Topic: You think innovation means better drones? Faster jets? Wrong.

[Glock32]

H/T: Western Rifle Shooters

This is a very interesting article from ForeignPolicy.com about the nature of insurgency and how it continually adapts to the technological superiority of State militaries. This article takes the angle that terrorist groups have responded by becoming lower and lower tech in their operations, and while the focus is on terrorist groups I think the same observations can easily be applied to a hypothetical domestic insurgency. I see things in this article -- speculations on the sort of low tech exploits that might occur -- that read almost identically to some of the speculation here on the forum.

Because the article is behind a registration wall, I've pasted it here for convenience. The link to the article is http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/03/04/fow_13_you_think_innovation_means_better_drones_faster_jets_wrong_weve_been_out_inn.

By Paul Lewandowski
Best Defense future of war entrant

To the American military, innovation means technology. Innovating on the battlefield is synonymous with more electronics, bigger robots, and better fighter jets. To non-state actors, insurgents and terrorists, innovation has taken on a fundamentally different meaning. Their tactics are moving away from technological solutions and into realms where technology does not play a role.

In the realm of military technology, the U.S. Defense Department and its host of contractors are the ultimate trump card. America's military budget is greater than the next 10 largest state actors' military spending combined. Any force attempting to develop technology superior to American forces will eventually be crushed under the weight of billions of dollars of DARPA contracts, DOD research grants, and rapid fielding initiatives.

The Iraq and Afghan insurgencies have struggled valiantly to out-innovate American tactical forces. From 2001 until recently, these insurgencies believed they could turn to technological solutions to outpace coalition counter-IED efforts. The first IEDs were simple -- a detonator, some copper wire, and an old artillery shell. It didn't take long for U.S. forces to answer. Humvees became armored, gunners' turrets grew taller and more protected. Soon, the insurgency evolved. They turned to pressure plates and infrared sensors triggered by an engine's heat. Again, U.S. technological savvy answered. Cell phone and radio IED detonators were countered as well. The insurgents' reliance on technology quickly became a hindrance rather than an advantage. US forces could hunt them down on their cell numbers, via their purchases, texts, and emails.

And so the terrorists began to innovate in the other direction. Insurgent techniques became simpler, low-tech. Military-grade munitions gave way to homemade explosives. Cell phone detonators regressed back to command wire. Suicide bombers and insurgents disguised as Afghan army or police proved more efficient than complex, electronic IEDs or expensive VBIEDs. After nearly 13 years of war, the terrorists have learned that the best counter to a techno-savvy force is simplicity.

The gospel of the simple insurgent hasn't just stayed in Afghanistan. In Kenya's Westgate Mall, insurgents lightly armed with assault rifles, grenades, and an active Twitter account were able to make the marginalized al-Shabab a global name in terror. They were able to instill fear in the citizens of Kenya and humiliate the Kenyan government as it bungled the response. The whole operation probably cost less than a used car.

Despite what defense contractors want to believe, the next war isn't going to be fought or won with drones, biometric readers, or robot suits. It will be won with smart, adaptive, culturally aware ground forces. Non-state actors and peripheral militaries have learned not to fall into the technological arms-race trap again. The 21st century insurgent won't have a cell phone to tap. He will have a few trusted associates and a courier. Emails, texts, and phone calls will give way to written plans, handshakes, and hard currency.

The next-generation terror network will look more like a drug cartel: deeply embedded in the local culture, regional in focus, and urban in operation. The new insurgent will be so low tech he will be virtually untraceable. Another face in a sea of faces. No biometric data, no name on a government registry, they will be known to their associates as just a nickname. A ghost in plain view. They won't be identified as terrorists until they decide to make their moves. Their tactics will be crude but lethal, more befitting of medieval warfare than modern combat: stabbing a policeman in the throat, a bucket of chemicals in the reservoir, a soldier who suddenly turns on the unit. They'll carry weapons that are innovative yet simple: The counterinsurgent could see them walking to their target, weapon in hand, and never register him as a threat. It could be a bucket of chemicals, a farmer with a sickle, or even a rancher with his disease-infected cattle. These low-tech, low-cost innovations are the insurgent answer to a modern, technologically-heavy force.

The 21st-century insurgent will be adaptive. He will seize opportunities as they break. A power transformer left unguarded, a truck full of food, even a herd of livestock are all opportunities for him to seize. His reaction time is minutes, not days. The counterinsurgent will struggle to fight him. Governments, by their very nature, are bureaucratic institutions. They demand supervision, approval, review. The counterinsurgent can't tap into the local, informal network the way the insurgent can. No one talks to the uniformed government official, but everyone talks to their neighbor. It's why the Autodefensa in Mexico can damage a cartel more in a week than the Mexican army can in a year. They react at the speed of the cartel and they glean intelligence straight from the source. They don't just have their finger on the pulse of the community -- they are swimming in its bloodstream.

The only way to fight and win as a state actor in the 21st century is to become as smart and as culturally sensitive as the insurgent. Forces will have to look at the herd of cattle and see the same target the insurgent does. The counterinsurgent will have to understand the culture of the streets the same way his enemy does. No military can afford to outsource analytical, in-the-moment thinking. The future counterinsurgent must know the culture and the enemy so well that he can think one step ahead of him. The future of war demands predictive abilities that only a living, breathing, thinking soldier can bring to the fight.

A drone overhead would have done exactly nothing during the Westgate Mall attacks. Biometric scanners are useless after a food supply has been poisoned. An F-35 can't put a bomb on a green-on-blue attack. These tactics cannot be countered by military technology. Believing that technology will answer our problems, and that money spent developing robots is better spent than on developing smarter warriors is a dangerous fallacy. It serves only to play into the hands of America's enemies.

Paul Lewandowski is a former Army officer and Operation Enduring Freedom veteran. The views expressed here are his own.

[AlanS]

Very intuitive.

[Libertas]

He is 100% correct.  The only way to blunt the impact of low-tech insurgents is to massively increase your counterinsurgency assets - plainclothes agents, intelligence officers, communications and infiltration teams...keep your use of technology at arms length, operate as they operate...

Of course this means you would have to basically create domestic agents trained as SEALs and Delta Force are trained, but stripping away most of the technology and adopting domestic camoflauge.

In terms of our own application and what it means for our ongoing battle with runaway statism...kinda puts the Fed arm-up of the civilian sector in a new perspective, doesn't it?  Perhaps they are already preparing their massive counterinsurgency forces.

The Liberty Movement should take such information seriously.

[Weisshaupt]

In terms of our own application and what it means for our ongoing battle with runaway statism...kinda puts the Fed arm-up of the civilian sector in a new perspective, doesn't it?  Perhaps they are already preparing their massive counterinsurgency forces.

The Liberty Movement should take such information seriously.

America will be a very different battle than see elsewhere. 

1. A lot of Law Enforcement and Military are loyal to the principles of the now-defunct republic - and will be on the inside and able to help leak that information.  Patriots will largely be acting alone or in very small groups. Infiltration will be very difficult - especially if we have 3%  of the population participating. You aren't going to be able to place a mole in 500,000 individual groups.

2. We are heavily armed. More heavily armed than any other populace anywhere in the world.

3. And most importantly, America is Big. Huge in fact.  That means that there are necessarily hundreds of miles to guard when it comes to roads, bridges, pipelines, train lines, and  electric lines.   They simply do not have the forces to guard and fight at the same time - especially when politicians and their families  start getting sniped at and demand Green zones be established around them.

and no it really doesn't have to be high tech - simply sending in paper forms to the IRS will kill their ability to audit people-- their resources will go to reading ink smudged paper, and amended returns.  Same can be done at welfare offices etc.  Simply apply for things they will turn you down for. Don't forget lawsuits as well. Every lawsuit the government must defend against is a drain on their resources.  And we haven't even gotten to the infrastructure destruction stuff that is possible. .

[Glock32]

I found it particularly interesting that he mentioned as one possible example "a power transformer left unguarded".  We have already seen a power substation in California taken offline merely by well placed rifle fire, and they were apparently able to do it and exfiltrate before any police showed up. These sorts of targets of opportunity would be virtually impossible to guard everywhere all the time. When that news broke I recall the remarks here were "this is what an insurgency would look like", and I agree. We almost need a new acronym for it. TIWAIWLL.

The counterargument you always hear, something like "what good is a deer rifle against an Abrams tank or an F-16?", is an appeal to State hubris. No one should ever doubt that the State will always possess an enormous superiority in absolute terms, but we have seen and continue to see numerous examples around the world where that superiority is not only difficult to leverage but can even become a burden. It's the Death Star Paradox. Yes, the Empire has this enormous trump card but the moment it actually uses it everything changes.


The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers

[Libertas]

You both make good points.  To Weisshaupt I would point out that what you say is all true, and points to things the statists need to do in order to more easily "get away with it" - 1) They need a fascist state, this both gives them the ability to weed out (perhaps permanently) non-compliant members in LE and all levels of government (they will never succeed 100% so the best they can hope for is to frustrate partriot insiders) as well as incentivize citizens at large to rat out their neighbors for loyalist props and pecuniary rewards.  2) They need to confiscate as many privately owned guns as possible (again, it won't be 100% effective...more so in the early going, once patriots start obtaining arms and bringing them over the borders it'll almost be like being back at square one), no doubt this is where the drones will be doing their most work and where efforts will be required to blind them.  Eventually they'll be forced to task precious satellite time away from foreign observance to domestic, making it easier for foreign elements to get away with more.  America would become more and more isolated.

And to Glock I agree, the Empire has to expose itself fully at some point...and I hope it happens at the most inopportune time for them!

[Weisshaupt]

The counterargument you always hear, something like "what good is a deer rifle against an Abrams tank or an F-16?",

What good is an Abrams tank or a Drone  when it has no target to shoot at but civilian homes and shops where Terrorists might be meeting?
Use too much force - then you cause "collateral damage"  It is especially fun to point that out to a liberal neighbor that uses that one on you... "So when the  totalitarian fascist  government you voted for comes to eradicate me for refusing to give up my inalienable rights,  and uses a drone or a tank to blow up my house, what keeps you and your kids from being hit by the shrapnel and your house from being engulfed in flames as the fire spreads? What good will that deer rifle do me? It will get you killed along with me, and believe me, that might be worth it you self-absorbed narcissistic bully. I guess there are consequence when you support forcefully enslaving your neighbor to your own personal values and agenda using govt guns, huh?"

Of course, being unable to see himself dying for his believes, he will assume you are just "talk"  right up until that first bomb lands.