier prior to becoming enlisted in the Army.. Er zijn zoveel gesimuleerde moorden gepleegd in een virtuele omgeving - zoveel gesimuleerde moorden vertoont op TV en in films - dat de ’actie’ ’vermoorden’ is genormaliseerd - het vormt onderdeel
sexual act with a mistress or lover that has eluded his or her’s partner. Mainstream media is capitalizing on these changing morality rulesets - Ashley Madison is an online dating service for people currently in a relationship who want to have sex with someone else, while Maxim has advertised on the cover of its April 2010 issue an article with the headline ’Sex - Cheat And Don’t Get Caught - Women Will Tell You How’.

10 Dehumanization


van de ’cultuur’ waarin de soldaat is opgegroeid. Het verminderen van dit kwaad:Een oplossing zou kunnen zijn - een soort Three Laws Of Asimov’ ingebouwd in een UAV of robot dat hen ervan weerbiedt om onrechtvaardige handelingen uit te voeren. Te denken valt aan de ’Three Directives’ van Robocop (1987, Paul Verhoeven). Maar zelfs zo’n oplossing is niet immuun voor corruptie - zo werd Robocop namelijk ook een vierde, verborgen directief gegeven: onder geen enkele omstandigheid mocht hij een van de bestuurshebbenden van het bedrijf dat hem gemaakt had, OCP (OmniConsumer Products), aanvallen of arresteren. Mocht het nu net het geval zijn dat de adjunct-directeur van het bedrijf, Dick Jones, zelf schuldig was aan moord en Robocop hiervan het belastend bewijsmateriaal had, maar niet kon optreden tegen zijn superieur.


Dehumanization of the person

As a result of the shift to the information age, long-standing attitudes with regards to privacy have been shaken or irreparably severed. An often-quoted slogan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks was that one had to be corralled into ’giving up their liberties for security’, which was followed a few years later by a more or less indifferent attitude with regards to the right to privacy. The rise of social networking and the newly granted ability by the individual user with an Internet connection to form ’communities’ or ’clans’ consisting of people that (prior to the Internet age) he would not have the foggiest chance of ever meeting with has all led towards a certain kind of ’identity management’ becoming the average person’s only form of currency. To reiterate a previous statement made in this document that would put this into perspective: “In an information age, the primary currency is ’information’.” Previous to the information age, the general public’s daily activities were more or less indirectly governed by institutions through the willfull and conditioned consent of that very same mass public. Institutions of ’intimicacy’, such as dating, romance, and personal relationships, all followed certain rulesets, and nearly all hinged on the ability of the average individual to retain their own private feelings of intimicacy and affection - feelings and thoughts which are not known to anyone but that person, and only that person alone. In the information age, this long-cherished idea of ’inner sanctum’ makes way for a form of ’identity management’ whereby one projects a digital facade of one’s own identity online. Using the popular social networking sites, blogs, Twitter and the like, people choose to input massive amounts of personal information about themselves for what amounts to little or no commercial incentive or personal gain - the primary impetus being to ’socialize’ for socialism’s sake. By letting others know about your sexual escapades, letting people know about their own personal break-up vis-a-vis Twitter and posting pictures of a party you visited the other day are all ways of creating a personal dialogue that revolves around you. As this document astutely points out:

10 Dehumanization


“In other words, the labor of the new individual is a labor of selfpresentation. Strangely enough, this labor of self-presentation, which used to be the domain of celebrities such as movie or rock stars, is now a full-time labor for many individuals, who, for example, wear their emotions on their t-shirts or sweatpants that read MILF in Training, Jerk Magnet, Your Boyfriend Wants Me, or Juicy.” - Public Intimacy and the New Face (Book) of Surveillance: The Role of Social Media in Shaping Contemporary Dataveillance One can see where this idea became about to the point where it rewired the general public’s daily lives so drastically. For instance, witness the rapid explosion of so-called ’reality television’ shows (such as ’Big Brother’, ’Survivor’) where supposed average common-day folk become the subject of attention in a major hit TV series, where they compete with each other for prizes. Most of the time this race to the top leads to a lot of backstabbing, heated fights and general hostile behavior towards each other. What is central in all of this, is that the people inside this gameshow are constantly being monitored. Therefore, in order to become ’popular’ with the viewing audience, one has to project an external ’persona’ of oneself - in order to stay interesting to the television crowd, or sway the crowd if you will (similar to what gladiators used to do in gladiatorial events in Rome). By donning T-shirts with texts such as ’MILF in training’, ’Jerk Magnet’, or ’Your Boyfriend Wants Me’, the fashion industry is capitalizing on this newfound desire to ’self-project one’s own embellished persona’ to the outside world - but in such a way that it binds the ’intimitate’ act/intent with this desire self-presentation. Whereas previously dating or intercourse between a man and a woman was bound by a strict ruleset of how to pick up a girl and how not to, in this ’information age’ the woman wears a couple of ’inner self’ status notifications on her shirt - such as ’MILF in training’ - signs which act more or less like sensors for the men who, from a Network-Centric Warfare perspective, pick up on these sensors through the ’information grid’, and then ’reespond’/’engage’ the object of desire in kind - in effect skipping the foreplay altogether. One constant in all of this is an increase in voyeurism, but most of all the eradication of an ’inner sanctum’ for your thoughts and feelings - everything that matters when it comes to intimicacy, becomes ’personal’ - ’socialised’. Everyone has a ’right’ to know one’s inner feelings, one’s inner thoughts, and one’s inner likes and dislikes - presumably out of some need to become all ’interconnected’ like a ’global village’. So, because the average John Doe or Jane Doe does not exercise much power in the role provided to him by society, he instead makes this trip into the ’self’ and lets his whole world revolve around ’self-projection’ - the external hologram of his inner self that he projects to the outside world, completely willingly, and without any enforcement or mandate on the part of government. Rather, new, free services such as ’Facebook’, ’Youtube’, ’Myspace’, blogs, Twitter, and the rapid rise of the Internet helped bring all this about, one medium of exchange after another one part of a jigsaw puzzle perfectly falling into place to form a

10 Dehumanization


panoptical sense-and-respond society.


Dehumanization of surveillance and intelligence gathering
“An important characteristic of the new surveillance is that it relies on a machine based, automated collection of personal information. Even the most innocuous transactions leave [a] data trail that can be stored for later analysis(Gandy, 2002; Marx, 2004)” - Public Intimacy and the New Face (Book) of Surveillance: The Role of Social Media in Shaping Contemporary Dataveillance

It is well understood by now that, by reducing people to mere numbers on a broadsheet, the person is effectively dehumanized - he or she has become just another insignificant number forming part of a larger population set. This same dehumanizing procedure is now also being applied to scientific inquiry, data mining, surveillance and spying, all of which is being performed by machines (intelligent ones at that - cameras, sensors, UAVs) rather than a real private inspector spying on you. Because storage is cheap and plentiful, it enables the institutions in charge of surveillance camera networks to store everything for future reference without the inconvenience of having to delete camera footage of inconsequential days because the server is running out of storage space. “Third, data mining rationalizes surveillance by removing humans from the interpretation process. The dehumanization of the analyses is important: because it removes the so-called human bias from the interpretation process. As such, when combined with the fact that contemporary data mining relies on quantification of information (a seemingly dispassionate and objective method of interpreting the social world), this dehumanization projects an aura of objectivity, consequently making it even more difficult to challenge its premise (and the findings it provides).” - Public Intimacy and the New Face (Book) of Surveillance: The Role of Social Media in Shaping Contemporary Dataveillance The institution would argue that this helps make the case for mass surveillance, since ’human bias’ or ’abuse’ is taken out of the equation by removing the human element - the camera or ground sensor does not act discriminatory, but merely perceives a certain ’event’ (such as ’motion’, ’sound’ or an ’image’) and based upon this triggering event, the datamining services can then kick into gear and pull up relevant information about the ’object’ in question (for example, a man or a woman that is caught in suspicious behavior). Anything that could go wrong, and does go wrong mostly when talking about surveillance and potential privacy abuse, is blamed on the human element. By having machines do all the work, like the author of the article above states so eloquently, an ’aura of objectivity’ is projected, making it difficult to argue against the central ’premise’ behind this method of surveillance.


Part VII. Explanation of concepts
Much of the literature available on the Revolution in Military Affairs is swamped with acronyms. The reason behind this fondness for three- and four-letter acronyms is because of their brevity (which comes especially in handy during ISR missions - status indications can be relayed faster by speaking in acronyms rather than entire grammatically-correct sentences and terms). But the side effect is that to the layman - who is not familiar with all these terms and slogans encapsulated inside these acronyms - military documents become almost impenetratable. With this in mind, following is a list of acronyms commonly deployed by the Defense Department.

