PART I: Confrontations, Conflicts and their Management in Postmodern era

still under editing

Original writing was published in Sotilasaikakauslehti 11/2011 http://www.upseeriliitto.fi/the_finnish_officers_union_in_english

Confrontations, Conflicts and their Management in Postmodern era

Sun Tzu - Attack by stratagem:

“... Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence;

supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans;

the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces;

the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field;

and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.”

1. From wars between industrial states to confrontations of post-modern societies

The industrialization did change the society, national states emerged and in Napoleonic wars the first symptoms of mass warfare occurred. In France Napoleon established an conscription law and drafted a mass army of infantry and cavalry. The strategy of Napoleon was to use the strengths of his conscript grand army (conscription, patriotism, operational manoeuvreability of army corps and logistical solution) to destroy the opponents main force i.e. ability to wage war and thus dictate the terms of peace agreement. Napoleon concentrated political, strategical and operational leadership to himself thus compromising his operational agility with “patent solution” and ending losing wars among others to Russia.¹

In the Civil war of USA general Sherman destroyed the economy and people´s willingness to continue fighting by attacking through the state of Georgia and destroying about 100 km widely and 500 km deeply cities, farms, railroads, shops, material, industry and weapons.

This was first time that force was massed against opponents economical and industrial assets. The railroads provided operational manoeuvreability and telegraph provided fast communications first time. The Southern troops were better led at tactical level but Jefferson and Grant combined political and strategical level to better the opponent.²

In the First World War industrial power was used to provide weapons for army, navy and air force with a magnitude of mass production. Firepower and lethality of military force was multiplied compared to Boer war or Civil war. Railways were used to gain operational manoeuvreability but after dismounting armies tactical movement was limited to walking speed. To keep the integrity of the troops and hoist their spirits a variety of information means were used. Later this was called propaganda.³

In China 1934 the long march of Communist Party was a military loss and brought Chinese communist movement to a brink of end. Later Mao created tales of communist heroism out from miseries of march and spread them as propaganda amongst people thus gaining the support of ordinary people and finally a military victory over Chiang Kai-shek.⁴

In the Second World War industrial productivity increased firepower and tactical speed. The battlespace extended to air (The Battle of Britain), to electromagnetic space (signal surveillance), to will of the home front (V-weapons and resistance movements), to information domain (propaganda in press, party ceremonies, radio and movies), to industrial assets (large scale air bombardments of cities) and to diplomatic level (Stalin had Germany and UK competing about the terms of non-aggression pact on August 1939⁵). As conflict proceeded Stalin increased his capability to control the vast spectrum of struggle - military, economical, social, technical, diplomatic, ideological and national aspects of confrontation – better than his colleges at the time⁶. Both Hitler and Stalin had trouble trusting their military leadership thus spreading their activity at operational and sometimes even tactical level besides their efforts at political and strategical level.⁷ Both leaders made same mistake of pulling decision making too high, operating hierarchical control over malfunctioning communications and stiffening their operational and tactical level with inadequate delegation.

After the WW II confrontation between two ideologies escalated to conflict we know as “Cold War”. On the military line of operations two sides ended up with Mutual Assured Destruction with nuclear weapons and arms race to keep up with deterrence. The other line of military operations were local conflicts with conventional arms backed by both sides of ideology. Both ideological sides were operating along the line of economical operations to enhance political and economical development in the nations within their domain of influence and opposing the economical development in the nations of the opponents domain. In the line of social operations USSR conducted class struggle with means of international media, exchange of culture, education and sports. International Communist Party provided effective avenue of influence as well.⁸ Both political, economical and social lines of operation was supported by projection of military power either for stability or for instability. The Communist Party in USSR did combine these lines of operation at strategical level with powerful effect.

In Vietnam War NVA and NLF launched an Tet -operation in 1968. It was unsuccessful on the line of military operation, but on the socio-political line of operation, probably unintended, it ended as a strategic victory by entering to living rooms in USA via television channels and breaking the will of the home front to continue military campaign. With opposing from home front, political leadership did not sustain and military withdrawing concluded by 1975.⁹

The western pact won the confrontation of “Cold War” mainly with successful operations along the lines of economy and politics. The home front of USSR broke because of mothers opposing casualties caused by lengthening war in Afghanistan and Party was failing in homeland economy. The political leadership gained valuable lessons at political-strategical level and combining different lines of operation to successful course of action, they got rid of old constraints in operational thinking. The military leaders in the other hand restricted their thinking against all the lessons of Sun Tzu and stovepiped themselves as weapon system managers at tactical level.

