Revolution in Military Affairs - 1990 up to the Present

Revolution In Military Affairs - 1990 upto the presentTransformation of world society and state through worldwide militaryrevolution

NetCentricTruther

Keywords: Revolution In Military Affairs, Net-Centric Warfare, Net-Centric Oper-ations, Weapons Of Mass Effect, Effects-Based Operations, Sense-and-Respond, Co-operative 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 Rums-feld, Arthur K. Cebrowski, Thomas M. Barnett, Alvin Toffler, Michel Foucault, GillesDeleuze, Conflict Short Of War, Military Operations Other Than War, Noncombat-ant Evacuation Operations, Panopticon, Social Networking, Office Of Force Transfor-mation, Blue Force Tracking, Data Mining, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Smart Meter, FullSpectrum Dominance, Cybersecurity, Energy Efficiency, PositiveID, Radio FrequencyIdentification (RF ID), Asymmetrical Warfare, Asymmetric Threat, Counterinsur-gency, 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. Aslittle as possible is left to the author’s own interpretation of the facts.

Contents

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

I Transition to the 21st century 32 From the industrial age to the information age . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.1 Alvin Toffler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.2 Andrew Marshall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.3 Samuel Huntington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.4 Other noteworthy writers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1

2

II Revolution In Military Affairs / Conflict Short Of War 93 Network-Centric Warfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.1 Information/Sensor/Engagement Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.2 Sense & Respond (S&R) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.2.0.1 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133.3 Effects-Based Operations / Shock And Awe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.3.1 Shock And Awe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163.3.2 Observe, Orient, Decide and Act - OODA Loop . . . . . . . . . 183.3.3 Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) . . . . . . . . . . . 19

III Implementation of the RMA 193.4 9/10/2001 - War on Pentagon Bureaucracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 Privatization of the intelligence agencies/military contractors . . . . . 244.1 In-Q-Tel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244.2 Blackwater USA/Blackwater Worldwide/Xe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264.3 Keyhole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 Rollout of the ’Global Information Grid’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275.1 The role of IPv6 within the GiG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285.2 The adversary and the archetype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5.2.1 Asymmetric threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305.2.1.1 Data mining/clusters/social networks . . . . . . . . . 31

5.2.1.1.1 Social Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325.2.1.1.2 Datamining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335.2.1.1.3 Threat inference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

IV The result of the ongoing Revolution in Military Affairs 356 Private sector in the information age enabled by the RMA . . . . . . . 406.1 Governing of intellectual ’ideas’ - and rights pertaining to these ’ideas’ 406.2 Utilisation of the ’Sensor/Information Grid’ by the private Sector . . . 41

V Next step for the RMA - Transhumanism/Singularity 417 Utopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437.1 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448 Dystopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449 Start of transhumanism (Application within the RMA) . . . . . . . . . 45

VI Evil in the RMA 4510 Dehumanization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5010.1 Dehumanization of war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5010.2 Dehumanization of the person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5110.3 Dehumanization of surveillance and intelligence gathering . . . . . . . 53

VII Explanation of concepts 5411 Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

1 Synopsis 3

VIII References 55Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

1 Synopsis

• The Global Information Grid and the Internet of Things are computernetwork-related and are completely dependent on IPv6 as the underlyingprotocol.

• The ’Internet of Things’ will engulf the entire Planet - a so-called ’ObjectNaming Service’ will take on the role of DNS-server so that all these’things’ can be identified by uniquely addressable, human-comprehensiblenames.

• Network-centric warfare is codified by a three-layered network, consistingof a ’sensor grid’, an ’information grid’, and an ’engagement grid’. Usersaccess this network by way of C4ISR-systems (C4ISR stands for Com-mand, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillanceand Reconnaissance - it is a military buzzword that can be accuratelysummarized as referring to a shared ’network’ where practically every-body within the Defense Department all communicate to each other with,allowing them to jointly execute and co-ordinate missions. The biggestdifference between earlier iterations of the same systems - C2, C3I - is thecentral role that ’computers’ now play within that systematic process)

• Almost all of the technology that is being purpose-made for the ’Revo-lution In Military Affairs’ is being spearheaded by ongoing technologicaldevelopments within the ICT private sector - ’sense and respond’ at thesame time allows for a new supply chain for both business affairs as wellas those of war. A precedent can be found in the utilization of Opera-tions Research and Game Theory in general - Operations Research wasa shared doctrine between the Allied Forces during World War II beforebeing widely adopted as a business doctrine worldwide.

• The ’Revolution in Military Affairs’ is inextricably linked to the ongoingtransition to the ’information age’. The ’information age’ is driven firstand foremost by computers - ’content’ and ’information’ is now king, andthis, it is argued, will change the entire fabric and social stratification ofsociety.

1 Synopsis 4

Fig. 1: "Screenshot courtesy of the presentation - "Data Fusion in Tomorrow’sNetwork-Centric Warfare"[26] - a comparison is made between a ’digi-tal immigrant’ and a ’digital native’. Everyone born before 1985 is forall intents and purposes classified as an ’old world fossil’ according toFred Stein of MITRE Corporation. This is because he has not grownup within a net-centric environment, meaning - he was not raised in aworld where one’s first source of information is Google instead of visit-ing your local library - he has not been raised on ’videogames’ - he doesnot communicate in chat language and therefore can not communicaterapidly by SMS or phone, etcetera."

5

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 societalshift arriving at the beginning of the 21st century. The current society wouldbe completely transformed - from an ’industrial age’ to an ’information age’.At the same time, Russian military strategists speculated on the additionalpossibilities provided by the information age to the Defense department. Thisbecame known as a ’Revolution In Military Affairs)’.

Below is a summary of some of the most prolific authors that came up withthe current framework of the ’Revolution in Military Affairs’.

2.1 Alvin TofflerAlvin Toffler is one of the most prominent futurists - RMA-evangelists have longregarded him as a lone voice in the wilderness, and as a cheerleader for theircause.

His books initially began as a rallying call to arms for a ’third wave’ - thisis a term coined by Alvin Toffler that refers to a ’third-wave society’, To give ashort 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’. Powerwas now centralized in the hands of the companies with finance capital toback them up instead of plantation owners. This coincided with a majorrelocation to the major cities.

3. Third Wave - The ongoing ’third wave’ that intends to replace the ’indus-trial age’. This ’third wave’ is characterized by rapid, continuous change -continual habituation to the new norms and an information-centric ’econ-omy’ that won’t really sell real tangible ’products’ as much as it sells’information-based services’ and intangible products. For instance, con-sider 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 certainagreed-upon price. This ’ability’ (or rather ’service’) is not in the hands ofthe individual user, but in the hands of the provider - and can be revokedor its terms of conditions changed at any given time.

The first books penned by Toffler were rather optimistic in tone and ratherincredulous in terms of the claims and predictions being made. This rapidlymade way in the ’90 for more militaristic follow-up books that laid the emphasison the ’revolution in military affairs’ that would actually bring the ’informationage’ into being.

2 From the industrial age to the information age 6

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’ thatpeople experience when rapid changes are being wrought in their society. Inthe book, Toffler proposes that the rapid pace at which these changes will berammed through will bring Joe and Jane Average into a disillusioned state ofaffairs - suffering from a ’Future Shock’. On a related note, ’Information over-load’ has today become a very real problem that was first introduced in thisbook - the information age opens the floodgates to ’information’ in such a waythat it can impair and empower the individual in equal measure, to the extentthat those who cannot handle will far outweigh the ones that do. The book isactually more relevant today than it was back in the ’70s - precisely becausesuch terms as ’information overload’ are now easily recognizable and identifiablein 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.

2.2 Andrew MarshallThe 81-year old Andrew Marshall has earned the nickname ’Yoda’ within Pen-tagon defense circles - a reference to the wise Jedi Master by the same name inthe Star Wars series. He is credited with laying the foundations for the Amer-ican take on the ’Revolution in Military Affairs’ (which was originally an ideaand 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 NetAssessment, a prime time Pentagon think tank.

Marshall came up with his ideas for a ’Revolution in Military Affairs’ af-ter sampling a number of scholarly papers written by high-ranking members ofthe military establishment in the Soviet Union. Prior to Marshall, practicallynobody in the American defense department was talking about force modern-ization projected 20+ years into the future - Marshall regarded this as a sign ofvulnerability that the Soviets would eventually exploit to their own ends. Oper-ating under this dialectic (’we have to do this because the Soviets are doing it aswell’), Marshall initiated an ever-increasing number of neophytes into the RMAbeliever-camp. A power struggle ensued between the RMA evangelicals and themoderate military hawks who were still licking their wounds from the mistakeslearned during Vietnam and were hesitant to any talk of ’revolution’ and ’forcetransformation’. They in part would serve as the ideological ’enemy’/’threat’ tothe RMA agenda.It would take until 2001 for the RMA crowd to finally gain the upper handin this ’clashing of ideologies’ . Some well-known individuals, such as Don-ald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, are considered to be some ofMarshall’s most well-known protégés’.


Fig. 2: "Alvin Toffler’s book Future Shock[29] concerns itself with a societalshift from the industrial age to the information age. This is the ’futureshock’ alluded to in the title - this change will be so disruptive, and thepace of technological development will be so rapid, that large segmentsof the population will experience stress, mass disorientation, an increasein domestic violence and be engulfed in general crisis situations. Whilein this ’future shock’, people will be suffering from an affliction known as’information overload’ - too much information can cause a detrimentaleffect in people by overloading one’s cognitive senses, This is being takenadvantage of from a psychological warfare perspective. 99 percent ofmodern-day wars is psychological and is waged with the distributionand control/denial of information."


2.3 Samuel HuntingtonSamuel Huntington is especially notable for his cosmological explanation behindterrorism in the 21st century. ’The Clash of Civilizations’ portends that intimes of great change, civilizations with incompatible beliefs and rule sets willfight amongst each other. This hypothesis began as an editorial within thepages of Foreign Affairs12 entitled ’The Clash Of Civilizations?’[18] (with specificemphasis on the question mark) before becoming a best-selling book.).

War in the 21st century would be characterized by a number of conflictsoccurring between civilizations with incompatible ’rule sets’ and ’social norms’.A few of the civilizations that Huntington highlighted as being potential trou-blemakers included:

• Judeo-Christian/Anglo-Saxon civilization

• Islamic civilization

• Hindu civilization

• Chinese civilization

• Japanese civilization

2.4 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 withan electronic collar), is not necessarily one of science fiction. FelixGuattari has imagined a city where one would be able to leave one’sapartment, one’s street, one’s neighborhood, thanks to one’s (divid-ual) electronic card that raises a given barrier; but the card couldjust as easily be rejected on a given day or between certain hours;what counts is not the barrier but the computer that tracks each per-son’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 withFoucault’s critical perspective on Bentham’s panopticon, but preferred a dif-ferent name for the up and coming ’Panopticon’ society: “society of control”.According to Deleuze, the “society of discipline” (his preferred term for the cur-rent 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 sisterinstitutes in Great-Britain and the European Union.

2 The European version is called the ’European Union Council On Foreign Relations’; itsBritish equivalent ’Royal Institute of International Affairs’. It has a branch within everyCommonwealth country; they were also being referred to as the ’round-table groups’ by CarrolQuigley in his book, Tragedy And Hope.

http://history.club.fatih.edu.tr/103%20Huntington%20Clash%20of%20Civilizations%20full%20text.htm

9

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 westernsociety is that previously, mere engendering of ’discipline’ and application ofbest-practice doctrines was enough to ensure ’good’ behavior - ’good’ in thesense that the individuals’ personal needs were subordinate to that of the ’com-mon good’, like having to fulfill your role as a ’homo economicus’ to keep thecurrent economic system afloat, paying your taxes to pay off the national debt,contributing to society (very ambiguous in nature but commonly employed asa 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 thatyour compliance is guaranteed. The stakeholders within this system (’chief in-formation officers’, corporate bureaucrats, social workers, defense establishmentfigures) no longer consider the concept of ’personal responsibility’ as being acrucial factor to maintaining a healthy and stable society, but rather, prefer amore conformist approach - ’good behavior’, self-discipline is now ’quantified’,and rational approaches exist (such as surveillance; questionnaires, data miningof forum posts/tweets/e-mails) to measure and determine individual and masspublic behavior/opinion.Deleuze covered all of this in his postscript “The Soci-eties 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 beclassified as a potential threat to the new system.

