Understanding at Tempo
Join the discussion or just get in touch
The Blurring of Lines and the Rise of the Social Opponent
The new lines have been draw, but they are blurred
The terrible circumstances unfolding on the Polish Belarus border represent the re-defining of modern conflict. The new ways of war are not new, they have been developed over the past decade after studying the West's vulnerabilities and the power of social influence. The UK Chief of the Defence Staff could not have said it better when he stated,
" These attacks on our way of life from authoritarian rivals and extremist ideologies are remarkably difficult to defeat without undermining the very freedoms we want to protect. We are exposed through our openness."
He goes further to suggest that,
"Their strategy of ‘political warfare’ is designed to undermine cohesion, to erode economic, political and social resilience, and to compete for strategic advantage in key regions of the world."
We have been aware of the power of social manipulation, we have seen this power manifest on our streets and on our social media feeds... we can even see it in the broadsheets and more traditional media outlets. But what we are seeing in Poland now is the development of this sub-threshold threat and pursuance of political end state through other (non-violent) means. Moreover, we are seeing an erosion of the reliance of a NATO nation, which if proven to be belligerent, could trigger article 3 of the NATO treaty or worse.
Is our ability to Understand at Tempo an opponent in a sub-threshold environment matched by our desire to compete in a Multi Domain Operation against a near peer adversary? Are we chasing mythical dragons on distant shores when we should be confronting the illusionists on our doorstep?
The Social Opponent
Civilians have often been used by nations as methods to confuse conflict. Human shields were recently used in Iraq even though they were declared illegal under International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
The term “human shields” describes a method of warfare prohibited by IHL where the presence of civilians or the movement of the civilian population, whether voluntary or involuntary, is used in order to shield military objectives from attack, or to shield, favor or impede military operations.
But when does a non-combatant human become something more?
When does the mass migration into an area become more than people wanting a better life and become a threat to the fabric of that nation... when does migration become a national security issue?
This is an horrific question and one that confounds our liberal sensitivities. I, for one, am disgusted by the notion of viewing a migrant as anything other than someone with a valid social grievance that we should do our best to support and resolve. However, this moral and ethical high ground is the very weakness that our opponent exploits.
"Where we see morals, ethics and values as a centre of gravity, authoritarian rivals see them as an attractive target".
It is this weakness that is now being exploited by nations wishing to destabilise others. As a liberal democracy, we hold high our freedoms and rights. How ironic it is, that in order to defeat a threat like targeted, manipulated migration, we must throw away human rights and deny mothers, fathers and children the right to a live free of persecution. If a nation is aggressive toward the (manipulated) migration or National leadership appears authoritarian we erode the essence of liberal democracy. If we do not deter the migrants, the influx may stress infrastructure and lead to cultural, racial and social fracture lines in a society. It is a lose, lose scenario for a liberal democracy.
Article 3
“In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.”
This article leave some interpretation and a degree of ambiguity. To start at the end, the article states 'armed attack', presumably meaning military confrontation. Is this still relevant now, is this clause a weakness that can be exploited: afterall, if I attack unarmed, is it still contrary to article 3? This may seem like semantics, but any reason for debate and disagreement will slow the decision making process, particularly if decisions need to be made by a multi-national coalition. If the decision making process can be made ineffective through confusion, then the opponent's objective has been achieved.
The article also defines the need to a nation to maintain it's ability to resist. This is resilience and national resilience is a fragile thing.
Sub-threshold attacks are designed to be unattributable and invisible, they are designed to attack the fabric of a person and a nation. They are the metaphoric water torture, the
mentally painful process in which cold water is slowly dripped onto the scalp, forehead or face for a prolonged period of time. The process causes fear and mental deterioration in the subject. The pattern of the drops is often irregular, and the cold sensation jarring, which causes anxiety as a person tries to anticipate the next drip.
What happens if a nation loses the capacity to resist attack, what if the attack comes in the form of an orchestrated general (democratic) election? How can we monitor the resilience of a nation if we are not permitted to monitor the resilience of a nation? How do we know if we cannot resist?
Summary
The activity on the Polish/Belarusian border epitomises fifth generation conflict and raises serious questions about NATOs drive for near peer competition in the Multi Domain Environment when we are not competing on our doorstep. We need to acknowledge that the cognitive domain, or human domain, in the words of Dr Reilly is the "Ultimate Domain"... it is a war fighting domain in which we are woefully ill-equipped to compete.
The new mission space lines have been drawn, but is a manner that renders them difficult to define. The line between peace and war is now more blurred than ever. Warfare has migrated to the grey zone, we know this and yet we do not compete, we over react when it is too late and appear desperate and draconian. We are losing.
Humans have always been the purpose of war, we seem to have lost our way and believe that simply having the biggest stick is important. Sticks cannot beat the migrants to submission, sticks cannot convince your population that you are right: empathy within the cognitive domain will.
In order to engage empathically you need understanding across all 3 domains but importantly int he cognitive. ISR is the critical capability for these sub-threshold problems as ISR delivers Understanding at Tempo that enables information advantage and supports decision dominance. Without the ability to understand we are but voices in the wind.
The Way Forward
The intelligence and ISR communities need to be able to find the 'smoking gun'. In the case of Poland, that is the link between the migrants and Belarusian government and a further link to Moscow. This link needs to be communicable and it needs to be undeniable. Whist these seem like significant challenges, and they are, the most difficult issue presented in this scenario is the target itself; a civilian population. In the UK it is illegal to collect information on a civilian unless there is just cause and a legal warrant. To collect on the migrants is suggesting that they have less rights than those of other citizens, which is obviously not the case. But, without collect you cannot create understanding: another catch 22 issue. To make things worse, the opponent is manipulating migration for a reason, perhaps to undermine a government or to stress resilience. The only way to measure the impact of ht opponent's actions is through the surveillance of the domestic population, and in the post Snowdon world, that is inconceivable.
As an ISR specialist company, 360iSR has developed training to introduce audiences to sub-threshold problems such as state sponsored charities, social media influencers and manipulated public protest. We demonstrate and debate the best methods to develop understanding in the grey zone and prepare organisations to meet the fundamental real world challenges that need to be understood and addressed if ithey want to complete in the contemporary mission space.
360iSR goes beyond the doctrinal books to develop concepts for contemporary ISR operations.
Not only do we prepare your team to fight now, we also prepare to fight next.
360iSR | Understanding at Tempo