In so called International War on Terror, and specially, when US lead coalition conducted the Freedom Iraq operation in 2003, US lead military leaders learnt that opponent is able to adjust their operations and organisations. The opponent was good at analysing the strengths and weaknesses of the coalition and acted upon the findings as follows:

• guerilla operations were combined with conventional tactics,
• industrial and military products were integrated with COTS information technology to create more effect on physical and information level,
• propaganda was used to weaken both the will of fighting forces and the home front of coalition.

Iraq resistance changed their way of fighting both at strategical, operational and tactical level so that coalition force would suffer their weakness such as disability to sustain their operation or wage effective information operation in very different culture from their own.¹⁰

In all armed conflicts occurred after 1991, the most lethal weapons have been machete, AK-47 and suicidal bomb (In Rwanda almost a million people was killed within three months in 1994). Before 2005 the number of armed conflicts had declined 40% and the number of major conflicts (over 1 000 casualties) had dropped 80%. Only 5 % on all conflicts are wars between states.¹¹

2. Possible challenges in the confrontations of post-modern world

At political level a leader is moved by opinion of voters, opinion of other party members, opinion of major coalition partners and opinion of global society. The effectivity of those opinions has multiplied with modern, public, commercial media, who is competing for receivers attention emphasizing extraordinary, radical or negative news. The themes that go over the threshold of one´s attention are still heat, dread and grudge¹².

The liberation of global economics has increased after the fall of communist block in 2000 century. Economically speaking the earth is flat¹³, because knowledge work is not spatially restricted. Even the heavy fabrication industry is finding optimum between labour, taxation, energy, raw materials and logistics with fewer concerns of geographical or state borders.

A post-modern state is more interdependent of other states and their assets like energy, rare materials, capital, competence and labour. Capitalism separates good products from bad even faster than before with assistance of technology and information¹⁴. This enhanced separation process divides production structure either to small specialized companies or huge global organizations who are leaders of supply chains or near monopolist builders of business ecosystems. Products and their production structures do change faster compared to last century. So does requirements for competence and jobs. Companies are located more and more in cities, that grow to be metropolises, centroids of economy. These centroids are growing to be economically larger than states and thus more influential and more profitable targets for attacks.¹⁵

In western world social activity happens merely in metropolis where people are single, women are more educated than men, amount of working people is less than those of cared by society and more people are becoming marginalized from society.¹⁶ Changes in the essence of childhood are lessening our ability to create normal relationships with people. Need to be accepted is being satisfied in virtual world, where social and moral rules are more simple and may differ greatly from those of real world.¹⁷

Empty home, ritualistic religion and indistinct nationality are not able to bring people together like in the times of French Revolution, to possibly give their lives for greater needs of their society. The structure of social capital is changing significantly¹⁸, which increases the vulnerability of post-modern western individual, leaves him exposed to influence and in crises times more prone to seek security from authority. As this is happening in this world, there is another world, where 97% of people does not watch CNN and only one of five owns a television. That is a reality, where people are ready to even die for their religion, tribe, village, kin or their nucleus family.¹⁹

The armies of post-modern states are more professional, smaller and more technical. They are more interdependent of public and private companies that support them even in a space of operation. Long supply lines may cross borders and international dependence is a fact even with national army. With professional army soldiers and citizens seldomly interact. This may lead to separation between armed forces and the society it is supposed to secure, because fewer people do participate in defending their community. This alienation has happened for example during the last centuries of Roman Empire.²⁰

As weapon systems become more expensive, international co-operation between providers and military forces intensifies and that leads to similar tactics and battle technics of forces. Complexity requires more professional soldiers and increases interdependence between military and industry.²¹ Compared to Napoleonic Army Corps²² or WW II division which were hierarchically led independent forces, a post-modern force is a coalition of specialized military, non-governmental and civilian organizations, which creates a value driven chain. It is a process driven provider-subscriber network, that creates besides vertical also horizontal value. The management of this value adding network is based on information flow, trust and common understanding.²³

In the other world using violence is a business as usual for some people. With vast stocks of conventional weapons delivered from depots of cold war era, some people do continue tyrannize, blackmail and harass their fellow human beings.²⁴

In post-modern societies people may either lower their acceptance of military operation because it does not happen in their reality but news. In the other hand violence is not an everyday thing in their lives, so even a slight casualty may change the general opinion.

