I am enjoying and learning from your posts about political warfare, a topic that concerns me greatly. As you know, I am also concerned about “netwar” as a spreading reality. John Arquilla and I have tried to call attention to it for years. Just to clarify: Netwar is not so much an alternative to or variant on political warfare, as an updated type of it attuned to the information age.
Plenty of examples exist, and many criss-cross all sorts of domestic, transnational, and foreign boundaries, complicating if not defying efforts to assign a lead agency. I tend to agree that State seems a good option. But if a key concern is the political warfare or netwar currently being waged by militant far-right actors organized into a mesh of domestic, transnational, and foreign networks, I doubt DOS would be (much less want to be) where a lead agency is located.
FWIW, I asked ChatGPT’s Open AI, “What are the differences between "political warfare" and "netwar”?”
It answered okay, but not entirely accurately. It noticed correctly that political warfare tends to be more state-centric and centralized than netwar. But OpenAI over-defined netwar with “the use of networked communications and information technologies …”
As I noted at your prior post, Arquilla’s and my definition defines netwar as an emerging mode of conflict at societal levels involving measures short of traditional war, in which protagonists use network forms of organization and related doctrines, strategies, and technologies attuned to the information age.
As I see matters, classic political warfare is mainly about fights between hierarchical institutions (states, governments, as in Kennan’s time). Netwar is about fights where “Hierarchies have a difficult time fighting networks” and “It takes networks to fight networks.” So far, there’s no USG office or agency for that, though I wish there were (and efforts to combat terrorism and crime have moved in that direction.
Since the related concept “cognitive warfare” has been around for a while, and since I’d wish to advance “noopolitical warfare” as a new concept derived from the ongoing emergence of our world’s long-forecast noosphere (globe-circling “realm of the mind”) atop its geosphere and biosphere, I also asked OpenAI, “What are the differences between "cognitive warfare" and "noopolitical warfare"?
Though I cannot find anyone else using the term “noopolitical warfare” yet, OpenAI didn’t blink, and answered correctly that the terms are almost interchangeable, then added: “In summary, while both cognitive warfare and noopolitical warfare involve the use of information and psychological tactics, cognitive warfare tends to focus more broadly on influencing behavior and perceptions, while noopolitical warfare specifically emphasizes the strategic competition over ideas and knowledge.” Pretty good, esp. the “strategic” aspect, and I’m relieved it did not question the latter concept.
Sir, I’ve read with much interest your articles and shared them with colleagues. I keep coming back to the same conclusion about political warfare and what agency should be responsible for U.S. efforts, namely the State Department. When the OSS was disbanded, the subsequent missions were farmed out to the CIA, State and military. INR at State, in my opinion should be the lead of our intelligence understanding of political warfare and the conduit to decision makers. This would of course require a massive investment at State and a mission update, which I’m sure will not be easy to do. Curious to your thoughts on what agency should lead our efforts.
Thank you for your continuous efforts to bring this to the forefront of national conversation.
I am enjoying and learning from your posts about political warfare, a topic that concerns me greatly. As you know, I am also concerned about “netwar” as a spreading reality. John Arquilla and I have tried to call attention to it for years. Just to clarify: Netwar is not so much an alternative to or variant on political warfare, as an updated type of it attuned to the information age.
Plenty of examples exist, and many criss-cross all sorts of domestic, transnational, and foreign boundaries, complicating if not defying efforts to assign a lead agency. I tend to agree that State seems a good option. But if a key concern is the political warfare or netwar currently being waged by militant far-right actors organized into a mesh of domestic, transnational, and foreign networks, I doubt DOS would be (much less want to be) where a lead agency is located.
FWIW, I asked ChatGPT’s Open AI, “What are the differences between "political warfare" and "netwar”?”
It answered okay, but not entirely accurately. It noticed correctly that political warfare tends to be more state-centric and centralized than netwar. But OpenAI over-defined netwar with “the use of networked communications and information technologies …”
As I noted at your prior post, Arquilla’s and my definition defines netwar as an emerging mode of conflict at societal levels involving measures short of traditional war, in which protagonists use network forms of organization and related doctrines, strategies, and technologies attuned to the information age.
As I see matters, classic political warfare is mainly about fights between hierarchical institutions (states, governments, as in Kennan’s time). Netwar is about fights where “Hierarchies have a difficult time fighting networks” and “It takes networks to fight networks.” So far, there’s no USG office or agency for that, though I wish there were (and efforts to combat terrorism and crime have moved in that direction.
Since the related concept “cognitive warfare” has been around for a while, and since I’d wish to advance “noopolitical warfare” as a new concept derived from the ongoing emergence of our world’s long-forecast noosphere (globe-circling “realm of the mind”) atop its geosphere and biosphere, I also asked OpenAI, “What are the differences between "cognitive warfare" and "noopolitical warfare"?
Though I cannot find anyone else using the term “noopolitical warfare” yet, OpenAI didn’t blink, and answered correctly that the terms are almost interchangeable, then added: “In summary, while both cognitive warfare and noopolitical warfare involve the use of information and psychological tactics, cognitive warfare tends to focus more broadly on influencing behavior and perceptions, while noopolitical warfare specifically emphasizes the strategic competition over ideas and knowledge.” Pretty good, esp. the “strategic” aspect, and I’m relieved it did not question the latter concept.
Sir, I’ve read with much interest your articles and shared them with colleagues. I keep coming back to the same conclusion about political warfare and what agency should be responsible for U.S. efforts, namely the State Department. When the OSS was disbanded, the subsequent missions were farmed out to the CIA, State and military. INR at State, in my opinion should be the lead of our intelligence understanding of political warfare and the conduit to decision makers. This would of course require a massive investment at State and a mission update, which I’m sure will not be easy to do. Curious to your thoughts on what agency should lead our efforts.
Thank you for your continuous efforts to bring this to the forefront of national conversation.