Part II. Revolution In Military Affairs /Conflict Short Of WarWhat, 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 socialchange in societies3. Examples of a ’Revolution in Military Affairs’ in pasttimes include Blitzkrieg, ’Carrier Warfare’ (1921-1939), the Atom Bomb andthe Manhattan Project (1941-1945), and the age of ICBMs (1955-1965).

3 Network-Centric Warfare

"Network-Centric Warfare. This RMA candidate was proposedby Vice Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski and his colleagues in JointStaff/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 wasa professor at Georgetown University that holds the distinction of being one of Bill Clinton’smentors). In his book, he said of war on p831: “Any war performs two rather contradictoryservices for the social context in which it occurs. On the one hand, it changes the minds ofmen, 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 peacetimemight have occurred over decades are brought about in a few years”

3 Network-Centric Warfare 10

fare concept employs an operational architecture involving threegrids to enable the operational objectives of JV2010 [Joint Vision2010]: an "Information Grid", a "Sensor Grid" and an "Engage-ment Grid". The Information Grid provides the computing andcommunications backbone for the other two grids. The Sensor Gridis an assemblage of space, air, ground, sea, and cyberspace sensorsand sensor tasking, processing, and fusing applications, providingbattlespace awareness. The Engagement Grid, an asemblage of plat-forms and weapons, exploits this battlespace awareness to enable theJV2010 force employment objectives of precision engagement, domi-nant maneuver, and full-dimensional protection. Each of these threegrids is connected and functions in a network fashion.” - Past Rev-olutions, Future Transformations - What can the history of revolu-tions 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 waslater given a new lease on life by Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski[7]. Cebrowskiwas promoted to the Director of Office of Transformation under the leadership ofthen-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. With this promotion, Cebrowskiwas given free reign to spearhead the post-9/11 ’force transformation’, andreshape the armed forces along with it.

3.1 Information/Sensor/Engagement GridNetwork-Centric Warfare is a concept that can only be achieved by integratingthree separate network layers. These three networks will subsequently be in-terconnected to each other over a wider network, such as the so-called ’GlobalInformation Grid’ - more on that later on.

Let’s delve into these three networks first. Keep in mind that these threeoverlapping and interconnecting layers are not only rolled out in war zones butin civilian areas as well.

1. Sensor gridThe sensor grid is a network consisting primarily of ’ground sensors’, RFID transponders, and even cameras. The sensor, as the name would leadone to suspect, takes notice of certain events and actions (’sensing’). Thissensor can be an optical one (such as a CCTV camera), an auditory sensor(for instance, a sensor that can perceive sounds above a certain decibeloutput 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, debat-ing its origins [which she erroneously believes to be the US Navy]: “However, the idea reallycomes from Sun Microsystems, when the president of Sun [Microsystems] talked about thatit’s not the computer, but it’s the computer in the networked condition or the networkedenvironment, it’s about network-centric computing - in other words, it is just a word whichgoes on the phenomenon of the Information Age.”


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


an assembly of noisy teenagers to flee a certain area), or a motion sen-sor. Within ’Network-Centric Warfare’ doctrine, the ’sensor’ is regardedas an ’information supplier and creator - based upon what the ’sensor’can perceive, ’information’ is being produced and uploaded to the ’infor-mation grid’ that could be of use in its unfiltered state to any one of theinterconnected users on the wider ’grid’.

2. Information gridWe previously established that the ’sensor grid’ is mostly concerned witheverything that can be sensed, perceived and/or detected (aurally/visually).Once an event has been triggered (by way of the sensor having picked upsomething - such as a certain person entering a building, or an enemyentering a demilitarized zone), the sensor will broadcast a notification ofthat event to the information network so that other devices and users areable to learn of this new event occurring in real-time. All information thatis being dispersed from sensors, and the entire flow of information betweenusers in the network-centric environment all propagates throughout thisinformation grid. In this sense, the ’sensor grid’ could not sustain itselfwithout the ’information grid’. But the dependency is mutual on bothsides - an ’information grid’ would be useless without ’sensors’ spread-ing their ’information’/’broadcasts’/’sensed events’ over the informationnetwork.

3. Engagement gridLastly there is the ’engagement grid’. The ’engagement grid’ is on occasionlikened to the executable layer within ’Network-Centric Warfare’ - becauseit is within this grid that the actual ’transaction’ occurs, whether that’transaction’ entails death for the enemy that was just perceived by one ofthe sensors, or an ’information assault’ on the hapless individual that wasjust ’sensed’ by a commercial company’s sensor grid at a shopping mall.op basis van het ’sensor netwerk’ die een evenement heeft gedetecteerden het ’informatie netwerk’ waarover alle onderlinge communicatie tussensoldaten, machines en vliegtuigen plaatsvindt, is er ook een derde soort’netwerk’ dat men in staat stelt om iets te ’doen’ aan dit evenement watzojuist is opgetreden.

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

Network-Centric Warfare / Network-Centric Operations allows for a new supplychain that will revolutionize the way business and war is conducted. Withoutan information network that uses ’sensors’ as the basic building block to feed

http://www.govexec.com/features/0905-01/0905-01s2.htm



’audiovisual’ temporal input into the wider information flow, this new supplychain 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 ontothe wider interconnected network. In case some unit on the wider networkperceives this ’event’ to be of strategic importance, a suitable reaction can beplanned and coordinated instantaneously - this is what is understood as theso-called ’respond’ end of the supply chain cycle.

To put this within the context of pre-existing communicative concepts, thinkof B.F. Skinner’s ’stimulus-response’ theory, and add to that a relationshipbetween a machine/process and an organic subject, such as an individual orgroups of people5.

Once arrived onto the scene of the ’sensed’ event, the UAV, by way of itsbuilt-in camera, will determine that the subject that caused the ’event’ to begenerated (the ’event’ in this case being the detection of ’movement’ withina certain area) is an enemy belonging to one of the local militias. Next, theUAV ’sends’/’broadcasts’ on the information network/grid video footage or astill image of the threat so that the other entities on the network have pictorialevidence of this threat, and know where to hit it (this is what is also knownas ’situational awareness’ - the ability for everyone - whether it be soldiers,machines, unmanned drones and whatnot - to have one shared holistic overviewof the battlespace).

Based on the ’threat level’ posed by the enemy, a decision can then beformulated as to whether to engage the enemy/neutralise it (a nice-soundingeuphemism essentially for killing it), or take no action at all. For the purposesof 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 theenemy - 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 be-havior’ that will be exhibited by these interconnected UAVs/warfighters/systems- everything will participate, strategize and communicate with each other usinga technique called the ’Cooperative Engagement Capability’ whereby each andevery 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 con-clusion on whether to engage the enemy based upon the threat assessment orleave it up to the other units.

The ’engagement grid’ now comes into play. The engagement grid is a net-work that makes use of the ’sensor’ and ’information’ grids to perfectly pinpointthe ’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.

3.2.0.1 Example The following is a military example illustrating how thethree layers of the ’grid’ combine to enable ’sense and respond’ ’Network-Centric

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


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


Warfare’. The hypothetical example takes place in a warzone where the UnitedStates is embroiled in a guerilla war against local insurgents. A broad array ofsensors 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 move-ment in the warzone that does not belong to that of the ’blue team’ (whichwould be the good guys, the guys on your side), but to the ’red team’ (theenemy). The sensor ’passes’ the notification of this ’event’ (event: a Red Team’node’ moved inside the warzone) to the wider ’information network/grid’ (innetwork-parlance, we would use the term ’broadcasting’ instead of ’passing on’when referring to transmitting something to every node on a network). Fol-lowing the broadcasting of the notification, one of the UAVs (Unmanned AerialVehicle) that is currently patrolling the area picks up on this broadcast anddecides to scour the area. The UAV’s inclination to investigate ’events’ of thisnature depends on what all the other UAVs within the vicinity are currentlydoing - 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 thatthe ’event’ consists of a key enemy hostile, it will destroy the enemy using itsonboard weapons.

The scenario for this example was an Intelligence-Surveillance-Reconnaisancemission making use of a Sense & Respond supply chain (the sensors that formthe sensor grid; the information grid that the sensors and the UAVs/warfightersboth use; and finally, the engagement grid [].

3.3 Effects-Based Operations / Shock And AweEffects-based operations is a new way of conducting warfare in which a solutionis sought to defeat the enemy with such precision that he has already lost thefight long before the fight even truly begins. The aim is to destroy the strategicassets and resources of the enemy as quickly as possible so as to disorientatehim and break his decision loop (the OODA Loop) and morale. For instance, ifthe adversary perceives that his logistic supplies are no longer available, or thatstrategic reserves have been cut off, this will lead to such a dramatic declinein morale that defeat is inevitable - for he sees an enemy on the march fromwhich it becomes much and more difficult to defend against, never mind fightagainst. This ’decline of morale’ could be part of the ’effect’ that an ’effectsbased operation’ sought to instill in one’s enemy - once such a certain effect hasbeen cast on the adversary, the opposing side starts destroying more chains in theoperational structure - just as long as it takes to disorient the operational cycleof decisionmaking (de OODA loop) to the extent that the enemy is groundedto a halt and has no choice but to surrender.

This is but one example of ’Effects-based operations’ - it could also be re-ferred to as ’counter-terrorism’, since every act of ’terrorism’ has as its specificgoal the disruption of the current social order to further a new social order ofthe 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:


Terrorist attacks ought to be understood as consciously crafted me-dia events, and while that has always been the case, today it is moretrue than ever before in two ways. First, the terrorist attack is it-self often designed and intended for the cameras. Terrorist attacksare designed for an audience. Their true target is not that whichis blown up—that item, or those people—for that is merely a stageprop. What is really being targeted are those watching at home. Thegoal, after all, is to have a psychological effect (to terrorize), and itisn’t possible to have such an effect on the dead.” - p5/135, YouTubeWar: Fighting In A World Of Cameras In Every Cell Phone AndPhotoshop 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 congres-sional authorization will attempt to make the use of force short anddecisive. It is desirable to terminate an engagement within the 60 to90 day limit imposed by the War Powers Resolution.” - The RMAAnd War Powers, The RMA and the Imperial Presidency, LukaszKamienski, 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 peo-ple in ways other than the physical realm - and this includes the wider audiencethat is merely acting as spectators to the ’effects based operation’. The effects-based operation is a campaign of terror/precision warfare first and a ’mediaevent’ second - as in the case of the ’Shock and Awe’ campaign, which waswidely advertised on American television stations such as CNN (on the left sideof the political spectrum) and Fox News (on the righthand side of the politicalspectrum). Both portrayed the war as a triumph of spectacle - the languageused to describe the war and the accompanying narrative to support the warsought to sate Americans’ lust for revenge after the 9/11 terrorist attacks (Bush,Colin Powell, Dick Cheney en Rumsfeld had engaged in a perception moldingcampaign trying to float false and misleading information that Saddam Husseinwas involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and that he posed a strategic threatto the United States and Britain because he had ’Weapons of Mass Destruction’in his possession - a subset of ’Weapons of Mass Effect’, and another importantarea of attention in the ’Revolution in Military Affairs’)

Within a short amount of time Iraq’s ’OODA Loop’ was broken - this quickand decisive victory was a vindication of the pursued Revolution in MilitaryAffairs trajectory. There was a lot of confusion in the media surrounding the’Mission Accomplished’ speech given by George W. Bush - unfortunately, peoplehave 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 Saddam-regime - on the contrary, this was but one step in the pursued RMA Course

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/download.cfm?q=951



http://www.comw.org/rma/fulltext/0309kamienski.pdf



Of Action6. The next phase in the RMA agenda would involve a counter-insurrection/counter-insurgency scenario where the military needed to respondwith military force against an increasingly disillusioned populace ready to go onthe offensive.

The following document from 1994 lays out a hypothetical scenario concern-ing the potential implementation of the RMA and its causative effects. Thereare many similiarities between the real sequence of events that unfolded in Iraqand the fictional scenario provided in this document, with the only key differ-ence being that the ’counter-insurgency’ operation in the fictional scenario tookplace in Cuba instead of Iraq.

“Potential or possible supporters of the insurgency around theworld were identified using the Comprehensive Interagency Inte-grated Database. These were categorized as "potential" or "active,"with sophisticated computerized personality simulations used to de-velop, tailor, and focus psychological campaigns for each.

Individuals and organizations with active predilections to sup-port the insurgency were targets of an elaborate global ruse usingcomputer communications networks and appeals by a computer-generated insurgent leader."

"Psychological operations included traditional propaganda as wellas more aggressive steps such as drug-assisted subliminal condition-ing.” - The Revolution in Military Affairs And Conflict Short OfWar, Steven Metz, James Kievit, 7-25-1994, US ArmyWar College[20]

This document suggests that creating ’computer-generated’ terrorist insurgentleaders to claim responsibility for ’staged raids’ and ’attacks’ would be an in-tegral factor in ’Information Operations’. The intent would be to mislead, toconfuse, to lead would-be insurgents and terrorist sympathizers along a specificpath that has been anticipated beforehand by the ones running the ’InformationOperation’. This would constitute a ’deception operation’, with the specific aimto infer behavior, midnsets and loyalty to a particular tribe or militia.

Further on, the document notes that ’deception’, although frequently usedby the military, is somehow thought of as ’un-American’, and thereby difficultto sell as being a good thing.

Various ’crisis management’/’threat inference’ have been used during the2006/2007 Iraq insurgency to determine ’hostile intent’ among the insurgentsand try to ’infer’ possible ’Course of Actions’ to plan against. For more infor-mation, see the References section ([4]).

6 People labouring under the misconception that Bush’s ’Mission Accomplished’ speechwas testament to the general perceived incompetence and ineptitude surrounding him as aCommander-In-Chief should read the document “The RMA And War Powers” by LukaszKamienski, contributor to the Strategic Insight, a periodical by the Center for ContemporaryConflict (CCC). Written in the immediate aftermath of the 2003 Iraqi invasion, it concededthat: “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]




Fig. 5: ’John Boyd’s OODA Loop (Observation, Orientation, Decision, ActionLoop).

3.3.2 Observe, Orient, Decide and Act - OODA Loop

In a wargame, the battlefield is divided up into two colour-coded regimes. Oneof 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 enemyas quickly as possible using ’wargaming’.

John Boyd, US Air Force military strategist, came up with the famed ’OODALoop’. 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 con-clusion about the data or come to a certain perspective

• Decision:The creation of a ’Course Of Action’ based upon the perspectivethat was formed during the Orientation phase.

• Action:The physical execution of the decisions that were formulated andmade 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 yourenemy’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 warperspective entails - ’incapaciting the enemy by way of deception or deliber-ate sabotage of your enemy’s mission critical intelligence gathering/informationproviding systems’.


The OODA Loop is being used in combination with ’Network-Centric War-fare’ and the ’Sense And Respond’ supply chain to make war as efficient asremotely possible and as a means to achieving near-complete, perfect informa-tion on the battlefield - what they call ’predictive battlespace awareness’. Likenit to the micromanagement of the delicate balance between conflict and peace.Just like ’Operations Research’ as a governing principle spread its way from themilitary to the business and private sector, so too will ’sense and respond’ leaveits lasting impact on society at large.

3.3.3 Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC)

"Cooperative Engagement Capability. This concept has beenproposed, developed, and demonstrated by the US Navy. The essenceof this concept as applied to a Navy battlegroup is that combatsystems for geographically seperated platforms share unfiltered sen-sor measurement data associated with tracks with rapid timing andprecision to eanble the battlegroup units to operate as one [in theirengagement of enemy targets]. Rather than a stand-alone RMAcandidate, this concept should probably be thought of as an impor-tant harbinger of network-centric warfare” -Past Revolutions, FutureTransformations - What can the history of revolutions in military af-fairs tell us about transforming the US military?, Richard O. Hund-ley, RAND Corporation, p107/132[17]

Cooperative Engagement Capability refers to the capability by the military toutilize Network-Centric Warfare in such a way that the battlefield is totally incontrol of the military. As soon as an ’enemy’ enters the battlefield, a sen-sor 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 justdescribed here is the sense and respond supply chain put into practice. Withoutthe ’sensors’, this entire way of waging war would be a near impossibility.

Cooperative Engagement Capability relies heavily on satellite imagery pro-vided by Geographic Information Systems - think of Google Earth and otheruses of GIS where satellite imagery is overlaid on top of a topographic map. Ifsystems such as GIS and GPS did not provide CEC-enabled warfighters withthe geospatial means to determine where exactly they are in the battlefield andwhere their supporting cavalries are, it would be impossible to engage an enemyeffectively. By giving the warfighter a completely monitored battlefield whereevery sentient thing on the battlefield is divided up into two categories (bluedenoting the good guys - red denoting the enemies), autonomous and unmannedvehicles have the required ’situational awareness’ to wage war as effectively asinfantry human soldiers would be able to do[9].

http://www.rc.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR1029.pdf




Fig. 6: "Cooperative Engagement Capability’: by means of the three-layerednetwork (sensor, info and engagement network) all military units in-terconnected with each other over this network have the shared aware-ness to determine where the enemy is located at any time, and basedupon this shared knowledge, can coordinate and engage in groups orpacks as one single autonomous fighting force in order to eliminate thethreat.UAVs, satellites, fighterplanes, and so on - all of these constitutethe aforementioned ’military units’ that are able to take advantage ofthis capability. All of this is realized by way of the Global InformationGrid. Cooperative Engagement Capability is a new way of coordinatingattacks using both human and mechanical/robot military units - this isenabled by ’sense-and-respond’ supply chain logistics, and in turn makesuse of the three-layered matrix grid that constitutes ’Network-CentricWarfare’. This warfighting structure is currently being applied to bothcivilian/residential areas as well as war zones - hence the plethora ofcameras and sensors popping up in the major Western countries."

21

Part III. Implementation of the RMA“9/11 crystallized the sense of a rule-set gap. So we have been fillingrule-set gaps with great abandon ever since. The Patriot Act is arule-set reset.” - Thomas P.M. Barnett, The Pentagon’s New Map

The ’Revolution in Military Affairs’ required a ’raison d’etre’. Various think-tanks, foremost among them the Project For A New Century thinktank, pontifi-cated in a defense policy outline that the ’process of transformation’ would likelybe slow, absent the event of a Pearl Harbor-type attack[12]. One of the first pos-sible candidates fitting this basic requirement for a ’precipitating/crystallizingBig Bang’ was perceived to be the Y2K bug on January 1, 2000 - the daythe so-called ’Millennium bug’ would be causing computers worldwide to crash,leading to a worldwide asymmetric shock to the financial system. But this neverhappened. 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 towerscollapsed, 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 theroofs of the World Trade Center to Ground Zero - where previously asimple firefighting and evacuation operation would have sufficed, now therewas a lot of posionous dust to contend with as well as having to removeall the wreckage, safeguarding nearby citizens and saving any possiblesurvivors that were in the building prior to collapse. This further gavegovernment bureaucrats the excuse to call for ’agile’ methodologies and arapid joint response force that could react to ’threats’/’events’ that tendto shift from one specific scenario (planes flying into the World TradeCenter) to the next (the collapse of the two towers)7.

These two characteristics of September 11 2001 ’crystallised’ - to quote ThomasP.M. Barnett - the necessity for a ’process of transformation’. Before September11 2001, there was no sense of urgency or need to retransform the entire DefenseDepartment. After September 11 2001, there was no turning back - RMA wasthe only road to travel.

This ’process of transformation’ would include the following:

• The bureaucracy had to become more ’adaptable’, to the point where itwould enable cooperation and interoperation inbetween various agencieswithout cutting through too much bureaucratic red tape. This in turnwould 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])

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/182105-1


22

two having their own demarcated areas of interests and their own (incom-patible) communication protocols. This required the standardization ofall protocols and bringing all the various disparate forms of communica-tion available to the Marines and the Navy together and interoperable byway of an all-encompassing communications network framework.

• Information had to be ’shared’ between agencies and access to the infor-mation should be governed using ’role-based access control’. To make along story short, the ’culture’ of the organisations involved had to be opento change instead of resistant and hostile to change - they had to ’evolve’.Previously, the prevailing tendency within the various disparate agencieswas to ’hoard’ information - certain agencies were opposed to each otherand didn’t like to share information inbetween each other. All this internalinfighting had to make way for a new business culture based on ’sharing’ ofinformation - this would require shared ’communities of interest’, agreed-upon semantics, and agreed-upon rulesets amongst the various agenciesparticipating 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 privatecompanies doing so. There was the perception that the commercial sectorhad outperformed military-grade computer projects and hardware on amuch tighter budget - and this ’waste’ in terms of military spending andduplication of technology (the wheel had to be reinvented by the militarywhile 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 fosteringstronger ties with the private sector.

3.4 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 itworks on.. Some might ask, how in the world could the Secretaryof Defense attack the Pentagon in front of its people? To them, Ireply: “I have no desire to attack the Pentagon - I want to liberateit. We need to save it from itself. ” - Donald Rumsfeld, September10, 2001[25]

The shrinking Pentagon budgets during the ’90s (after the fall of the Berlin Walland the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union) allowed the private commercialindustry sector to spearhead technological development and innovation, ratherthan the defense sector in the Cold War days. The Defense and the intelligenceagencies regarded this as a troubling development. They were of the opinionthat the defense department should be able to benefit from the success of theprivate sector

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld addressed the Pentagon on September10, 2001 (a day before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001) to declare a

23

significant change in the way the Defense Department would be run from nowon. One of the newspaper headlines read: “Rumsfeld declares war on Pentagonbureaucracy”. In this talk, Rumsfeld heavily criticized the conservative stanceof Pentagon bureaucrats and was of the opinion that taxpayer money was beingspilt on projects that for all intents and purposes could have been provided bythe 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 anecessity. At the same time, Rumsfeld also acknowledged that not everyonewithin the Pentagon would appreciate these far-reaching changes, to which hehad 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 beenoriginally ’planned’, including ’Global Guardian’ and ’Vigilant Guardian’. Cu-riously enough, some of the ’wargames’ very much resembled the actual Septem-ber 11 attacks - for instance, the wargame co-ordinated and conducted by the’National Reconnaissance Office’ had as its premise a plane that would fly intoone of the towers of the NRO due to a mechanical glitch.9A spokesperson of theNRO had the following to say about the ’wargame’: “It was just an incrediblecoincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility,as soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise”. Anotherwargame that had the trappings of a terrorist attack that occurred shortly af-ter September 11, 2001 was known as “Operation Tripod” - however, this onewas scheduled to be held a day after September 11, 2001 (which was cancelledafter 9/11). In this wargame, a bio-terror threat hit New York (think along thelines of Anthrax or an H1N1/H5N1 virus as being the ’threat’) - during whichthe 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 wereto have been involved in this stillborn wargame.

Bush wasted no time in declaring the ’War on Terror’ following the 9/11 ter-rorist 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 tofit in with the naming scheme behind various other social doctrines in Americathat masqueraded as wars, such as ’The War On Poverty’ (LBJ), ’The War OnCancer’ (Nixon), and ’The War On Drugs’ (Reagan)10.

8 Also mentioned in this keynote address by Rumsfeld was that trillions of dollars weremissing/stolen from the Pentagon, and that the Pentagon could not account for the moneylost and where it ended up going[25].

9 The NRO is the branch of the Department of Defense that concerns itself with the utili-sation 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 socialprogram, such as ’The War on Cancer’, or ’The War on Drugs’. Others have commented inthe wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that the ’War on Terror’ would play itself out more orless like the ’War on Drugs’ - also hinting further at the socialist change doctrine behind thepurported and veiled ’war’ on ’terror’.

4 Privatization of the intelligence agencies/military contractors 24

4 Privatization of the intelligence agencies/militarycontractors

Onder de slogan ’New Federalism’ werden regerings-, militaire- en inlichtin-gendiensten geprivatizeerd. Ook de terminologie veranderde langzamerhand -inplaats van de term ’government’ werd er steeds meer ’governance’ toegepastter vervanging - het semantieke verschil hier is dat ’governance’ verwijst naardatgene wat een ’regering’ doet - ’governing the people’. Instituten die dusmedezeggenschap krijgen in ’international governance’ - zoals grote zakelijkekartels, thinktanks en Non-Governmental Organizations - hebben dus indirectde functies van de regering op zich genomen. Op deze manier hebben de pub-lieke vertegenwoordigers steeds minder grip en macht en wordt de macht ge-centralizeerd binnen selectieve kartels van bedrijven. Deze bedrijven lobbyenvervolgens bij supranationale regeringen (zoals de European Union) voor meerregeringscontracten en ’earmarks’.

Een aantal voorbeelden van intelligentiediensten die commerciele dochter-sondernemingen hebben opgezet is wel op zijn plaats.

4.1 In-Q-TelIn-Q-Tel is a so-called ’venture capital firm’ set up by the CIA[27]. The conceptbehind In-Q-Tel came from former CIA-agent Ruth A. David[27], now employedby ANSER Institute/Analytic Services (which in turn is a sister company ofRAND Corporation).

In-Q-Tel served as the proverbial capital injection arm of the CIA that wouldfund ’high-risk’ companies - for instance, companies that were treading in un-explored territory and therefore would need to take huge financial risks. Well-known companies in the public eye that have received capital injection fromIn-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 retrievalof information meeting the demands/needs of the ’intelligence agencies’. After the initiative’Total Information Awareness’ purportedly fell through because of public controversy, all ofa 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 fitthe inintial sought-after goals of the ’Total Information Awareness’ program, and resemble asort of LifeLog - a self-maintained ’diary’ held by the individual - the only difference beingthat the user regards ’Facebook’ as a ’benevolent’ corporation and regards the exchange of hispersonal information as being ’fun’ and merely a ’socializing/personal’ escapade. The originalintent of the Total Information Awareness has thus morphed and made the intrusion intoone’s life and the data-and-intelligence gathering abilities of these services such as Facebookseem 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 useof the ’free service’ while ’Facebook’ is the ’supplier’ - the Internet communications serviceprovider that segregates and puts people into tight-knit communities/clusters/hives.


Fig. 7: In-Q-Tel was an important experiment by the CIA - create a privatecompany that would serve as a financier (venture capital farm) to allsorts of unrelated daughter companies, each of them having a specificspecied area of expertise. Dr Ruth A. David came up with the concep-tual blueprint behind In-Q-Tel during her tenure at the CIA[31]. Sub-sequently, she became the Director of the ANSER Institute for Home-land Security (created long before Homeland Security was created afterthe 9/11 terrorist attacks - ANSER was set up as a daughter corpora-tion of RAND Corporation and had a special service arrangement withthe US Air Force. As head of ANSER, she would create the concep-tual framework for a postulated ’Homeland Security’ that would operateabroad and domestically in the United States. The following quote fromWikipedia sums up In-Q-Tel’s involvement with private industry: "Ac-cording to the Washington Post, virtually any U.S. entrepreneur, inven-tor or research scientist working on ways to analyze data has probablyreceived 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 theCIA does not have the Constitutional authority to operate domestically.


4.2 Blackwater USA/Blackwater Worldwide/XeBlackwater (old name for Xe) is a Private Military Corporation (PMC). A PMCrefers to a privatized mercenary corporation that lends its services to state andnon-state actors for monetary gain. In addition to serving as a military forcedrawing on operatives with years of experience working for the CIA and theArmy, Blackwater also has its own intelligence service, called Total IntelligenceSolutions.

The founder of Blackwater, Erik Prince, was cast into the public spotlightafter it transpired that Blackwater employees had been responsible for slaugh-tering an entire city in Iraq, Fallujah, in what was a vengeful act of revengefor a previous attack in which Blackwater employees were killed. His afiliationwith certain right-wing leaning Christian movements further damaged his publicpersona, and that of Blackwater along with him.

After having resigned as Blackwater CEO in 2009, it was revealed in the pressthat Erik Prince had been recruited by the CIA as an agent, with the explicitaim to set up and create a quitessential commercial private army (’PMC’ inpolitically-correct parlance). Aside from Prince having intimiate ties to theCIA himself, his company was also complciit in the coordination and trainingof various CIA assassination squads.

The lucrative military contracts with the Department of Defense have notbeen ended after George W. Bush’s tenure - on the contrary, the Obama ad-ministration has given preferential treatment to Blackwater (now called Xe)within the PMC sector - gaining even more contracts in addition to the onesthat already existed during the Bush administration.

The company has decided to adopt a new name, Xe Corporation, to avoidall the negative public connotations attached to the Blackwater name. It firsttried to restore its flagging moral representation in the media by tweaking itslogo to appear more ’friendly’ and ’benevolent’. For instance, the original logodepicted a targeting reticule over a bear claw - in the sanitized version, thetargeting reticule had disappeared from the logo.

4.3 KeyholeKeyhole, a company founded in 2001, specialised in visual satellite imageryapplications. Funding was provided by Sony, Nvidia, and, most notably, theCIA’s ’venture capital’ firm, In-Q-Tel.

Keyhole was subsequently purchased in 2004 by Google. While the companyand its products were relatively obscure prior to and following its acquisitionby Google, millions of people to date currently make use of its software/serviceswithout them knowing it - Google’s software, Google Earth, was in actuality aspruced-up, branded version of Keyhole’s ’Earth Viewer’ - Google itself havingmade little to no modifications to the code. The satellites used by Google Earthconsists of the KH reconnaisance and Loral Skynet satellites. The companyname 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’ 27

Fig. 8: Google Earth is a rebranded version of Keyhole’s ’Earth Viewer 3D’, aproduct acquired by Google after the acquisition of Keyhole by Google.The satellite system utilized by Google Earth makes use of the KH-reconnaissance satellite systems owned by the CIA. On that same tan-gent, Keyhole was a privatized frontcompany by the CIA specializing insatellite 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 andmade use of 3D flyby imagery from its EarthViewer program for use in theirmajor war coverage programming.

5 Rollout of the ’Global Information Grid’

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


Fig. 9: Global Information Grid, Operational View-1 - image courtesy of theDepartment of Defense’

auditoral, scent, visual - and broadcast a notification of such and such eventoccurring on the wider ’information grid/network’).

The ’glue’ that binds all of these three disparate networks together, is whatis referred to as an ’enterprise architecture’. But ’enterprise architecture’ isbut a conceptual outline for a framework - it cannot exist by itself. Thus, theDepartment of Defense have developed an actual framework modelled on theZachman 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 systemto coordinate and execute ’Network-Centric Operations’ in joint operations, atany location in the world, at any time. This ’Global Information Grid’ will coverthe entirety of North-America as well as the European Union.

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

12 This framework was previously referred to as ’C4ISR Architecture Framework up until2003.

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/rfid/documents/commiot2009.pdf




For Europe[1]

To connect all of the ’endpoints’ within the network, (think of all the sen-sors/cameras/UAVs), every device has to have its own uniquely addressablenetwork address. This is the real reason behind the worldwide migration fromIPv4 to the IPv6-protocol - the leap from 32bit adressing (IPv4) to 128bit ad-dressing (IPv6) will lead to an enormous increase in the amount of availableend-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 aso-called ’Internet of things’ - the addressing capacity is big enough to give everygrain of sand on the world’s beaches an IP-address - thereby making each andevery 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’.

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

The Revolution in Military Affairs (or 4th generation warfare, whatever termyou may prefer) and the accompanying transformation of the military beganwith Operation Desert Storm (also known as the first Gulf War). Desert Stormwould be the first of a series of 4th generation warfare trial runs that wouldprove to be a perfect battle laboratory because of the relatively barren land-scape - practically no undulations in terrain. Like the aforementioned quote byThomas P.M. Barnett would highlight - one of Arthur K. Cebrowski’s proteges- the agenda was there before the ’big, sexy opponent’ was determined. Thisproved to be a recurring problem in the post-Cold War. Where previously theSoviets proved to be useful to the department defense in the sense that everyexpenditure requested and granted by Congress was in the name of thwartingSoviet expansionism, now that argument would fall flat on its face, since thebig, existential ideological enemy was gone. All of a sudden, there was talk ofdoing away with the entire Pentagon altogether by seasoned military vets, andthere was a sudden decline of willingness to put up the cash for ever-more ex-pensive Pentagon weapon projects when an entire stockpile of nuclear weaponswas 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’.






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 theform of an elastic/ambiguous archetype - the ’asymmetric enemy’. The ’asym-metric’ 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’ ofinterest - 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 gaintraction and be propagated to the mass, but instead exploit new methodsof communication and mediums (such as the Internet, Twitter, instantmessaging, 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 beapplied to an innocuous ’social network’ comprised of a gathering of acquain-tances. Everyone has certain characterizing interests or thought processes thatmight not be the prevailing attitudes or interests of the day, but are likely to beshared by a few other unrelated individuals. To offer an example while stayingwithin the realm of computers, take the case of people who like to toy withold computer hardware from the 1980s, such as a Commodore 64 or an Com-modore Amiga. This kind of activity would fall outside the norm - you willbe hard pressed to find a modern day computer parts supplier or conveniencestore 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 partsor machines. Yet the Internet enables certain clan’s/’communities’/’groups’comprised of individuals to set up their own supply- and distribution chainsindependent of the massmarket system - for instance, they could participate instocking up second-hand Commodore 64s, repair broken parts and sell themas new on an online webshop. Or to approach this from the perspective of asoftware programmer - programmers could dedicate themselves towards writingnew software for the old machines and organize ’meetup’ parties on line or inreal life (IRL) where they will announce or showcase such new software - themeans 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 sharedideas, shared convictions and shared interests. The ’network connections’ in


turn are further strengthened by the means to communication that allows thesepeople to organize independent of any broader, mass-market system. Peoplecan form ’connections’ between each other where previously there would not bethe inclination to form an connection or group in the first place.

A gathering of like minded people comprises an information loop, and thisinformation flow is obviously not ’controlled’ or ’authorized’ by a wider mass-market 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 refur-bished Commodore 64 units on the Internet, or setting up dedicated webshopsfor them? Is it within the holder of the ’intellectual property right’ to demandthat this webshop cease any and all activities in selling or profiting from prod-ucts perusing the Commodore brand - even though the unit that is being soldhas been taken out of production for at least the better part of three decadesnow and the Commodore brand is a part of the original machine title? A coupleof tools have been provided to intellectual copyright proprietors over the yearsto help relinquish their loss of control over uncontrolled information flows - inthe form of laws such as the ’Digital Millennium Copyright Act’ (DMCA, NorthAmerica) and the EUCD (European Union Copyright Directive). Even furtherstill, further binding ’intellectual IP/copyright’ laws are putting the pressure onISPs, website providers and the like to engage in self-policing on what users canand cannot post or upload due to fear of litigation on behalf of the third party(the ISP, the website hosting provider, and so on).

5.2.1.1 Data mining/clusters/social networks What binds the enemy to-gether, are ideas. In an information age, the primary currency is ’information’.The shift in mindset that brings around (companies will approach business froma different perspective if the key distinguishing factor is ’content’) also changesthe priorities and the operating procedures of the military and other defense-related institutions. In previous bygone ages, a certain ideology or a certainnation-state was singled out as the enemy - every neighboring state or countrythat was not under Roman law was deemed by the Roman Republic/Empireto be ’barbaric’ in nature - and this value judgment served as a justificationtowards declaring war on that country, pre-emptively invading it and consoli-dating it under the Roman Republic/Empire. This was a ’standardization’ ofculture - once conquered, the remaining people of the conquered nation whowere not sold into slavery could attain Roman citizenship and enjoy the spoilsof Roman life - the only ’correct way of life’. The same tendency tended toprevail as the justifying rally for war in medieval times between Christians andMuslims - one way of life being better than the other.

Both religion and nation states have taken on a less central role in world af-fairs due to globalism and the rise of atheism. In this new landscape, ’ideas’ nowconstitute the ’enemy’, which is ever-changing. Certain ’ideas’/’convictions’ areincompatible with others - intellectual ideas copyrighted by certain corporations,for instance - ideas which can affect the bottom line of the corporation because


it gives them a strategic leverage against other corporations. For instance, tobe against a societal and militaristic revolution such as the RMA would be re-garded as a ’potentially dangerous’ idea from the perspective of those who wantto ram through this policy14.

To put a long story short - ideas (existing and new ones) have the potential tocause specific harm to pre-existing agendas, and thus could lead to a disruptionof the current ’social order’ (a repeating occurrence in nearly every Revolution- the American Revolution of 1776 was looked upon from the perspective ofthe British Empire and its scribes as a ’terrorist’ and ’subversive’ movementthreatening Britain’s alleged rightful dominance over the colonies and the rel-ative social order they proclaimed to have helped bring about). Therefore, it’simperative for the holders of power to dissect information and infer currentlyprevailing mindsets, activities and beliefs among vast groups of people. EnterSocial Networking.

5.2.1.1.1 Social Networking

"There are only two places where socialism works – one is a beehiveand the other is an anthill." - Sir Ian Stewart-Richardson

This often-quoted line by Sir Ian Stewart-Richardson approaches socialism froma purely organizational perspective. The beehive and the anthill both have arigid 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 gamesconsole 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. Thismade it possible to install an operating system such as Linux or BSD without voiding yourwarranty by having to crack the system’s security system. Sony was prepared to allow peoplethis relative freedom because they were reasonably confident no harm could be done whilebeing sand boxed in a ’virtual environment’ governed by the PS3’s Hypervisor - Linux runningas 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 underlyingsecurity subsystem of the PS3. However, Sony eventually got cold feet when a certain hackerknown by the handle ’Geohot’ had succeeded in partially ’cracking’ the hypervisor. Citing so-called ’security risk’s as an excuse to ram through this change in policy, as of April 2010 Sonyhas decided to retroactively remove the Linux/OtherOS functionality from every PlayStation3connected to the Internet through a firmware update (Firmware version 3.21). This helpedanger and enrage many individuals as well as private universities and defense-run departmentssuch as the US Air Force - what further aggravates the situation is that by not upgrading thefirmware to revision 3.21 (the ’Linux-busting’ firmware), Sony deems you a threat/securityrisk and therefore no longer eligible to access their ’PlayStation Network service or any otherservice provided by Sony to their PlayStation3 game console for that matter. Even legal usersare duped in this way because of so-called security risk’s - the argument Sony is putting forthis that they have only provided you with a end-user license agreement to use the PlayStation3game console you bought, but that they are perfectly within their rights (as per the EULAyou are required to sign before using the PS3) to withdraw or remove any service or featuretheir system provides if it runs the risk of threatening intellectual copyright or posing therisk of being a security threat. Fiasco’s such as this can only help fuel the controversialdebate surrounding ’intellectual copyright’ - the Sony-PS3 Linux case study illustrates thatthe delicate balance of power between that of the consumer and the producer/corporation hasbroken down - with the one on the losing end appearing to be the consumer.


than the higher classes) all having a certain uniformity of thought/purpose.Segueing into the human society for a minute - ’Social networking’ enables peo-ple to ’network’/’relate’ with other people who are all for all intents and purposeson the same wavelength - they share the same ideas, the same interests, hob-bies or ideas. Together, these people would form a ’cluster’ - or rather, ’socialnetwork’. They communicate with each other using sites such as Facebook,Myspace, Hyves and so on. This information that they share and disseminatewithin their inner circle, as well as the conversations they engage in, are notanonymous in nature, and the information and the conversations are not beingrelayed from person to person, but instead are stored on ’private servers’ ownedby an ’information trafficker’/’middle man’ (Facebook, Hyves, Myspace). These’information traffickers’ have stipulated certain privacy agreements and Termsof Use agreements to which the ’user’ must conform to - in it, the providermakes certain promises as to what he will and will not do with the informa-tion that is being passed over its network, but reserves the right to change itsterms of agreements at any time. Rights can be granted just as easily as theycan be revoked. What becomes clear is that there is a certain hierarchy anda centralized degree of authority to be detected here - the ’information-serviceprovider’/’information traffickers’ (the Facebook, Hyves, Myspace administra-tors) 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 thecentralized authority) are at the bottom of the hierarchical foodchain - both interms of the power they wield over their own information which they post onthe site as well as the degree of control they have over who gets to access thisinformation and whether or not it is being sold or passed on to prying eyes suchas the authorities.

5.2.1.1.2 Datamining Datamining is being applied to social networks andmobile networks to segregate and divide people into clusters/segments. The aimis to build up individual ’probability profile’ consisting of information on thefollowing:

• interactions with other people

• the nature of these interactions (common conversation topics, interests,etc)

• the frequency with which these interactions occur (how many times perday do people chat over IM/SMS, with whom, with whom did said personchat the most this week)

These disciplines are all lumped together under the broad banner of ’SocialComputing’. This is a computer-related sociological engineering branch thatmakes use of the various disciplines of information gathering/trafficking (datamining, 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


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

35

(Geographic Information Systems and Global Positioning System in subsequentorder) to give the analyst even more insight into the nature of the event. Forinstance, by combining all these disparate data sources he is able to infer wheresuch and such person was located at the time the specific event occurred (forinstance - calling someone on the phone, driving in your GPS-equipped car toone of your friends) who he has been in contact with on a weekly or daily basis.

5.2.1.1.3 Threat inference This analysis can be used for marketing pur-poses (think Google’s AdSense) - but it can also be used for defense purposes.’Threat inference’ is concerned with the modelling of insurrections and terroristthreats, and in the process creating a so-called ’Course of Action’. The objectiveis as follows - what ’threat’ lurks beneath the intentions and deeds of a singleindividual or a group of persons, and which steps have to be taken to neutralisethis threat? A couple of systems by George Mason University (in close cooper-ation with the US Air Force) are being used to determine the best ’Course ofAction’ for any given situation. Starting with Pythia (an improved offshoot ofCAESAR II/Eb), sociological factors now play an important part and heavilyinfluence the next most desired Course of Action path to be travelled in thebranching 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 ongoingRevolution in Military AffairsThis revolution has no clear demarcation point. The title: ’Revolution in Mil-itary Affairs’, is similarly misleading. Other alternative titles - such as ’NewWorld Order’ - have been trivialized and ridiculed by the media and don’t re-ally give a good idea of where all of this is leading to.

What the ’Revolution in Military Affairs’ hopes to accomplish is the cre-ation of an ’external dimension’ - a ’meta-tag’ dimension. Do not mistake thisas some metaphysical plane of existence, for the entire radiowave spectrum andthe Internet by themselves would constitute a similar ’external dimensions’ -things which are there within the physical realm but are not directly perceiv-able by the naked eye. Hence, this ’external dimension’ in question consists of a

36

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

37

Fig. 12: This slide from the PowerPoint-presentation ’Commander’s PredictiveEnvironment[21]’ gives a good insight into the way the emerging sci-ences of ’threat inference’ and ’crisis management systems’ are beingutilized by domestic law enforcement. Everyday ’behavior’ patterns arestudied thoroughly and fluctuations in ’normal’ behaviour are observedand analyzed - on a daily basis. The amount of different fluctuationsin ’normal behavior patterns’ are studied on a per-day basis, and basedupon this data, the ’threat’ such and such specific changing behaviorpatterns represents will be inferred (for instance, violent or physicalaltercations on the streets could lead to disruption of the social or-der; the same with public protests). This leads us inevitably to theever-increasing role the military will play in domestic law enforcementvis-a-vis ’Military Operations Other Than War’) See the Referencessection for the link to the original PowerPoint presentation.

38

coupling of computer networks that lend semantical meaning/relationships be-tween ’objects’ in the ’real world’. These meta-tagged ’objects’ are then givena 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 anda ’status’ attached to them. This ’Internet of things’, serving as just anotherservice-oriented architecture to the Global Information Grid in the grand schemeof things, will allow various agencies such as the Joint Armed Forces, HomelandSecurity, private intelligence agencies and the like a near panoptical overlay ofmodern-day society (think of all the cameras on the streets, think of all thedifferent motion-based ’sensors’ currently installed in the major cities, think ofall the telephones with a built-in ’camera’ that are currently in use by millionsif not billions of people, think of the KH-reconnaissance satellites courtesy ofKeyHole that was subsequently bought out by Google in 2004, and what wenow know as Google Earth - and lastly, give a passing thought on the GlobalPositioning System that will be used for taxing-by-the-mile schemes15).

Bentham’s ’panopticon’ has been applied to the entirety of society. But itsramifications on world society does not stop with merely the means to surveil-lance - a ’digital copy’ of the real world has been created that integrates all the’measurable’ and ’controllable’ aspects/resources of the world that is subjectto the boundaries of the ’grid’. Personnel locators, CO2 sensors, smart energymeters - all of these devices/sensors feed into this digital overlay of the realworld, adding to a more or less complete panoptical overview of entire swathesof people. This further helps facilitate a sense-and-respond supply chain to serveas the backbone for a new era in marketing, advertising, social engineering, andsurveillance. Examples of ’sense and respond’ would include - you are usingup 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 accordinglyto reflect this change. Another ’sense and respond’ scenario could consist ofyou going into the mall, a billboard display doing an iris identification check,and upon finding out you’re inside its customer database, the GAP billboardwill show a tailor-made advertisement on its screen that will alert you to newtanktops that might be of interest to you[30].

This kind of ’customer data management’ overview of people’s private liveswill more or less grant ’perfect information’ to those with power in this newSense & Respond surveillance society - if one deems it necessary to inquirewho said person is that just bought something, then one can go through hispsyche profile by making use of the information gathering/data mining that isbeing performed on forums/instant messaging/chat rooms, as to more or lessaccurately 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 engecontroleerd. Door de camera’s in de treinen en bussen (alsmede de RFID-reisprodukten zoals de OV-chipkaart) kan netwerk problematiek uit de Opera-

15 The Netherlands will be the first country to introduce mandatory, nation-wide taxing-by-the-mile by 2012, with government-mandated GPS tracker boxes installed inside everycar.

39

Fig. 13: From the article "Sense and Respond - the Next Generation BusinessModel[30]" by Seungjin Whang: "Minority Report, Steven Spielberg’ssci-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 scanshis eyes, and the flat TV panel instantaneously starts an advertisementshowing a holographic image of a woman, "Hello, Mr. Yakamoto! Wel-come back to the Gap. How did those assorted tank tops work out foryou? Come on in and see how good you look in one of our new Win-ter sweaters." Well, this scene (prepared with the help of MIT MediaLab) demonstrates the next generation of business model - sense andrespond."

6 Private sector in the information age enabled by the RMA 40

tions Research discipline worden toegepast, namelijk: hoeveel mensen rijden erop een gegeven moment in de bus/trein, op welke tijdstippen is de bezetting hethoogst, enzovoorts.

The external invisible layer of ’dataveillance’ will fulfill its true purpose even-tually once the transhumanist movement starts seeping into the popular culture.The multitudes of sensors, access points and wireless data pushing through theairwaves will engulf an augmented person’s senses - to the extent that that hissensory input and output can be manipulated with or embellished from a remotedistance.

6 Private sector in the information age enabled by the RMA

The commercial/private sector is but one ’stakeholder’ that is envisioning en-tirely new business opportunities in this information-based society that willdepend squarely on the wide-ranging sensor/information grid. To further helpempower these booming technology companies, new law instruments have beendevised that redefine the concept of ’intellectual property’ and to what extentthe laws concerning ’intellectual property’ can be enforced ( Digital MillenniumCopyright Act in the US; European Union Copyright Directive in Europe).

6.1 Governing of intellectual ’ideas’ - and rights pertainingto these ’ideas’

Intellectual ’ideas’, the prime currency of the information age, can now bepatented, and rights pertaining to these ’ideas’ can be defined and enforcedusing a methodology called DRM. DRM technology is mostly proprietary andnon-standardized in nature at the moment, with every corporation having itsown specific implementation of DRM16, but one can already see a consolidatedmove towards specific standards - in the movie industry with MPEG-7, MPEG-21, HDCP, and DTCP-IP, for example (see the accompanying footnote).

DRM gives the information provider more authoritative control over whatthe user is allowed to do with the content/information granted to him as part ofthe initial exchange (buying ’information’/’content’ for an agreed-upon sum ofmoney). A couple of additional rules and rule sets that can be dictated by DRMwould include (for instance), the right to copy the ’single track’ he purchasedon 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 consol-idated weight behind efforts such as MPEG-7 and MPEG-21, the two of which will combineto offer the content provider a broad range of DRM features that will enable him to stipulaterestrictions on who gets to view the content, who gets to copy it, and so on. To clear up anyconfusion, MPEG-7 and MPEG-21 are not new videocodecs with strict DRM features, butare merely metadata containers that can be embedded/encapsulated in pre-existing video andaudio streams of any kind. MPEG-21 will also be a boon in terms of data-mining - all contentinside the audio or video-data can be ’tagged’ - speakers can be identified in an audio clip byname, a music/audio genre can be defined for specific portions of the same audio file, and soon. Furthermore, MPEG-21 offers a query-based language that will allow the data-miner toquickly retrieve relevant information based on a specific search query.


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

6.2 Utilisation of the ’Sensor/Information Grid’ by theprivate Sector

As for why industry execs are warming up to the non-military opportunitiesprovided by technologies such as the Sensor/Information Grid, consider a talkgiven by Jesse Schell, professor at Carnegie Mellon University, at the DICESummit 2010 (a convention geared for videogame industry executives). In thismonologue, Schell makes it known that, from a videogame designer perspective,the ’panopticon’ provided by the Global Information Grid offers game designersthe chance to create games out of the most trivial everyday manual tasks. Inthis prediction of what the future will entail, he foresees a world where nearlyeverything would be turned into a game because of disposable technology suchas embedded sensors and screens in nearly every object, from the packaging ofyour food all the way to household appliances. The principal reward systemin this new society would be based on ’credits’ using the sensor grid and thesense and respond supply chain. For instance, if a person were to look at anadvertising billboard, the ’consumer’ would earn a couple of ’credits’; if he readsa book from start to finish instead of merely flicking through it (it is presumedthat every page inside the hardbound book will have a built-in sensor that willsomehow trigger the ’information network’ whenever the page has been flickedor looked at), he will earn additional ’credits’ than if he were to merely flickthrough it. The concept of these ’credits’ are already familiar to owners ofgames consoles such as the Xbox 360 and PlayStation3 - people are rewardedbased upon their ’achievements’ and the way they use their ’tools’/’toys’. Inthis world, the baton of ’social engineers’ would be passed down to videogamedevelopers/designers - who have an innate knack for figuring out what makesa certain mechanical activity ’fun’ - thus opening the door for an even moreabusive variant of Skinnerian behavioral techniques that could literally ’train’and ’re-educate’ people into how to behave. And this seems to be the centralcrux of Schell’s argument - that even though we might today regard this as beingvery Brave New World-esque, at the same time, this could help make peoplestrive towards becoming ’better’ and ’more responsible’ people - if one were totake a certain Doublethink disposition and merely put on a brave face.

The engine driving the architectural backbone for this behaviorist paradise isthe ’Sense & Respond’ supply chain, which was covered previously in paragraph[].


Fig. 14: Jesse Schell, Carnegie Mellon University professor, recognizes in theworldwide ’sensor network’ the means to a new frontier in ’social engi-neering’ and ’social control’, but ruled over by game developers insteadof conventional social engineers. In this behaviorist landscape, everymechanical 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 everyjoint of your body [Project Natal]. It’s basically going to become a nor-mal thing for us to allow Microsoft to put a three-dimensional cameraon top of your television set looking at you, which sounds like a BigBrother scenario if ever I heard one, but, still, it’s what we’re going toallow. I think people will find a great deal of their lives co-opted bygames, sort of like how we saw advertising co-opt huge amounts of ourlives in the 20th century. "

43

Part V. Next step for the RMA -Transhumanism/SingularityTranshumanism is a growing movement of intellectuals/academics/ideologueswho want to upgrade their biological body with cyborg/computer parts. Thissub sector of futurists is now co-operating with the bio-ethics sector to pushthrough drastic changes in the law that will allow for the possibility to realizea transhumanist future world. What these individuals have in common is ayearning to become ’post’human - to become more than human, a fusion betweenman and machine, perhaps even totally cybernetic.

Transhumanists are not only calling for the right to self-modification/self-mutilation - they also want to extend the concept of ’citizenship’ to the restof the animal kingdom. A key determining factor in the right to ’citizen-ship’/’personhood’ is the concept of ’cognitive capacity’ (’cognitive capacity’is an euphemism for brain capacity). Machines with superior ’Artificial In-telligence’ capabilities would be entitled to citizenship rights under proposedlegislation pushed by transhumanists.

7 Utopia

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

Like the proselytes of every revolutionary movement, transhumanists also sharethis yearning for the creation of a ’perfect society’. In that sense it very muchresembles mutilated Marxism - technology, rather than enslaving people, willliberate the masses. Utopians of the futurist school believe that food productionand the distribution of goods can be ’shared’ and turned into a ’communalcommodity’ because of the fact that machines will perform all the necessarywork. A ’global brain’ will guard over the city/town and do all the necessarydecision-making at the behest of the ’citizens’. The central premise in all ofthis 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 themolecular level on demand.

8 Dystopia 44

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

7.1 ExampleAn example of the kind of utopian scenarios imagined by transhumanists is por-trayed in the 2008 documentary ’Zeitgeist Addendum’. About halfway throughthe 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, andhence the only solution to combat this evil is by making ’redundant’ the veryconcept of ’money’ - and in effect relegating to the scrap heap the basic re-ward system that goes with it. This is what Jacque Fresco understands by a’resource-based economy’ - which would replace the aging ’economic monetarysystem’. The resources would be administered and rationed out by computersmaking ’educated’ guesses about the Earth’s ’carrying capacity’ (a buzzwordfrom environmentalist doctrine) - Jacque Fresco believes that by taking the de-cisions out of the hands of bureaucrats and instead letting computers do therunning of the state, this essentially removes the ’state’.

8 Dystopia

What flies in the face of these utopian fantasies of a better world are some ofthe 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 intelligentmachines, or cyborgs, or a combination - that’s where the future isgoing.

So, the future for an ordinary everyday human - I guess there will besome sort of subspecies, just like we have cows now - so we will havehumans in the future. There will be other creatures of the species- cyborgs, intelligent machines - that are the dominant lifeforms onEarth.

And as a cyborg - if a human came to see me and he starts makingsilly noises - a bit like a cow does now - if a cow comes to me andsays: "moo, moo, moo", I’m not going to say: "Yeah, that’s a greatidea, 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 callspeech and human language and so on - and these trivial noises -I’m not going to do those silly things - why should I? This creatureis absolutely stupid in comparison to me” - Kevin Warwick

9 Start of transhumanism (Application within the RMA) 45

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

9 Start of transhumanism (Application within the RMA)

The first incremental steps towards a transhumanist society is to be found inthe implantable ’brainchip’. The US Air Force has already revealed in its Vision2020 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 informa-tion resources (in-time collection data and archival databases). Inessence, the chip relays the processed information from the IIC tothe user. Second, the chip creates a computer-generated mentalvisualization based upon the user’s request. The visualization en-compasses the individual and allows the user to place himself intothe selected battlespace.” - US Air Force - Vision 2020 - Chapter 4- System Description[2]

Part VI. Evil in the RMAKant made the following statement:

Each person has a fundamental right to be respected and treated asa free and equal rational person capable of making his or her owndecisions

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c2/v3c2-4.htm

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c2/v3c2-4.htm

46

Fig. 15: Article from Edge Magazine, November 2002 - ’Controversy surroundsthe conclusions he derives from these experiments. [Kevin] Warwicksees himself as a pioneer of a new race of human-machines which willeventually take over the running of the world, thanks to their enhancedbrains and bodies.’

47

Fig. 16: Jose Delgado of Yale University was a pioneer in the development ofbrainchips, the development of which can be traced back to the ’60s.Delgado was able to bring cats, dogs and bulls from a state of nearpassivity into a fit of rage using a special contraption he called a ’sti-moceiver’. After the success he had achieved with animals, he then pro-ceeded to apply the same technology and doctrines onto people (most ofthe people used as guinea pigs for these experiments were drawn fromthe prisons and mental wards since they more or less lacked the Con-stitutional rights and privileges that would protect them from beingabused or misled into participating on experiments that might proveextremely detrimental and risky to their own wel-being. The electronicstimulation and control of the mind has been perfected to such a degreenow that Intel has proudly announced that it envisions that by 2020a great many of their customers will have opted for an implantablebrainchip. (see ’References’, ’Intel Wants Brain Implants In Its Cus-tomers’ 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 itsentire premise the pursuit and utilization of radical new technologies, seeks todeny people these basic fundamental rights - by treating them as cogs in a wheel.No adequate attempt has been made either by government, by the defenseestablishment or by private companies to explain to them the exact ramificationsof the information age. All kinds of ’revolutionary’ steps and measures have beenundertaken to help fulfill one specific agenda (namely, creating an ’informationage’ by pursuing a ’). Public debate has been stifled and discouraged by way ofcoercion, the exploitation of fear (fear of terrorism, fear of influenza-like viruses,fear of economic crisis), apathy (’I have nothing to hide’) and the exploitationof naivety and ignorance (for instance, by promoting various social networkingsites without warning them of the inherent dangers of sharing one’s privateinformation).

A conscious attempt is also made to collude the actual technological progressin the field of ’augmented brainchips’, and the purpose behind them. The USAir Force manifesto, Air Force 2025, written back in 1996, tacitly admits thatthe aim is to gradually get people to become acclimatized to brainchips, andthat they are aware that few would be comfortable with being asked (or, worse

48

still, forced) into putting brainchips inside their head. The author admits thathe hopes these conscientuous objections will have disappeared by the year 2025to the point where infantry soldiers will be mandated as part of standard pro-tocol to be implanted with them. To allay any fears concerning what exactlycan be done with brainchips, a white lie is introduced that could be accuratelysummarized as: “Don’t worry, this brainchip will only enable the person to ’con-trol’ technology - it cannot be used to control the person itself”. That claim onits face could be discounted out of hand - because the techical capabilities toallow 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 voorhem om met een remote control applicatie het ’onderwerp’ aggressief, passief ofwanhopig te maken. Tevens was het mogelijk om middels deze stimulering hetbeest met een soort ’joystick’-achtige contraptie te bedienen. Nadat zijn exper-iment met een stier in de ring een succes bleek te zijn, ging hij deze technologieverder ontwikkelen voor toepassing op mensen. Maar dit document uit 1996laat de lezer doen geloven dat dit niet de bedoeling is in dit geval - erg moeilijkom te geloven, aangezien het leger altijd al een regimentatief systeem is geweestwaarin een duidelijke hierarchie in zit - en dat er gedaan moet worden wat deCommandant of Generaal zegt, zonder dat gewetensbezwaren daarbij in de wegkunnen 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 wegnemendoor ze als kinderen te behandelen, en een bepaald soort hedonisme stimuleren(veel drinken, veel sexuele promiscuiteit, veel oppervlakkig feesten) zodat menafgeleidt is van de maatschappelijke veranderingen die, eenmaal doorgevoerd,voor altijd zullen gelden en voor een lange tijd niet onderhevig zijn aan reformer-ing17.

17 Some food for thought: utilitarianism is based on the principle of hedonism - the greatesthappiness principle operates under the assumption that the only two intrinsic values worthquantifying in this world are ’pain’ and ’pleasure’. Bentham was squarely against the conceptof ’intrinsic rights’ (it was also out of similar convictions that he wrote a scathing ’essay’ on theAmerican Declaration of Independence, which formed part of the British government’s officialrebuttal to the pbulication of said document in July 1776). Even the concept of absolutemoral value judgements were nonsense according to Bentham - instead, he had thought upa 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 gradualimplementation of the panopticon on the whole of society, while at the same time we haveseen an increase in hedonistic behavior (think of the various sexual fetishes of today, the half-naked starlets such as Lady Gaga, Beyonce and Rihanna posing and singing suggestively invarious 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, vastpromiscuity 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, whilethe inverse of pain, namely pleasure, is experienced after having committed the umpteenth

49

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

10 Dehumanization 50

10 Dehumanization

10.1 Dehumanization of warThe total ’rationalisation’ of war has been attempted before, but succeeded onlyin perpetuating more ’irrationality’ instead of less. A good example of this isthe policy by Robert McNamara during the Vietnam war to introduce ’bodycounts’ - by which the ’performance’ of a battalion of soldiers was measured bythem reaching their quota for the given week or day. Underachieving battalionscould expect to be disciplined or punished for failing to meet their targets -hence why every battalion tried to achieve their targets, irrespective of themeans by which they had to achieve it. This led to soldiers willfully executingcountless innocent civilians to reach the quota - a quintessential example of’institutionalized’ evil brought about by bad and failed policies, either by sheermalpractice or irresponsible ethical behavior on the part of the policy makers.

A similar ’dehumanization’ process is currently ongoing in the current RMAwars - Afghanistan and Iraq. For instance, a video leaked by Wikileaks showeda Western journalist in Iraq being mowed down by the Army, as well as the firstresponders that came to the man’s aid. There are a couple of factors at playhere - in the first place, the UAV/gundrone attender is far removed from theactual battlefield, his only outlook into the real world being this ’monitor’ hepeers through and an input device in the form of a joystick - not unlike playinga videogame. He then identifies a perceived enemy, and asks for permission toshoot. Once being authorized to shoot to kill, he proceeds to take him out asquickly as possible. When the ground troops eventually tell him that he evenmanaged to kill and maim several children, the soldier in question reacts non-chalanty: “Dan hadden die kinderen daar maar niet moeten zijn”. There is areal 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 senseof 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 ziethet vanuit een ’monitor’/’TV scherm’. Ten tweede is hij op Pavloviaanse maniergeconditioneerd thuis om met een joystick via een computerspel zoals ’Call OfDuty: Modern Warfare 2’ zogenaamde ’search-and-destroy’ operaties uit te vo-eren. The man-machine interface consists of a HUD, a gun and a visor, and everytarget that pops up on the screen has to be neutralized. Current-day firstper-son shooters are commonly developed in co-operation with defense contracatorsand have the added psychological side effect of ’hardening’ the would-be soldierprior to becoming enlisted in the Army.. Er zijn zoveel gesimuleerde moordengepleegd in een virtuele omgeving - zoveel gesimuleerde moorden vertoont op TVen 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 iscapitalizing on these changing morality rulesets - Ashley Madison is an online dating servicefor people currently in a relationship who want to have sex with someone else, while Maximhas advertised on the cover of its April 2010 issue an article with the headline ’Sex - CheatAnd Don’t Get Caught - Women Will Tell You How’.


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 ervanweerbiedt om onrechtvaardige handelingen uit te voeren. Te denken valt aande ’Three Directives’ van Robocop (1987, Paul Verhoeven). Maar zelfs zo’noplossing is niet immuun voor corruptie - zo werd Robocop namelijk ook eenvierde, verborgen directief gegeven: onder geen enkele omstandigheid mochthij een van de bestuurshebbenden van het bedrijf dat hem gemaakt had, OCP(OmniConsumer Products), aanvallen of arresteren. Mocht het nu net het gevalzijn dat de adjunct-directeur van het bedrijf, Dick Jones, zelf schuldig was aanmoord en Robocop hiervan het belastend bewijsmateriaal had, maar niet konoptreden tegen zijn superieur.

10.2 Dehumanization of the personAs a result of the shift to the information age, long-standing attitudes withregards to privacy have been shaken or irreparably severed. An often-quotedslogan 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 amore or less indifferent attitude with regards to the right to privacy. The rise ofsocial networking and the newly granted ability by the individual user with anInternet connection to form ’communities’ or ’clans’ consisting of people that(prior to the Internet age) he would not have the foggiest chance of ever meetingwith has all led towards a certain kind of ’identity management’ becoming theaverage person’s only form of currency. To reiterate a previous statement madein 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 moreor less indirectly governed by institutions through the willfull and conditionedconsent of that very same mass public. Institutions of ’intimicacy’, such asdating, romance, and personal relationships, all followed certain rulesets, andnearly all hinged on the ability of the average individual to retain their ownprivate feelings of intimicacy and affection - feelings and thoughts which are notknown to anyone but that person, and only that person alone.

In the information age, this long-cherished idea of ’inner sanctum’ makesway for a form of ’identity management’ whereby one projects a digital facadeof one’s own identity online. Using the popular social networking sites, blogs,Twitter and the like, people choose to input massive amounts of personal infor-mation about themselves for what amounts to little or no commercial incentiveor personal gain - the primary impetus being to ’socialize’ for socialism’s sake.By letting others know about your sexual escapades, letting people know abouttheir own personal break-up vis-a-vis Twitter and posting pictures of a party youvisited the other day are all ways of creating a personal dialogue that revolvesaround you. As this document astutely points out:


“In other words, the labor of the new individual is a labor of self-presentation. Strangely enough, this labor of self-presentation, whichused to be the domain of celebrities such as movie or rock stars, isnow a full-time labor for many individuals, who, for example, weartheir emotions on their t-shirts or sweatpants that read MILF inTraining, Jerk Magnet, Your Boyfriend Wants Me, or Juicy.” - Pub-lic Intimacy and the New Face (Book) of Surveillance: The Role ofSocial Media in Shaping Contemporary Dataveillance

One can see where this idea became about to the point where it rewired thegeneral public’s daily lives so drastically. For instance, witness the rapid ex-plosion of so-called ’reality television’ shows (such as ’Big Brother’, ’Survivor’)where supposed average common-day folk become the subject of attention in amajor hit TV series, where they compete with each other for prizes. Most ofthe time this race to the top leads to a lot of backstabbing, heated fights andgeneral hostile behavior towards each other. What is central in all of this, isthat the people inside this gameshow are constantly being monitored. There-fore, in order to become ’popular’ with the viewing audience, one has to projectan external ’persona’ of oneself - in order to stay interesting to the televisioncrowd, or sway the crowd if you will (similar to what gladiators used to do ingladiatorial 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 new-found 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 anda 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 notifica-tions on her shirt - such as ’MILF in training’ - signs which act more or less likesensors for the men who, from a Network-Centric Warfare perspective, pick upon 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 theeradication of an ’inner sanctum’ for your thoughts and feelings - everything thatmatters when it comes to intimicacy, becomes ’personal’ - ’socialised’. Everyonehas a ’right’ to know one’s inner feelings, one’s inner thoughts, and one’s innerlikes 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 powerin 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 hologramof his inner self that he projects to the outside world, completely willingly, andwithout any enforcement or mandate on the part of government. Rather, new,free services such as ’Facebook’, ’Youtube’, ’Myspace’, blogs, Twitter, and therapid rise of the Internet helped bring all this about, one medium of exchangeafter another one part of a jigsaw puzzle perfectly falling into place to form a


panoptical sense-and-respond society.

10.3 Dehumanization of surveillance and intelligencegathering

“An important characteristic of the new surveillance is that it relieson a machine based, automated collection of personal information.Even the most innocuous transactions leave [a] data trail that canbe stored for later analysis(Gandy, 2002; Marx, 2004)” - Public Inti-macy and the New Face (Book) of Surveillance: The Role of SocialMedia in Shaping Contemporary Dataveillance

It is well understood by now that, by reducing people to mere numbers on abroadsheet, the person is effectively dehumanized - he or she has become justanother insignificant number forming part of a larger population set. This samedehumanizing procedure is now also being applied to scientific inquiry, datamining, surveillance and spying, all of which is being performed by machines(intelligent ones at that - cameras, sensors, UAVs) rather than a real privateinspector spying on you. Because storage is cheap and plentiful, it enables theinstitutions in charge of surveillance camera networks to store everything forfuture reference without the inconvenience of having to delete camera footageof inconsequential days because the server is running out of storage space.

“Third, data mining rationalizes surveillance by removing hu-mans from the interpretation process. The dehumanization of theanalyses is important: because it removes the so-called human biasfrom the interpretation process. As such, when combined with thefact that contemporary data mining relies on quantification of in-formation (a seemingly dispassionate and objective method of inter-preting the social world), this dehumanization projects an aura ofobjectivity, consequently making it even more difficult to challengeits premise (and the findings it provides).” - Public Intimacy andthe New Face (Book) of Surveillance: The Role of Social Media inShaping 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 thehuman element - the camera or ground sensor does not act discriminatory, butmerely perceives a certain ’event’ (such as ’motion’, ’sound’ or an ’image’) andbased upon this triggering event, the datamining services can then kick into gearand pull up relevant information about the ’object’ in question (for example, aman or a woman that is caught in suspicious behavior). Anything that could gowrong, and does go wrong mostly when talking about surveillance and potentialprivacy abuse, is blamed on the human element. By having machines do allthe work, like the author of the article above states so eloquently, an ’aura ofobjectivity’ is projected, making it difficult to argue against the central ’premise’behind this method of surveillance.

54

Part VII. Explanation of conceptsMuch of the literature available on the Revolution in Military Affairs is swampedwith acronyms. The reason behind this fondness for three- and four-letteracronyms is because of their brevity (which comes especially in handy duringISR missions - status indications can be relayed faster by speaking in acronymsrather than entire grammatically-correct sentences and terms). But the sideeffect is that to the layman - who is not familiar with all these terms and slo-gans encapsulated inside these acronyms - military documents become almostimpenetratable.

With this in mind, following is a list of acronyms commonly deployed by theDefense Department.

11 Acronyms 55

11 Acronyms

Term ExplanationBFT Acronym for: Blue Force Tracking.C2 Acronym for: Command, Control.C3I Acronym for: Command, Control, Communications, Intelligence.

C4ISR Acronym for: Command, Control, Communications, Computers,Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaisance.

CCTV Acronym for: Closed-Circuit Television.CIA Acronym for: Central Intelligence Agency.CIO Acronym for: Chief Information Officer.CO2 Chemical formula for ’Carbon Dioxide’.

COINTELPRO Acronym for: Counter Intelligence Program.DARPA Acronym for: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.DHS Acronym for: Department of Homeland Security.DoD Acronym for: Department of Defense.

DoDAF Acronym for: Department of Defense Architecture Framework.EBO Acronym for: Effects-Based Operations.FCS Acronym for: Future Combat Systems. Outdated term for ’Brigade

Combat Team Modernization’ (BCT Modernization).GIG Acronym for: Global Information Grid.GIS Acronym for: Geographic Information Systems.GPS Acronym for: Global Positioning System.IOT Acronym for: Internet Of Things.ISR Acronym for: Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaisance.

MOOTW Acronym for: Military Operations Other Than War.NCW Acronym for: Network-Centric Warfare.NCO Acronym for: Network-Centric Operations. A new name for the

concept ’Network-Centric Warfare’. (NCW)NEO Acronym for: Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations. Applied in

’natural disasters’ like Hurricane Katrina (2005).NLW Acronym for: Non-Lethal Weapons.OODA Acronym for: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act.OSD Acronym for: Office of Net Assessment.PMC Acronym for: Private Military Corporation.

PSYOP Acronym for: Psychological Operations.RMA Acronym for: Revolution In Military Affairs.S&R Acronym for: Sense & Respond.UAV Acronym for: Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.UCAV Acronym for: Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle.WMD Acronym for: Weapons of Mass Destruction. Is a smaller subset of the

broader category ’Weapons of Mass Effect ’.

56

Part VIII. References[1] Internet Of Things - An action plan for Europe. Technical report, Commis-

sion Of The European Communities, June 2009. URL http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/rfid/documents/commiot2009.pdf.

[2] Air Force 2025, 1996. Air University. URL http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/.

[3] Thomas P.M. Barnett. The Pentagon’s New Map: PowerPoint Presentation, June2004. URL http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/182105-1.

[4] Yudhijit Bhattacharjee. Pentagon Asks Academics for Help in Understanding ItsEnemies - alexander h. levis. Science Magazine, 316, April 2007.

[5] James W. Canan. Military Networks Take Center Stage. Aerospace America, Oc-tober 2002. URL http://www.aiaa.org/Aerospace/Article.cfm?issuetocid=267&ArchiveIssueID=31.

[6] Matthew Carr. Revolution in Military Affairs: It’s why we’re here - The man andthe doctrine at the heart of our adventurism. July 2009. URL http://tiny.cc/vzj8j.

[7] Arthur K. Cebrowski. Special Briefing on Force Transformation, by the Directorof Force Transformation. November 2001. URL http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/transformation/t11272001_t1127ceb.htm.

[8] Larry Collins. Mind Control. Playboy Magazine, January 1990. URL http://tiny.cc/4xx71.

[9] Rhonda Copley and Eric Wagner. Improved Situational Awareness through GISand RFID in Military Exercises. In ESRI international User Conference Pro-ceedings, page 8, August 2006. URL http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc06/papers/papers/pap_2350.pdf.

[10] Cori E. Dauber. YouTube War: Fighting in a World of Cameras in Every CellPhone and Photoshop on Every Computer. November 2009. URL http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=951.

[11] Gilles Deleuze. Postscript On The Societies Of Control. December 1992. URLhttp://users.sfo.com/~rathbone/deleuze.htm.

[12] Thomas Donnelly. Rebuilding America’s Defenses. page 90, September 2000. URLhttp://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf.

[13] Nathan Eagle, Alex Pentland, and David Lazer. Inferring Social Network Struc-ture Using Mobile Phone Data. In Workshop on Social Computing, BehavioralModeling, and Prediction, 2008. URL http://www.public.asu.edu/~huanliu/sbp08/Presentations/Papers/04_eagle_SPB08.ppt.

[14] Terrill L. Frantz. Dynamic network analysis: Automap/ora/dynet - annualtools/computational approaches/methods conference. In Inferring Adversary In-tent and Estimating Behavior, Behavioral Influences Analysis Center (BIAC)Workshop. Carnegie Mellon University, 2008. URL http://www.au.af.mil/bia/events/conf-mar08/frantz1_mar_08.pdf.



http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/


http://www.aiaa.org/Aerospace/Article.cfm?issuetocid=267&ArchiveIssueID=31

http://www.aiaa.org/Aerospace/Article.cfm?issuetocid=267&ArchiveIssueID=31

http://tiny.cc/vzj8j

http://tiny.cc/vzj8j

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/transformation/t11272001_t1127ceb.htm

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/transformation/t11272001_t1127ceb.htm

http://tiny.cc/4xx71

http://tiny.cc/4xx71

http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc06/papers/papers/pap_2350.pdf

http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc06/papers/papers/pap_2350.pdf

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=951


http://users.sfo.com/~rathbone/deleuze.htm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

http://www.public.asu.edu/~huanliu/sbp08/Presentations/Papers/04_eagle_SPB08.ppt

http://www.public.asu.edu/~huanliu/sbp08/Presentations/Papers/04_eagle_SPB08.ppt

http://www.au.af.mil/bia/events/conf-mar08/frantz1_mar_08.pdf

http://www.au.af.mil/bia/events/conf-mar08/frantz1_mar_08.pdf

57

[15] Shane Harris. Features - an internet of things. Government Executive, September2005. URL http://www.govexec.com/features/0905-01/0905-01s2.htm.

[16] Jeremy Hsu. Intel wants brain implants in its customers’ heads by 2020 - re-searchers expect brain waves to operate computers, tvs and cell phones. PopularScience, November 2009. URL http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-11/intel-wants-brain-implants-consumers-heads-2020.

[17] Richard O. Hundley. Past Revolutions, Future Transformations - What can thehistory of RMA tell us about transforming the US military? RAND Corpora-tion, 1999. ISBN 0833027093. URL http://www.rc.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR1029.pdf.

[18] Samuel Huntington. The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 1993. URLhttp://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/48950/samuel-p-huntington/the-clash-of-civilizations.

[19] Lukasz Kamienski. The RMA and War Powers. Strategic Insights, 2, September2003. URL http://www.comw.org/rma/fulltext/0309kamienski.pdf.

[20] Steven Metz and James Kievit. The Revolution in Military Affairs and ConflictShort Of War. July 1994. URL http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=241.

[21] Janet Miller. Commander’s Predictive Environment. In Inferring AdversaryIntent and Estimating Behavior, Behavioral Influences Analysis Center (BIAC)Workshop. Air Force Research Laboratory, 2008. URL http://www.au.af.mil/bia/events/conf-mar08/miller_cpe_mar_08.ppt.

[22] George Orwell. Second Thoughts on James Burnham. Polemic, 1946. URLhttp://orwell.ru/library/reviews/burnham/english/e_burnh.

[23] Tara O’Toole, Georges Benjamin, and John Thomasian. Bioterrorism Threats,February 2002. URL http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/168814-2.

[24] David M. Rorvik. Bringing The War Home. Playboy Magazine, September 1974.URL http://tiny.cc/hqgkt.

[25] Donald Rumsfeld, Richard B. Myers, and Pete Aldridge. Defense business prac-tices, September 2001. URL http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/165947-1.

[26] Fred Stein and Brian Clark. Arming with Intelligence: Data Fusion in Network-Centric Warfare, December 2007. URL http://www.objectivity.com/media/data-fusion-and-network-centric-warfare/default.asp.

[27] Warren P. Strobell. The spy who funded me (and my start-up) - the CIA’sventure capitalist in Silicon Valley. U.S. News And World Report, pages 38–39, July 2000. URL http://www.novariant.com/news/pdfs/autofarm_feature_stories/071700USNewsCIA.pdf.

[28] John D. Sutter. Why games will take over our lives. CNN, April 2010. URLhttp://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/05/games.schell/index.html.

[29] Alvin Toffler. Future Shock. 1970. ISBN 0553277375.


http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-11/intel-wants-brain-implants-consumers-heads-2020

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-11/intel-wants-brain-implants-consumers-heads-2020



http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/48950/samuel-p-huntington/the-clash-of-civilizations

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/48950/samuel-p-huntington/the-clash-of-civilizations




http://www.au.af.mil/bia/events/conf-mar08/miller_cpe_mar_08.ppt

http://www.au.af.mil/bia/events/conf-mar08/miller_cpe_mar_08.ppt

http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/burnham/english/e_burnh


http://tiny.cc/hqgkt


http://www.objectivity.com/media/data-fusion-and-network-centric-warfare/default.asp

http://www.objectivity.com/media/data-fusion-and-network-centric-warfare/default.asp

http://www.novariant.com/news/pdfs/autofarm_feature_stories/071700USNewsCIA.pdf

http://www.novariant.com/news/pdfs/autofarm_feature_stories/071700USNewsCIA.pdf

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/05/games.schell/index.html

58

[30] Seungjin Whang. Sense and Respond - the Next Generation Business Model.May 2005. URL http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/supplychain_whang_senserespond.shtml.

[31] Rick E. Yannuzzi. In-Q-Tel: A New Partnership Between the CIA and the Pri-vate Sector. CIA, 2000. URL https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/additional-publications/in-q-tel/index.html.

http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/supplychain_whang_senserespond.shtml

http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/supplychain_whang_senserespond.shtml

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/additional-publications/in-q-tel/index.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/additional-publications/in-q-tel/index.html

Index

9/11, 10, 19, 239/11 Wargames

Global Guardian, 23Operation Tripod, 23Vigilant Guardian, 23

Analytic Services, 24ANSER Institute, 24, 25Apple

iTunes, 40Artificial Intelligence, 43Asimov, Isaac, 51

Barnett, Thomas P.M., 19, 21, 29Bentham, Jeremy, 8, 38, 48

Hedonistic calculus, 48Panopticon, 8, 38, 41, 48

BioLuddite, 45Blackwater, 26

Total Intelligence Solutions, 26Xe Corporation, 26

Blitzkrieg, 9Boyd, John, 17, 18Burnham, James, 43Bush, George W., 16, 23, 26

C2, 3C3I, 3C4ISR, 3CAESAR

CAESAR II/Eb, 35Pythia, 35

CAESAR III, 35TEMPER, 35

Carnegie Mellon University, 36, 41, 42Cebrowski, Arthur K., 9, 10, 29Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 24,

26Cheney, Dick, 6, 16Chief Information Officer (CIO), 9Clarke, Richard A., 45Closed-circuit television (CCTV), 10Cognitive capacity, 43Cold War, 29Collins, Larry, 47Commander’s Predictive Environment,

35, 37

Cooperative Engagement Capability, 13,19, 20

Council On Foreign Relations, 8Foreign Affairs (magazine), 8

Course Of Action (COA), 16–18, 35Crisis management, 35

Data Mining, 33David, Ruth A., 24, 25Deleuze, Gilles, 8, 9Delgado, Jose, 47, 48

Stimoceiver, 47Department of Defense, 26, 28

Office of Force Transformation, 10Department of Defense Architecture Frame-

work, 28C4ISR Architecture Framework, 28

Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA),31, 40

Digital Rights Management, 40, 41DTCP-IP, 40HDCP, 40MPEG-21, 40MPEG-7, 40

Digital Rights Management (DRM), 40Domain Name System (DNS), 3

Edge Magazine (magazine), 46Effects Based Operations, 15, 16

Shock And Awe, 16End-User License Agreement (EULA),

32, 41Enterprise architecture, 28

Supply chain, 12, 45Zachman Framework, 28

European Union, 24, 28European Union Copyright Directive

(EUCD), 31, 40

Facebook, 24FBI, 23FEMA, 23Foucault, Michel, 8Fresco, Jacque, 44

Game Theory, 3Geographic Information Systems (GIS),

19, 33, 35

60

George Mason University, 35Giuliani, Rudy, 23Global Information Grid, 3, 10, 20, 28,

38, 41Global Positioning System (GPS), 19,

33, 35, 38Google, 24, 26, 27, 35, 38

Google AdSense, 35Google Earth, 19, 26, 27, 38

Guattari, Felix, 8Gulf War

Operation Desert Storm, 29

Heads Up Display (HUD), 50Hedonism, 48, 49

Ashley Madison, 50Huntington, Samuel, 6, 8Hussein, Saddam, 16Hypervisor, 32

In-Q-Tel, 24–26Information Operations, 17Information overload, 5–7Intel, 47Intellectual copyright, 32Internet, 30

Internet Protocol, 29IPv4, 29IPv6, 3, 28, 29

Internet of Things, 3, 28, 29, 38Object Naming Service, 3

Internet Service Provider (ISP), 31ISR, 15, 18, 54

Joint Vision 2010, 9, 10JSIMS, 35

Kant, Immanuel, 45KeyHole, 24, 26, 27, 38KH Reconnaissance satellites, 26

Lewinton, Richard C., 23LifeLog, 24Loral Skynet, 26

Marshall, Andrew, 6Marxism, 43, 44Maxim (magazine), 50McNamara, Robert, 50Microsoft

Xbox 360, 41, 42Project Natal, 42

Military Operations Other Than War,37

Minority Report (movie, 2002), 39MITRE Corporation, 4

Nanofactories, 43National Reconnaissance Office (NRO),

23Network-Centric Operations, 12, 28Network-Centric Warfare, 9–13, 18–20,

27, 52Engagement Grid, 9–13, 15, 19,

27Information Grid, 9, 11, 12, 27Sensor Grid, 9, 10, 12, 27

New Federalism, 24NGO, 24

Office of Naval Intelligence, 29Office of Net Assessment (OSD), 6OODA, 15, 16, 18Operating System, 32

BSD, 32Linux, 32

Operations Research, 3, 18, 38Orwell, George, 43

PATRIOT Act, 19Pavlov, Ivan, 50Pentagon, 29Powell, Colin, 16Predictive Battlespace Awareness, 18Prince, Erik, 26Private Military Corporation, 26Project For A New American Century,

21Psychological Operations, 17

Quigley, Carroll, 8, 9Tragedy and Hope (book, 1966),

8

Radio-Frequency Identification (RF ID),10

Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID),12, 29, 38

RAND Corporation, 19, 24, 25

61

Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA),3, 5, 6, 9, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23,29, 30, 32, 35, 47, 50, 54

War on Terror, 23Role-based access control (RBAC), 22Royal Institute of International Affairs,

8Rumsfeld, Donald, 6, 10, 16, 22, 23

Schell, Jesse, 41, 42Sense & Respond (S&R), 12, 15, 18,

38, 41, 45Situational Awareness, 13, 19Skinner, B.F., 13, 41

Stimulus-response theory, 13Skype, 30Social Computing, 33

Dynamic Network Analysis, 33Social Network Analysis, 33

Social networking, 32–34Dynamic Network Analysis, 36Facebook, 33Hyves, 33Myspace, 33Social Network Analysis, 36

Sony, 32PlayStation3, 32, 41

OtherOS, 32PlayStation Network, 32

Soviet Union, 22Stein, Fred, 4Strategic Studies Institute, 15, 16Sun Microsystems, 10Supply chain, 14System of Systems (SOS), 13

The Clash of Civilizations (book, 1996),6

Toffler, Alvin, 5, 7Future Shock (book, 1970), 5, 7

Total Information Awareness, 24Transhumanism, 43–45Twitter, 9, 30, 51

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), 11,13, 15, 20, 29, 50, 51, 53

US Air Force, 25, 47US Army War College, 17Utilitarianism, 48

Venture capital firm, 24

Venus Project, 44Vodafone, 5

Warwick, Kevin, 44–46Weapons of Mass Effect, 16

Weapons of Mass Destruction, 16Wolfowitz, Paul, 6World War II, 3

Y2K, 21

Zeitgeist Addendum (documentary, 2008),44

Documents

Revolution in Military Affairs - 1990 up to the Present