It might be easier to manipulate the thinking of public and politics of post-modern society because of their real world distance from violence.²⁵ In the other world it is more probable to face violence. Deaths of children and young people is considered natural. Those societies, on the other hand, are passively facing violence and then struggling with life.²⁶

A democratic leader of the post-modern society wants to share risks, gain gravity of positive public opinion and political will by creating multinational coalitions. Coalition also minimizes effects of complexity and expenses of war and gain positive ethos in front of public.

It is easier to political leader to send either employed or paramilitary people than draftees to operations with aims or methods difficult to justify to ordinary citizens. With information spreading globally without delay and media trying to produce most selling news of the day, the opinion of shareholders, neutrals and global media is effecting more in the space of operations. The public pressure is having impact specially on political decision making.²⁷

In the other world power is in the hands of different parties with divergent interests. There are warlords and chieftains, whose living is depending on armed violence. There are charismatic leaders, whose power is depending on continuation of confrontation and conflict.²⁸

The British military has adopted the following aspects on changes in conflicts as society evolves from industrial to post-modern as²⁹:

1. The means and aims in conflict are changing. Industrial societies were trying to destroy each others military forces. Post-modern societies try to utilize force to change the behaviour of opponent and other stake-holders.
2. At tactical level force is utilized amongst people. The space of operation includes houses of people, streets of cities and fields of farmers. The space of operations is extended into living rooms globally delivered by mass media.
3. Conflicts are often timeless and never ending. There seldom is a military line of operation leading to end state. With military means there is a possibility to gain and maintain conditions, that allow to proceed in other lines of operation to comprehensive solution.
4. Post-modern states are handling their confrontations sparing living force and securing their economical networks. They operate in a pressure of general opinion shaped by global media. They seldomly invest all their focus and resources to solve a confrontation.
5. Post-modern armies do use their existing weaponry, suffer from their restrictions but find new applications as they are utilized in modern space of operation.
6. In most cases the parties of conflict are not states, because either the argument over interests rises between smaller societies or internationally states want to create coalitions to minimize risks and gain positive ethos in the eyes of general opinion.

3. How to change the behaviour of opposing sides i.e. how to resolve conflicts of post-modern time

There is a need for both pre-emptive and reactive measures to change the behaviour of parties involved in post-modern confrontations and conflicts. It takes comprehensive³⁰ effort along all four lines of operations (political, economical, social and military) to change the opposing interactive structure of political leadership, population and force as defined by Clausewitz. The combined operations do create an effect on physical or on information level from where it is projected to cognitive level amongst all shareholders and stakeholders of conflict. Information, knowledge and experience together creates understanding or feeling on the cognitive level. Only understanding or emotions make individual or society to change their behaviour.³¹

The physical level is familiar to all generations of warfare. On the physical level a force of material, people and movement is being utilized. On this level one also meets a friction caused by environment, weather or malfunctioning systems. On the physical level casualties are suffered concretely. The military dimensions of physical level are ground, sea, air, space, electromagnetic waves, cyberspace and time.³²

Those events or features on physical level, that are sensed by human or other sensors, create information. Information can be delivered to other entities by means of communication. A piece of information in an information or communications system is called data. Information is being processed, delivered and saved either in cyber domain, human brains or other media.

Communication between entities occur on information level and often it has a nature of interaction. Information answers to questions like: what, where, when or who. Information is a raw material, which is being refined to knowledge for humans and artificial intelligence to understand.

A information created by real world event is being interpreted along a long line of communication and information processing on the information level to a meaning. That line is not always linear, so the meaning may be true, untrue or delusion. Information is being packed to mediums (audio, picture, text, video, etc.) and packing process loses or distorts information. Mediums are being forwarded through channels (massmedia, Internet, conversation, clipboards, information systems and other means) that are not linear. When information is delivered via interaction of human beings, there is always ethos and pathos, which effect on how information is understood.³³ Between machines there is often an interface to adapt information between different ontologies, data models or message models. That interface may loose information, change its meaning or add noise.

On the cognitive³⁴ level human thinking is processing information and knowledge to understanding, which is one of the basis for insight and foresight.³⁵ Cognitive level includes also believes, feelings, values and will. The questions being answered are why and what comes out of this. Decisions are being made on this level with a mixture of logical and emotional deduction or realization. Tacit -knowledge is also cumulating on the cognitive level³⁶.

