Modern Agile Conflict
This is an abridged version of a paper on Modern Agile Conflict presented to the Univeristy of Bahrain's Sustainability and Resilience Conference on 14th October 2018. The full paper can be found either on my Researchgate page or in the upcoming Conference Proceedings.
The Hardened Organisation Revisited
An Introduction to Modern Agile Conflict
Dr Maitland Hyslop
University of Northumbria/University of Bahrain
14 October 2018
‘War is the continuation of politics by other means,’ Von Clausewitz (1831)
Abstract
In the early 2010s Disaster, Development and Resilient thinkers looked again at how organisations could be sustained in either preparation for, or reaction to, events. This led to a number of new concepts including that of ‘Hardening the Organisation’. This paper reflects on those developments and charts the thinking that led to ‘Hardening’. However, time has moved on and many more threats both weaponised and non-weaponsied have come to the fore to challenge both state and non- state actors. This paper suggests there is a need for a new and original term, Modern Agile Conflict. It explains why this term is required. It gives examples of such conflict. A comprehensive Bibliography is included to catalogue the wide thinking sourced to come to the conclusion, as well as reference the work.
Background
Angell, N, (1909) in ‘The Great Illusion’ argued that the illusion was that nations gained by armed confrontation, militarism, war, or conquest. In ‘Britain in the Century of Total War’ Marwick (1968) argued much the opposite. Both these authors lived in a different world where armed conflict was looked at, in the first instance, as a danger to nation states and in the second as a potential benefit to some nation states. The generals and staffs of nation states, then and now, have always been good at ‘fighting the last war better’, Dixon (1976). The 20th Century was dominated by ideas about the effect of warfare between nation states. It also appeared to be true that the military mind did not easily convert to new forms of warfare and conflict. (Nor would you want them to in most situations). (Dixon and Dixon, 2011) There was also an acceptance that armed conflict was something of a norm once the pursuit of political ends by other means had yielded little result.
However, by the beginning of the 21st Century things began to change. In ‘Hope is Not a Method’ General Gordon Sullivan (1996) introduces his subject by saying ‘over the past fifteen years, it has become increasingly clear that America’s ‘command and control’ management is not sufficiently agile.’ He started a debate on the networked and information battlefield. Angell, I, (1995) and Donnelly (2001) (2003) were each concerned about changes in business and country response, the impact of information security, new challenges and the need for balancing security requirements. These commentators, it could be argued, started a debate about information conflict and warfare - and foretold the start of other conflicts; not necessarily between nation states and not necessarily armed. Twenty years later the debate goes on, with Donnelly (2016) commenting that the West needs a wartime response to meet today’s challenges. These respected individuals (and there are others) have called, often time and again, for a change in our approach to both conflict and war.
In the author’s own writings (Hyslop, 2007, 2013) he has documented the move from a USA driven ‘Christian – Military Complex’ to a USA driven ‘Christian – Information Complex’ where agility between the traditional and new cyber warfare techniques is required both defensively and offensively. More recently (Hyslop, 2013, 2014a and 2014b) he has written about ‘Obstructive Marketing’ and ‘Cyber Hazards in Society’ and how traditional, cyber and asymmetric warfare have moved into the business arena and society’s communication media. This in turn demands a new approach to resilience from business and people. The partnership between business and state, at least in the West, has become a new necessity to control conflict within and between state and non-state actors (including individuals) that threaten the West – although the need for such a partnership is not always recognised.
Now the news media is full of ‘fake’ news and has become a protagonist and antagonist in the war between state and non- state actors, there are new types of diplomatic discussions (Trump, Twitter Daily) and there is the continued decline in the cultural, political and military influence of the West over the East.
The fifth estate has followed land, air, sea, space, cyberspace, and business as an arena for conflict between and within state and non-state actors. This is likely to develop further and as the Internet of Things, Robotics (Soft and Hard), Nanotechnology, Artificial Intelligence, Genetics all develop apace, whilst the political structures and law lag behind in terms of development, then the scope for non-armed conflict, in the traditional sense, increases. Because they control more of a state than not, then dictatorships and quasi-dictatorships may have more success in such a new conflict arena – as do the leaders of major corporations in the west, and east.