11 Acronyms



Term BFT C2 C3I C4ISR Explanation Acronym for: Blue Force Tracking. Acronym for: Command, Control. Acronym for: Command, Control, Communications, Intelligence. Acronym for: Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaisance. Acronym for: Closed-Circuit Television. Acronym for: Central Intelligence Agency. Acronym for: Chief Information Officer. Chemical formula for ’Carbon Dioxide’. Acronym for: Counter Intelligence Program. Acronym for: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Acronym for: Department of Homeland Security. Acronym for: Department of Defense. Acronym for: Department of Defense Architecture Framework. Acronym for: Effects-Based Operations. Acronym for: Future Combat Systems. Outdated term for ’Brigade Combat Team Modernization’ (BCT Modernization). Acronym for: Global Information Grid. Acronym for: Geographic Information Systems. Acronym for: Global Positioning System. Acronym for: Internet Of Things. Acronym for: Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaisance. Acronym for: Military Operations Other Than War. Acronym for: Network-Centric Warfare. Acronym for: Network-Centric Operations. A new name for the concept ’Network-Centric Warfare’. (NCW) Acronym for: Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations. Applied in ’natural disasters’ like Hurricane Katrina (2005). Acronym for: Non-Lethal Weapons. Acronym for: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. Acronym for: Office of Net Assessment. Acronym for: Private Military Corporation. Acronym for: Psychological Operations. Acronym for: Revolution In Military Affairs. Acronym for: Sense & Respond. Acronym for: Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. Acronym for: Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle. Acronym for: Weapons of Mass Destruction. Is a smaller subset of the broader category ’Weapons of Mass Effect ’.



Part VIII. References
[1] Internet Of Things - An action plan for Europe. Technical report, Commission Of The European Communities, June 2009. URL information_society/policy/rfid/documents/commiot2009.pdf. [2] Air Force 2025, 1996. Air University. URL docops/usaf/2025/. [3] Thomas P.M. Barnett. The Pentagon’s New Map: PowerPoint Presentation, June 2004. URL [4] Yudhijit Bhattacharjee. Pentagon Asks Academics for Help in Understanding Its Enemies - alexander h. levis. Science Magazine, 316, April 2007. [5] James W. Canan. Military Networks Take Center Stage. Aerospace America, October 2002. URL 267&ArchiveIssueID=31. [6] Matthew Carr. Revolution in Military Affairs: It’s why we’re here - The man and the doctrine at the heart of our adventurism. July 2009. URL vzj8j. [7] Arthur K. Cebrowski. Special Briefing on Force Transformation, by the Director of Force Transformation. November 2001. URL awcgate/transformation/t11272001_t1127ceb.htm. [8] Larry Collins. Mind Control. Playboy Magazine, January 1990. URL http: // [9] Rhonda Copley and Eric Wagner. Improved Situational Awareness through GIS and RFID in Military Exercises. In ESRI international User Conference Proceedings, page 8, August 2006. URL userconf/proc06/papers/papers/pap_2350.pdf. [10] Cori E. Dauber. YouTube War: Fighting in a World of Cameras in Every Cell Phone and Photoshop on Every Computer. November 2009. URL http://www. [11] Gilles Deleuze. Postscript On The Societies Of Control. December 1992. URL [12] Thomas Donnelly. Rebuilding America’s Defenses. page 90, September 2000. URL [13] Nathan Eagle, Alex Pentland, and David Lazer. Inferring Social Network Structure Using Mobile Phone Data. In Workshop on Social Computing, Behavioral Modeling, and Prediction, 2008. URL sbp08/Presentations/Papers/04_eagle_SPB08.ppt. [14] Terrill L. Frantz. Dynamic network analysis: Automap/ora/dynet - annual tools/computational approaches/methods conference. In Inferring Adversary Intent and Estimating Behavior, Behavioral Influences Analysis Center (BIAC) Workshop. Carnegie Mellon University, 2008. URL events/conf-mar08/frantz1_mar_08.pdf.