In all action, communication and thinking is happening over the physical, information and cognitive levels as interaction between entities and environment. Societies (family, groups, organizations, states, nations) interact between each other socially and economically. There has been political and military interaction between industrial states, but those means have expanded even between entities like interest groups and insurgents during post-modern era.

In a confrontation between post-modern societies all means of social, economical, political and military are being used on the physical and information levels in order to create a meaning on cognitive level thus change the behavior of opposing individuals, groups or societies. While effecting to opposing entity, the understanding and behavior of other stakeholders and bystanders within the space of operation are also targeted. To create an effect one has to have interaction on one or several lines of operation: social, economical, political or military.

On the social line of operation there is possible to execute following tasks:

1. Found a plinth that enables higher level interaction by providing basic nutrition; founding schools to advance literacy; founding religious buildings, shops, markets and wells; training police forces, search and rescue forces and health care personnel.
2. Ameliorate structures for higher social interaction and necessities by supporting open gatherings and independent media, building the integrity of society with religious events or sports and educating teachers, officials and journalists.
3. Contain and restrict inter- and intra-action societies within the operations space by denying usage of media, gatherings, movement outside or by censoring the content in interaction situations or restricting the usage of communications and Internet.

On the economical line of operation there is possible to execute following tasks:

1. Ameliorate economy by providing loans or investing, giving bilateral priorities for commerce, forgiving loans or their interests, donating production lines or other facilities, importing advertise, importing shops of friendly chains.

2. Contain economy of the society subject by manipulating its currency, lowering its credit rating, freezing foreign assets of the society or its key personnel, building up export duties, banning commerce of key products, restricting importation of energy or raw material.

3. Prevent or Force economy by creating commerce or economical blockades, freezing international assets or investments, occupying key companies, cutting energy supplies or foodstuff, hold up society to execute their basic professions by tampering with irritation, energy, commerce, fertilizers, etc. Removing population away from the opponents eminent area of operations and support.

On the political line of operation there is possible to execute following tasks:

1. Ameliorate the societies in the space of operations by supporting democratic elections, opening media channels to every interest group, supporting creating associates or congregating, educating party and administrations officials, exchanging of cultural events and values, exchanging of entertainment or sports.

2. Contain or pressure the societies in the space of operations by giving disapproval statements, publishing diplomatic missives, creating political alliance for diplomatic pressure, seeking condemning resolutions from international bodies, starting to bargain about requirements and their fulfilment, Creating untrust between society and its key personnel by publishing embarrassing information, supporting opponents opponents in their quest.

3. Deter or Coerce the societies in the space of operations by seeking condemning resolutions from international bodies, summoning to international justice, terminating contracts, severing diplomatic relations.

On the military line of operation there is possible to execute following tasks:³⁷

1. Ameliorate societies in the area of operations with military force by building infrastructure, ensuring police, border and SAR -services, educating, training and mentoring local societies, supervising the stabilized situation. Examples like UNIFIL, UNFICYP, UNMOGIP.

2. Contain with military force by supporting other lines of operation with surveillance (no fly zones, ban of arms), enhancing local police and frontier guard to prevent illegal passage, using military intelligence to support other lines of operation. Examples like adhering no-fly zones over Iraq, tasks in the beginning of Libya operation 2011.

3. Deter or Coerce with military force the opposing society to create a threshold that would keep opponent at bay or change its behavior in other lines of operation. Examples like deterrence of Cold War, Operation Desert Shield in 1990, Estonian bronze warrior episode with massive DDOS -attack in 2007.

4. Destroy the opponents assets or centers of gravity like C2 structure, production of basic goods, infrastructure or military power in order to achieve end of state together with other lines of operation. Examples like Falkland war 1982, Desert Strom operation 1990 – 1991.

The operation is planned to achieve the end of state by using means from all lines of operation. After analysis and war gaming a course of action will be defined and operation starts. Operation is a series of parallel and consecutive tasks that are effecting either on physical or on information level. The aim is to have definite effect on cognitive level and change behavior of opposing society and their leaders. Confrontation, conflicts and operations are managed at four levels: political, strategical, operational and tactical. These levels intertwine through space of operation and occasion at one level may have major affect on others.³⁸

Reference:

1General Carl von Clausewitz: On War. Translated by Col J.J. Graham 1909

2General Rupert Smith: The Utility of Force. Vintage 2008 ISBN 978-0-307-27811-1

3General Rupert Smith: The Utility of Force. Vintage 2008 ISBN 978-0-307-27811-1

4Matti Nojonen: Jymäyttämisen taito. Strategiaoppeja muinaisesta Kiinasta. Gaudeamus 2009 s.28

5Geoffrey Roberts: Stalin´s Wars. Yale University Press 2006 s. 33

6Geoffrey Roberts: Stalin´s Wars. Yale University Press 2006 s.12

7Geoffrey Roberts: Stalin´s Wars. Yale University Press 2006 s.10

8Jukka Seppinen: Neuvostotiedustelu Suomessa 1917 – 1991 Strategia ja toiminta. Gummerus 2006 s.269

9General Rupert Smith: The Utility of Force. Vintage 2008 ISBN 978-0-307-27811-1

10ARMY TRADOC Pam 525-3-0: The Army Capstone Concept (ACC) 2009

11General David Richards, Greg Mills Ed.: Victory among People, Lessons from Countering Insurgency and

Stabilising Fragile States

12Pauli Aalto-Setälä: Merkitystalous. Helsinki 2005 ISBN 951-607-261-5

13Thomas L. Friedman: The World is Flat. Globalized World in The Twenty-First Century. Penguin 2006

14Kjell A. Nordström: Speaking at Elisa seminar in Helsinki 2010

15Peter Gordon et al: Economic impact analysis using a model of consistent interregional economic and highway network equilibria. University of Southern California.

16Kjell A. Nordström: Speaking in Elisa seminar Helsinki 2010

17Liisa Keltikangas-Järvinen: Tunne itsesi, suomalainen. 9.painos WSOY 2010

18Putnam R.D: Bowling alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon&Schuster 2000

19Pauli Aalto-Setälä: Merkitystalous. Helsinki 2005 ISBN 951-607-261-5

20Adrian Goldsworthy: In the name of Rome. The men who won the Empire. Lennart Sane Agency 2003

21Janne Mälkki, Risto Marjomaa, Jyri Raitasalo, Tero Karasjärvi, Joonas Sipilä: Sodan historia. Otava 2008 ISBN 978-951-1-21885-2

22Dunn-Pattison R.P: Napoleon´s Marshals. Methuen&Co, London 1909

23Seppo Niemelä: Menestyvä yritysverkosto. Edita 2002 ISBN 951-37-3648-2

24John Keegan: A History of Warfare. Vintage Books 1994

25Janne Mälkki, Risto Marjomaa, Jyri Raitasalo, Tero Karasjärvi, Joonas Sipilä: Sodan historia. Otava 2008 ISBN 978-951-1-21885-2

26John Keegan: A History of Warfare. Vintage Books 1994

27Janne Mälkki, Risto Marjomaa, Jyri Raitasalo, Tero Karasjärvi, Joonas Sipilä: Sodan historia. Otava 2008 ISBN 978-951-1-21885-2

28Col Kenneth Allard: Somalia Operations: Lessons Learned. CCRP

29General Rupert Smith: The Utility of Force. Vintage 2008 ISBN 978-0-307-27811-1

30NATO agreed 2010 that ”Comprehensive Approach” -concept will create a foundation of their strategy. Comprehensive Approach means that Diplomatic, Informational, Military, Economic elements (DIME) are being used jointly and combined at strategical and operational level to achieve the end state in a conflict.

31DoD: Network Centric Warfare. Department of Defense Report to Congress 27 July 2001. (www.dodccrp.org)

32Colin S. Gray: Another Bloody Century – Future Warfare. Phoenix 2005 ISBN 0-3043-6734-6

33Pauli Aalto-Setälä: Merkitystalous. Helsinki 2005 ISBN 951-607-261-5

34Cognition: the act or process of knowing including both awareness and judgement. Webster´s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 1983

35UK Joint doctrine publication 04: Understanding. Development, concepts and doctrine Centre, December 2010

36Tacit -knowledge: born from experiences, effecting in all human behavior, sometimes even subconsciously.

37General Rupert Smith: The Utility of Force. Vintage 2008 ISBN 978-0-307-27811-1

38A single unwise tactical move by a soldier on patrol can instantly change the character of an entire operation and, when broadcast by the ever-present media pool, can also affect strategic considerations. Col, PhD Kenneth Allard: The Somalia Operation: Lessons Learned. CCRP