In terms of defining what this new conflict scenario is like and giving it a name the term ‘hybrid warfare’ has often been used. For example:
The NATO Review (Van Puyvelde, 2016) discusses the term ‘hybrid warfare’,
‘This appeared at least as early as 2005 and was subsequently used to describe the strategy used by the Hezbollah in the 2006 Lebanon War. Since then, the term “hybrid” has dominated much of the discussion about modern and future warfare, to the point where it has been adopted by senior military leaders and promoted as a basis for modern military strategies.
The gist of the debate is that modern adversaries make use of conventional/unconventional, regular/irregular, overt/covert means, and exploit all the dimensions of war to combat the Western superiority in conventional warfare. Hybrid threats exploit the “full-spectrum” of modern warfare; they are not restricted to conventional means.
In practice, any threat can be hybrid as long as it is not limited to a single form and dimension of warfare. When any threat or use of force is defined as hybrid, the term loses its value and causes confusion instead of clarifying the “reality” of modern warfare.’
As the last sentence implies the current terms mentally restrict the range of avenues available to state and non- state actors. Hybrid is strictly a combination of 2 things…not more…although it is being used to describe more than two in this context. It would be helpful to have some new approaches to both terminology and conflicts.
Context
Introduction
Traditionally war is armed conflict. Conflict is a serious disagreement or argument, typically a protracted one. Current conflicts are clearly not always armed, indeed often not armed at all, so the term warfare is increasingly and pedantically inappropriate.
In the treatises of Sun Tsu, Machiavelli, and Von Clausewitz there is both a tacit and explicit understanding that where conventional means of warfare are not working then new forms of ‘winning’ conflicts must be deployed.
Sun Tzu’ agile warfare (Koyvalyov, 2013) is explained thus:
‘Agile Warfare Manifesto: 500BC
· Winning over Fighting;
· Victory over Lengthy Campaigns;
· Instant Advantages over Long deliberations;
· Knowing The Enemy and Yourself over being A Hero;
· Responding To Change over Obeying orders;
· Energy of the Mass over Individual Impact;
· Strong against Weak over Strong against Strong;
· Deal with the Big as with Small. Split beforehand.’
Booz and Company (2013) discuss the agility factor in business and quote Machiavelli:
‘Niccolò Machiavelli’s insight is as relevant today as it was in the 15th century: “Whosoever desires constant success must change his conduct with the times.”’
In on war Clausewitz (1831) the idea of mental flexibility in terms of both strategy and tactics is raised; and this is consistent with agility.
Agility is therefore not a new conflict term and certainly these historical strategists would intellectually and practically recognise new forms of conflict as an adjunct to their own views on the subject.
Today conflicts can be: armed, unarmed, nuclear (armed and unarmed), chemical (armed and unarmed), biological (armed and unarmed), cyber, diplomatic, espionage, information, media, conventional, asymmetric, hybrid, total, restricted, regional or targeted etc.
This movement from one form of conflict (armed or otherwise) to another form of winning a conflict is agility deployed. There is a need for a better term in the modern conflict arena between state and non- state actors than, for example: ‘hybrid warfare’.
Non- state actors are increasingly important even within the major democracies. This is a relatively recent trend which additionally needs some further exploration.
Thus the terms modern ( as in up-to-date), agile (as in being able to not only move quickly and easily, but also to move between different strategic and operational vectors, as well as in the agile project management and software development sense); conflict (as in, to be brief, a serious disagreement or argument, typically a protracted one.) would seem to be a reasonable one to use in the new context.
In previous work (Hyslop, 2013) the author began working toward the idea of Modern Agile Conflict. Recent context looks something like this, and this is the arena in which Modern Agile Conflict takes place:
· Politically: The support of ‘Christian Values’ – shorthand for the values of the North and West as defined by the Protestant and Catholic countries in that geography, Islam in the Middle East;
· Militarily: Asymmetric Military Balance (or the see-saw theory) (both new terms, original to the earlier work) – a shorthand for the process that sees a large power come to terms with a much smaller force and the balance of actions between both that arrive at some sort of equilibrium;
· Economic: The Sustainable Economy – shorthand for an economic environment sustainable from a variety of perspectives over the long term in a Capitalist system;
· Social: Social Cohesion – shorthand for a society that clearly operates together;
· Technology: Physical and Virtual Balance – shorthand for an environment where physical and virtual technologies work together in a complementary manner as they largely do in the North and West;
· Environmental: Balanced Earth – shorthand for ensuring an approach to the use of resources that is sustainable over the long term;
· Legal: Internet and International Law Guidelines – shorthand for a legal environment acceptable to all.