[15] Shane Harris. Features - an internet of things. Government Executive, September 2005. URL [16] Jeremy Hsu. Intel wants brain implants in its customers’ heads by 2020 - researchers expect brain waves to operate computers, tvs and cell phones. Popular Science, November 2009. URL 2009-11/intel-wants-brain-implants-consumers-heads-2020. [17] Richard O. Hundley. Past Revolutions, Future Transformations - What can the history of RMA tell us about transforming the US military? RAND Corporation, 1999. ISBN 0833027093. URL reports/2007/MR1029.pdf. [18] Samuel Huntington. The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 1993. URL the-clash-of-civilizations. [19] Lukasz Kamienski. The RMA and War Powers. Strategic Insights, 2, September 2003. URL [20] Steven Metz and James Kievit. The Revolution in Military Affairs and Conflict Short Of War. July 1994. URL mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=241. [21] Janet Miller. Commander’s Predictive Environment. In Inferring Adversary Intent and Estimating Behavior, Behavioral Influences Analysis Center (BIAC) Workshop. Air Force Research Laboratory, 2008. URL bia/events/conf-mar08/miller_cpe_mar_08.ppt. [22] George Orwell. Second Thoughts on James Burnham. Polemic, 1946. URL [23] Tara O’Toole, Georges Benjamin, and John Thomasian. Bioterrorism Threats, February 2002. URL [24] David M. Rorvik. Bringing The War Home. Playboy Magazine, September 1974. URL [25] Donald Rumsfeld, Richard B. Myers, and Pete Aldridge. Defense business practices, September 2001. URL [26] Fred Stein and Brian Clark. Arming with Intelligence: Data Fusion in NetworkCentric Warfare, December 2007. URL data-fusion-and-network-centric-warfare/default.asp. [27] Warren P. Strobell. The spy who funded me (and my start-up) - the CIA’s venture capitalist in Silicon Valley. U.S. News And World Report, pages 38– 39, July 2000. URL stories/071700USNewsCIA.pdf. [28] John D. Sutter. Why games will take over our lives. CNN, April 2010. URL [29] Alvin Toffler. Future Shock. 1970. ISBN 0553277375.


[30] Seungjin Whang. Sense and Respond - the Next Generation Business Model. May 2005. URL whang_senserespond.shtml. [31] Rick E. Yannuzzi. In-Q-Tel: A New Partnership Between the CIA and the Private Sector. CIA, 2000. URL additional-publications/in-q-tel/index.html.

9/11, 10, 19, 23 9/11 Wargames Global Guardian, 23 Operation Tripod, 23 Vigilant Guardian, 23 Analytic Services, 24 ANSER Institute, 24, 25 Apple iTunes, 40 Artificial Intelligence, 43 Asimov, Isaac, 51 Barnett, Thomas P.M., 19, 21, 29 Bentham, Jeremy, 8, 38, 48 Hedonistic calculus, 48 Panopticon, 8, 38, 41, 48 BioLuddite, 45 Blackwater, 26 Total Intelligence Solutions, 26 Xe Corporation, 26 Blitzkrieg, 9 Boyd, John, 17, 18 Burnham, James, 43 Bush, George W., 16, 23, 26 C2, 3 C3I, 3 C4ISR, 3 CAESAR CAESAR II/Eb, 35 Pythia, 35 CAESAR III, 35 TEMPER, 35 Carnegie Mellon University, 36, 41, 42 Cebrowski, Arthur K., 9, 10, 29 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 24, 26 Cheney, Dick, 6, 16 Chief Information Officer (CIO), 9 Clarke, Richard A., 45 Closed-circuit television (CCTV), 10 Cognitive capacity, 43 Cold War, 29 Collins, Larry, 47 Commander’s Predictive Environment, 35, 37 Cooperative Engagement Capability, 13, 19, 20 Council On Foreign Relations, 8 Foreign Affairs (magazine), 8 Course Of Action (COA), 16–18, 35 Crisis management, 35 Data Mining, 33 David, Ruth A., 24, 25 Deleuze, Gilles, 8, 9 Delgado, Jose, 47, 48 Stimoceiver, 47 Department of Defense, 26, 28 Office of Force Transformation, 10 Department of Defense Architecture Framework, 28 C4ISR Architecture Framework, 28 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 31, 40 Digital Rights Management, 40, 41 DTCP-IP, 40 HDCP, 40 MPEG-21, 40 MPEG-7, 40 Digital Rights Management (DRM), 40 Domain Name System (DNS), 3 Edge Magazine (magazine), 46 Effects Based Operations, 15, 16 Shock And Awe, 16 End-User License Agreement (EULA), 32, 41 Enterprise architecture, 28 Supply chain, 12, 45 Zachman Framework, 28 European Union, 24, 28 European Union Copyright Directive (EUCD), 31, 40 Facebook, 24 FBI, 23 FEMA, 23 Foucault, Michel, 8 Fresco, Jacque, 44 Game Theory, 3 Geographic Information Systems (GIS), 19, 33, 35


