Comments on: Cooperation, Punishment, and Asymmetrical Warfare

By: Joseph W.

Joseph W. — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:47:37 +0000

I was decomputered a bit…the brain-scan thing is certainly of use, though a stricter adherence to cell structure is one way to counter it. Even when you have the right man captured, and even if he hasn’t been trained to maintain strict silence once you start interrogating him, he can only tell you as much as he knows. And if he does keep his mouth completely shut, he wont’ be telling any lies for you to detect. Will we one day have the technology to read his thoughts directly even if he chooses not to speak? Maybe – but I don’t see it in our lifetimes. (Yes, we could show him suspects’ photos and look for signs of recognition…but if the cell structure doesn’t place his superior among his neighbors, we might not know what pictures to show…the Soviet apparatus in the US, as described by Whittaker Chambers in Witness at least, required a lot of traveling…).

Remember that even a powerful and robust technology can sometimes be countered by tactical innovations alone – the machine gun gave trenches a huge technical advantage, and the British responded with a new technical advance (the tank) but the Germans got similar results with stormtrooper infiltration tactics that required no new weapons.

Arcane – something would have to be dirt cheap before every single human being in a medium to large population could be guarded, constantly, against terrorist attack by the technology. Even guarding the entire road network of an advanced country against IED attack (or the like)…a day may come when that is cheap, but that day isn’t in our near future (distant future? Maybe!). That’s my point – terrorism aims at the civilian population and infrastructure, and guarding that is nothing like as easy as guarding key government or military installations.

A scanning technology that could find weapons in every house would certainly be a powerful technology. And it doesn’t take much imagination to see the tactics terrorists could use to counter it. Don’t keep weapons in the house – cache them in places that the drone doesn’t know to look, and only get them out when it’s time for the attack. Or use disassembled bombs and weapons – things that are harder to spot until attack time. Beware the temptations of the final move.

Of course, the success of terrorism contains the seeds of failure…it succeeds only because its principal victims are too restrained to start aiming at the civilian population themselves, any more than they can help. In Palestine, enough success could teach the Israelis to overcome that inhibition and their principal allies not to mind…I do hope it won’t come to that but it may yet.

By: kreiz

kreiz — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:45 +0000

Terror may be the means of the weak but it’s an incredibly effective tool. All that’s required is complete amoralitly- a complete indifference to life. Nice.

By: Dan Dare

Dan Dare — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 18:07:11 +0000

I also would not be surprised to see a millimeter/submillimeter version of sidescan radar, where a suitably-equipped drone will be able to fly down a street and image the interior of every house in the street.

Because sidescan radar is basically a holographic technology, there is the possibility of producing 3d images of the interiors of the houses. Metallic objects like weapons would stand out very obviously.

By: Arcane

Arcane — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 18:06:10 +0000

we won't have the wealth to guard them all with high-tech surveillance equipment anytime soon

...that's assuming that the technology will always be highly priced, which is simply not true. As its use increases, its price will decrease and the technology will continue to evolve.

You have to remember... we're only spending about 3.5-4% of our GDP on the military right now. We could easily triple that with no significant impact on the economy (that's assuming, of course, that some existing non-military programs would have to be cut, which I doubt anybody in Congress would do... the military is always the one who takes the cut for social programs, not the other way around).

I agree with Fly's comments, as well.

By: Fly

Fly — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 14:46:41 +0000

Joseph W.: ??these things sound better at re-channeling what terrorists do than making terrorism itself untenable...even the smartest weapons can only target the enemy after you've found out who he is??

I suspect that advanced lie detection using brain scans, combined with truth serum drugs to remove inhibition will be used to identify potential terrorists. Behavior modification using drugs and biotech would then be used to convert the enemy.

Welcome to a brave new world.

By: David Boxenhorn

David Boxenhorn — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 14:00:38 +0000

the border violations and bombings seem kinda similiar to the ritualized flight border violations along the east german border between the US and the sovs.

Except that Hizballah killed people in its version.

david, you may be correct that israel had always this plan bank-rolled. ;)

That wasn't an assertion on my part, I was just conceding that point. As you say, I'm sure that Israel has plans on the shelf for all kinds of situations.

But my question remains, can "immoral" behavior, like that exhibited by the terrorists, become a stable strategy?
Are terrorists consistent defectors, non-cooperators?

Sure. I don't think that Hizballah are consistent defectors. They conform to tribal-style morality, where non-members have no rights. Think Mafia.

By: Joseph W.

Joseph W. — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:49:12 +0000

I love technological visionaries but these things sound better at re-channeling what terrorists do than making terrorism itself untenable…even the smartest weapons can only target the enemy after you’ve found out who he is; and given the size of enemy targets (entire populations, country-wide infrastructure) we won’t have the wealth to guard them all with high-tech surveillance equipment anytime soon. Beware of the “war-winning final move” – especially if it comes in the form of a new gadget and you haven’t seen the enemy’s response yet.

I think Podheretz has the right answer to the Strategypage quote Matoko gave us – yes, terrorism is for fighters who are weak in the big-battalions sense of the word. The Sicarii didn’t break the Roman will to fight, and the Assassins didn’t prevail against the Mongols (these are the best analogies to modern terrorists I know), because large powers in those days were quite ready to wipe out entire villages, cities, religious sects in order to win – If you weren’t able to beat a Roman legion or Mongol expedition in the field, you weren’t going to break their governments’ will to fight. The U.S. isn’t that way, and it may be that Israel isn’t either; which of course means that “weak” in the big-battalion sense isn’t necessarily “weak” in modern strategy. Which I believe is Matoko’s point in different words.

By: Dan Dare

Dan Dare — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:12:40 +0000

That should be asymmetery. One s two m’s.
Sheesh. Obviously I have ass on the brain.

By: Dan Dare

Dan Dare — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:01:16 +0000

daring us to match them in barbarity and knowing we will fail?

We don't need barbarity. We have PGMs and RPVs and increasingly effective AI. A generation from now our droid armies will wipe out anybody who sticks their head out of the rubble. Already RPVs carry out remote-control assassinations.

The days when a bullet has your name on it are about to come true. Literally. The increasing lethality of smart weaponry will make it increasingly difficult to hide among civilians or ground clutter and escape death.

Terahertz imaging allows you to see through clothing to spot the suicide killer.

X-Ray backscatter scanners can see inside vehicles.

Technology will gradually make the position of assymetrical warfare increasingly untenable, with the assymetry favoring the high-tech defenders.
Every innovation in warfare is countered sooner or later. This one will be no different.

By: matoko_iterated_PD

matoko_iterated_PD — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:51:29 +0000

podhoretz speculates on the evolution of liberal democracies.
Is this the horrifying paradox of 21st century warfare? If Israel and the United States cannot be defeated militarily in any conventional sense, have our foes discovered a new way to win? Are they seeking victory through demoralization alone - by daring us to match them in barbarity and knowing we will fail?

By: matoko_single_shot_PD

matoko_single_shot_PD — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 07:33:54 +0000

hmmm...i should say, the kidnap was the cheating part. the border violations and bombings seem kinda similiar to the ritualized flight border violations along the east german border between the US and the sovs. sortof an established protocol that was tolerated as an unwritten part of the treaties.
here is a very interesting analysis from wretchard. and the follow up. david, you may be correct that israel had always this plan bank-rolled. ;)
the thing is, our DoD, and the Israeli DoD, do rely on wargaming and sims for planning and analysis. i sorta doubt hizb' does. games theory works for war and economics, tho, that is widely recognized.

it is my hypothesis that we have some relative genetic fitness conferred by moral behavior, a sort of god-in-the-genes. we attempt to amplify this "right" or "just" behavior with religions, governments and philosophies.
But my question remains, can "immoral" behavior, like that exhibited by the terrorists, become a stable strategy?
Are terrorists consistant defectors, non-cooperators?
And is it a winning strategy? Like SDB says, saints vs. sinners is a loser for the saints every time.

By: David Boxenhorn

David Boxenhorn — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:59:55 +0000

Also, it's hard for me to see how this fits into the tit-for-tat paradigm, unless you expand the meaning of the term beyond rhetorical usefulness. What happened was that Hizballah has been violating the blue line for years with low-level attacks and bombings. This was just the straw (or beam) that broke the camel's back. It was a combination of history, severity, and international political situation that caused the Israelis to pull the destroy-Hizballah plan off the shelf.

In another words, there were a lot of tits before this tat.

By: David Boxenhorn

David Boxenhorn — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:48:13 +0000

The Israel-Palestine dynamic is such that any individual player or factional leader, especially among the Palestinians, can commit his side by breaking discipline.

This is absolutely untrue. This is what the Palestinian propaganda machine wants you to think. What do you think would happen if, after a border violation, the PA or Hizballah were to apologize and actively seek to correct the situation and punish the criminal violation of its laws? Of course the Israelis would cooperate instead of going to war!

By: Arcane

Arcane — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:44:13 +0000

I agree with that, John.

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:43:47 +0000

I really wasn’t talking about right now; this seems to be an official Hizbollah action. But anytime in the next 30 years when peace seems possible, there will always be someone on one side or the other who will try to sabotage the peace. And more likely on the Palestinian side, but on the Israeli side too.

By: Arcane

Arcane — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:25:10 +0000

Northern Ireland was a similiar case. Whenever anyone on the Catholic or the Protestant side tried to cut a deal, a splinter group would be formed which would try to sabotage the deal.

I see what you're saying here. Yes, you're totally right about this nasty little fact, just I don't feel that can easily be applied to the case of the Palestinians. To Iraq, as you used in your example, you're right, as well.

By: matoko_single_shot_PD

matoko_single_shot_PD — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:49:28 +0000

The Israel-Palestine dynamic is such that any individual player or factional leader, especially among the Palestinians, can commit his side by breaking discipline.

defectors.
this isn't gnxp current events, this is a field lab for the iterated prisoner's dilemma. ;)

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:42:59 +0000

The Israeli attacks were widespread enough to motivate the evacuation of all foreigners from Lebanon. These foreigners were not mostly living in Hizbollah areas; they were living in Beirut.

The Israeli Army is a disciplined group with a chain of command, and even then Sharon was able to take the initiative in defiance of civilian government.

The Palestinian groups (and the Iraqi groups) all or mostly use terrorism, but there's no overall discipline able to control all of them. No state, no monopoly of violence. In this particular case I think that the rocket attacks were decided pretty high up in the Hizbollah organization, but I was trying to make a more general statement, as I think was clear. ( I'm not saying that that's what happened this time....).

Northern Ireland was a similiar case. Whenever anyone on the Catholic or the Protestant side tried to cut a deal, a splinter group would be formed which would try to sabotage the deal.

I don't think of GNXP as a current-events site. dealing with insurgent movements as though they were disciplined governments with central authorities is, in general, mistaken.

Dealing with Lebanon, which only recently became more than a Syrian puppet, as though its central government actually governed its whole territory is a mistake. The Israeli actions weakened the central government, making it less likely that they will ever be able to suppress Hizbollah, or by now, even want to.

By: Arcane

Arcane — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:25:29 +0000

The Israel-Palestine dynamic is such that any individual player or factional leader, especially among the Palestinians, can commit his side by breaking discipline. I'm not saying that that's what happened this time, but it does happen -- a treaty with "The Palestinians" can be broken by any individual Palestinian.

This is crap. When both major parties in the Palestinian territories, who control the PA, are full-fledged terrorist organizations, and practically all the minor parties (PFLP, etc.) are, then every terrorist attack by those two major organizations is an attack undertaken by the PA. It's no different than an army attack undertaken by the Israeli government, except that it utilizes a different mode of warfare, in this case asymmetrical warfare as opposed to the conventional warfare conducted by the Israelis.

The puzzling thing for everyone is why Israel attacked non-Hizbollah areas of Lebanon.

...what non-Hezbollah areas have they hit, other than the airport? I know the Israelis have been trying to wipe out al-Manar in Beirut and they accidentally hit a UN post that, coincidentally (NOT!) was right next to a Hezbollah office.

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:08:58 +0000

The Israel-Palestine dynamic is such that any individual player or factional leader, especially among the Palestinians, can commit his side by breaking discipline. I’m not saying that that’s what happened this time, but it does happen — a treaty with “The Palestinians” can be broken by any individual Palestinian. (On the other side, Sharon’s Lebanon invasion was his own initiative, not ordered by the government).

So besides two-player game theory, you have coalition breakups (mostly on the Palestinian side, but there are Israeli provocateurs too) leading to multi-person game theory. And considering that lots of foreigners have fingers in the pie, especially but not only on the Palestinian side, optimism is not reasonable.

The puzzling thing for everyone is why Israel attacked non-Hizbollah areas of Lebanon. Legally the Lebanese government is responsible for everything Hizbollah does from Lebanese territory, but realists know that they don’t and can’t control the Hizbollah areas yet, and since the Israeli attack they’re still less able to do so and probably don’t want to.