Organised Crime takes advantage of gaps, disconnects and disruptions. Associated with attempts to stop organisations doing what they wish to do, Globalisation in particular, is ‘Obstructive Marketing’. This is also associated with the Asymmetric Military Balance. Underpinning all actions and reactions is Information and Information Technology. Information and the means by which it is transmitted are fundamental to sustaining ‘the western way of life’ in all PMESTEL fields of endeavour, and also fundamental to the anti-theses of these. This thinking introduces the ‘Christian-Military-Information’ complex, a new term and original to the work.
Thus the overall recent context model is concerned with the themes of:
· Political: Democracy and Fundamentalism;
· Military: Effects-based Operations and Asymmetric Reactions;
· Economic: Globalisation and ‘Obstructive Marketing’;
· Social: Dissonance and Resilience;
· Technical: Virtual and Non-Virtual (Technophobes);
· Environmental: The Green Agenda, and Commodity Greed;
· Legal: International Law and the Stateless.
These are the suggested main theses and anti-theses that apply to recent global context.
These can also represent different ends of spectra. In each it is proposed that there is an optimal point along the spectrum that organisations should seek that would put them in the best position to operate. A context position for a ‘Hardened’ organisation to operate against therefore becomes apparent. These positions are important to the ‘Hardened’ organisation; and are crucial themes in today’s world. This approach is summarised by the ‘Godfearing’ model. As individual contexts can be interpreted as spectra, they suggest that rather than a hierarchical model to business continuity and resilience the real approach to business continuity should also be a spectrum.
The idea for the ‘Godfearing’ model first arose during a presentation made by Hyslop & Royds (2008). They discussed the military parallel of Hyslop’s political and economic themes: and the result was a new view of Globalisation, ‘Obstructive Marketing’, Democracy, Fundamentalism, Effects-based Operations and Asymmetric Warfare or ‘Godfear’ for short; if the capitals of each word are used to create an acronym. Other themes have since been added by the author since and will be described here, which, with the addition of International Law, creates ‘Godfearing’.They represent the key areas of context, together with the backdrops of Organised Crime, Information Technology and the new relative positions of the North, West and South and East of the world.
Context In 2018
Context in 2018 has moved on again. Now the impact of the press, social media, fake news, deception is writ large in the international conflict arena. This gives pause for thought as to whether the ideas delivered above (Hyslop, 2014) are relevant any longer.
They are a route to the issues that face us today, but as little as four years later possibly out of date. The new world where the international state actors no longer agree on international law, flout traditional diplomatic courtesies, kill with impunity on each other’s sovereign territory then use PR agents to spin a different story, use ballet directors to move the international chess pieces in a co-ordinated fashion, and resort to social media as states and non-states to determine election results and news in their favour is a rapid development of the ideas above. So much so that terms such as Asymmetric Military Balance may be out of date already.
The models used to describe context now need revision in the light of the new realties.
Definition of Modern Agile Conflict
The first consequence of this revision in thought is a new definition for conflict. This is clearly needed.
The new term is Modern Agile Conflict.
Modern Agile Conflict may be defined as the separate or concurrent flexible use of different aspects of power by state or non-state actors to their advantage in breach of laws.
Power is now defined (not exclusively) politically, militarily, diplomatically, economically, socially (Including print and virtual media), technologically (including cyber and nano), environmentally (including resources), legally, personally.
The Elements of Modern Agile Conflict
The elements of Modern Agile Conflict are varied. If we just look at what has happened over recent months and recent years (this is September 2018) the following are events in the public domain that constitute an element or elements of Modern Agile Conflict.
Armed Modern Agile Conflict
Conventional
Russia invades Ukraine.
Nuclear
North Korea tests nuclear weapons, and carries out tests of ballistic missiles.
Biological
Ex-spies killed with nerve agent in the UK.
Civilians killed with nerve agent in the UK.
Chemical
Chemical gas used in Syria.
Space
Despite secrecy around their plans, Russia has been vocal with warnings space will be the next arena of battle between nations. Viktor Bondarev, former Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air and Space Forces, said in 2017 all future wars would involve the use of space weapons and the conflict of Syria was helping Putin's regime to develop new technology.
Cyber (?)
It is a moot point whether cyber attacks are weapons in the sense of a rifle or a tank. However, when directed at Critical National Infrastructure they can certainly disable infrastructure and, at worst, kill people.
Unarmed Modern Agile Conflict
Space
The use of satellites and manned craft in space for non-peaceful purposes seems to be increasing.
Cyber
Cyber is a tool of choice for disruption. This is exemplified by the 'Wannacry' and other ransomware attacks as well as the myriad data breaches occurring these days.
Print Journalism
Think of the 'Washington Post' and 'New York Times', 'The Guardian' in terms of holding power to account; and the antagonism this provokes from political and other leaders.
TV and On Line Journalism
As in print we can look at Fox and CNN as two sides of a TV journalism coin. Al Jazeera and other channels have been banned or curtailed in different parts of the world. The major bastions such as the BBC, Voice of America, France 24 – are all accused of bias (sometimes true)..
Op ed and Advertising
The unattributed op-ed piece in the Washington Post against Trump; the spending by different political parties on a political agenda. These are not necessarily new, but they are heightened.
Social Media (Direct)
The direct use of social media to influence politics has clearly risen.
Social Media (Indirect)
The indirect use of social media, as evidenced by the data captured by Cambridge Analytica for the 2016 USA and UK campaigns, has increased. Steps are now being taken to control this.
Finance
According to Gordon Brown, the former UK Prime Minister, the world is currently lurching towards another financial crisis. This will undo all the progress made in the last ten years, and further increase inequality in the world.
The Internet of Things
The Internet of Things is becoming pervasive. It is a route for malfeasance in the cyber world.
Robotics (Soft and Hard)
Hard robots can be remotely re-programmed, soft robots can contain malicious code. These political and corporate challenges need to be both understood and met.
Nanotechnology
The rate of development for nanotechnology is staggering. This technology is , once again, a threat and great potential benefit to humankind. However, it is a tool than can be exploited for both good and bad.
Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence improves by the day. It promises great advances. It is also a potential source of disruption in society of itself, or if controlled by aggressive political or corporate opponents.
Genetics
Genetics can modify and mutate animals, insects and plants in ways that were unhear dof a decade ago.
International Structures
Western Democratic Politics
Western democratic politics have been under a sustained attack from Russia and elsewhere by means that characterise Modern Agile Conflict.
International Law
International Law, as evidenced by the recent Trump and African savaging of the International Criminal Court, and the use of chemical weapons in Syria, is continuously under threat.
Why Dictatorships May Win More With Modern Agile Conflict
Dictatorships, either political or corporate, will be more effective in this Modern Agile Conflict era. Decision making is streamlined by definition, so they will dictate and execute policy far faster than democracies, as will corporates with poor governance structures.
Summary
Since subject experts and thinkers moved from business continuity to resilience to hardening processes and procedures to protect organisations from harm the world has moved on again. The new world has many new challenges for organisations. The term Modern Agile Conflict is used to describe the myriad threats now faced. These threats are described in brief; and some short implications given. Such is the range of new threats that the whole discipline of sustainability and resilience has to face a great many new challenges and must therefore come up with new forms of defence. These new defences are not described. They need further development and research. However, in order to further harden organisations it is clear that new techniques must be developed.
Conclusion
This paper identifies a new form of challenge to state and non-state organisations: Modern Agile Conflict. As a consequence, the sustainability and resilience community needs to determine new defences to counter the new threats in an extension of the previous ‘Hardening’ concept. This defence means a different type of 'Hardened' organisation. This orgnaisation needs to be tensile. 'The Tensile Organisation'.
The terms 'Modern Agile Conflict' and 'The Tensile Organisation' are copyright Maitland Hyslop, but can be freely used in context . This abridged paper is copyright Maitland Hyslop, University of Bahrain and University of Northumbria.