George Mason University, 35 Giuliani, Rudy, 23 Global Information Grid, 3, 10, 20, 28, 38, 41 Global Positioning System (GPS), 19, 33, 35, 38 Google, 24, 26, 27, 35, 38 Google AdSense, 35 Google Earth, 19, 26, 27, 38 Guattari, Felix, 8 Gulf War Operation Desert Storm, 29 Heads Up Display (HUD), 50 Hedonism, 48, 49 Ashley Madison, 50 Huntington, Samuel, 6, 8 Hussein, Saddam, 16 Hypervisor, 32 In-Q-Tel, 24–26 Information Operations, 17 Information overload, 5–7 Intel, 47 Intellectual copyright, 32 Internet, 30 Internet Protocol, 29 IPv4, 29 IPv6, 3, 28, 29 Internet of Things, 3, 28, 29, 38 Object Naming Service, 3 Internet Service Provider (ISP), 31 ISR, 15, 18, 54 Joint Vision 2010, 9, 10 JSIMS, 35 Kant, Immanuel, 45 KeyHole, 24, 26, 27, 38 KH Reconnaissance satellites, 26 Lewinton, Richard C., 23 LifeLog, 24 Loral Skynet, 26 Marshall, Andrew, 6 Marxism, 43, 44 Maxim (magazine), 50 McNamara, Robert, 50 Microsoft

Xbox 360, 41, 42 Project Natal, 42 Military Operations Other Than War, 37 Minority Report (movie, 2002), 39 MITRE Corporation, 4 Nanofactories, 43 National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), 23 Network-Centric Operations, 12, 28 Network-Centric Warfare, 9–13, 18–20, 27, 52 Engagement Grid, 9–13, 15, 19, 27 Information Grid, 9, 11, 12, 27 Sensor Grid, 9, 10, 12, 27 New Federalism, 24 NGO, 24 Office of Naval Intelligence, 29 Office of Net Assessment (OSD), 6 OODA, 15, 16, 18 Operating System, 32 BSD, 32 Linux, 32 Operations Research, 3, 18, 38 Orwell, George, 43 PATRIOT Act, 19 Pavlov, Ivan, 50 Pentagon, 29 Powell, Colin, 16 Predictive Battlespace Awareness, 18 Prince, Erik, 26 Private Military Corporation, 26 Project For A New American Century, 21 Psychological Operations, 17 Quigley, Carroll, 8, 9 Tragedy and Hope (book, 1966), 8 Radio-Frequency Identification (RF ID), 10 Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID), 12, 29, 38 RAND Corporation, 19, 24, 25


Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA), 3, 5, 6, 9, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 29, 30, 32, 35, 47, 50, 54 War on Terror, 23 Role-based access control (RBAC), 22 Royal Institute of International Affairs, 8 Rumsfeld, Donald, 6, 10, 16, 22, 23 Schell, Jesse, 41, 42 Sense & Respond (S&R), 12, 15, 18, 38, 41, 45 Situational Awareness, 13, 19 Skinner, B.F., 13, 41 Stimulus-response theory, 13 Skype, 30 Social Computing, 33 Dynamic Network Analysis, 33 Social Network Analysis, 33 Social networking, 32–34 Dynamic Network Analysis, 36 Facebook, 33 Hyves, 33 Myspace, 33 Social Network Analysis, 36 Sony, 32 PlayStation3, 32, 41 OtherOS, 32 PlayStation Network, 32 Soviet Union, 22 Stein, Fred, 4 Strategic Studies Institute, 15, 16 Sun Microsystems, 10 Supply chain, 14 System of Systems (SOS), 13 The Clash of Civilizations (book, 1996), 6 Toffler, Alvin, 5, 7 Future Shock (book, 1970), 5, 7 Total Information Awareness, 24 Transhumanism, 43–45 Twitter, 9, 30, 51 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), 11, 13, 15, 20, 29, 50, 51, 53 US Air Force, 25, 47 US Army War College, 17 Utilitarianism, 48 Venture capital firm, 24

Venus Project, 44 Vodafone, 5 Warwick, Kevin, 44–46 Weapons of Mass Effect, 16 Weapons of Mass Destruction, 16 Wolfowitz, Paul, 6 World War II, 3 Y2K, 21 Zeitgeist Addendum (documentary, 2008), 44

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful