I think Gaza sadly points the way of the future: the political blowback of counter-insurgency will not come from one's own dead soldiers, but from the other's dead civilians. Of course, that works on some societies (US, Europe) better than others (Israel, Russia), and will overall be much less effective, but will lead to many more civilians killed, as insurgent forces like Hamas know they have an interest in increasing "their own side's" civilian death toll.
Reminds me of a paper from 15 years ago that argues that increased mechanization actually hurt COIN proficiency since less boots on ground means less high-quality information about insurgents can be extracted from the population. https://www.jasonlyall.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Rage_Final.pdf. But maybe perfect mechanization allows the COIN state to simply stay in the fight indefinitely, even if it can't help it win. Does this mean that against a perfectly mechanized force, the insurgent moves to hit the COIN state somewhere else -- attacks against its population in other countries, even in the homeland, etc.? Qaddafi bombed US forces in another country since there were none in his own country to bomb
You do it by not fighting the robot but attacking the controller directly and in a deep battle way carrying on the attacks made on popular opinion and thinking in the US since the 1950s with increasing effectiveness in the cyber age.
And as UAS or uncrewed systems become more autonomous or AI/ML-assisted the responsibility for mistakes will become even more diffused, violations harder to pin down, responsibility ducked even more easily
Hi James, I enjoyed reading your post because you made great points about autonomous systems creating ideas about innovative possibilities for state officials. However, I am curious to know your take on how the insurgencies can respond to these systems since in the past insurgent groups have shown great innovation in exposing the vulnerabilities of state systems. There are lots of gaps showing easy access to security breaches and relying on autonomous systems develops weak points to access. Although you bring up great points, I just think that the ethical implications of data breaching are at risk without some sort of plan to ensure automated violence. I recommend the book “The Dragons and the Snakes” written by David Kilcullen. This book provides the idea of insurgents becoming accustomed to state power and tech updates. I think this could add a bit more depth to your concepts. Thanks for sharing!
I think Gaza sadly points the way of the future: the political blowback of counter-insurgency will not come from one's own dead soldiers, but from the other's dead civilians. Of course, that works on some societies (US, Europe) better than others (Israel, Russia), and will overall be much less effective, but will lead to many more civilians killed, as insurgent forces like Hamas know they have an interest in increasing "their own side's" civilian death toll.
Reminds me of a paper from 15 years ago that argues that increased mechanization actually hurt COIN proficiency since less boots on ground means less high-quality information about insurgents can be extracted from the population. https://www.jasonlyall.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Rage_Final.pdf. But maybe perfect mechanization allows the COIN state to simply stay in the fight indefinitely, even if it can't help it win. Does this mean that against a perfectly mechanized force, the insurgent moves to hit the COIN state somewhere else -- attacks against its population in other countries, even in the homeland, etc.? Qaddafi bombed US forces in another country since there were none in his own country to bomb
You do it by not fighting the robot but attacking the controller directly and in a deep battle way carrying on the attacks made on popular opinion and thinking in the US since the 1950s with increasing effectiveness in the cyber age.
And as UAS or uncrewed systems become more autonomous or AI/ML-assisted the responsibility for mistakes will become even more diffused, violations harder to pin down, responsibility ducked even more easily
Hi James, I enjoyed reading your post because you made great points about autonomous systems creating ideas about innovative possibilities for state officials. However, I am curious to know your take on how the insurgencies can respond to these systems since in the past insurgent groups have shown great innovation in exposing the vulnerabilities of state systems. There are lots of gaps showing easy access to security breaches and relying on autonomous systems develops weak points to access. Although you bring up great points, I just think that the ethical implications of data breaching are at risk without some sort of plan to ensure automated violence. I recommend the book “The Dragons and the Snakes” written by David Kilcullen. This book provides the idea of insurgents becoming accustomed to state power and tech updates. I think this could add a bit more depth to your concepts. Thanks for sharing!
You need to take the war to the protagonists doorstep. Wherever and whatever that looks like.