Tipping Points and Mass Collaboration

The idea of a tipping point is captured in the common expression "The straw that broke the camel's back" and in the observation from chaos theory that movement of a butterfly's wings in China may precipitate a tornado in Kansas. In the context of Iraq and Afghanistan there may be several potential tipping points. These may be three of them:

• American/Canadian public opinion reaches such a level that governments are forced to implement a withdrawal of forces from Iraq/Afghanistan.
  
• Iraqi/Afghanistani public opinion becomes so fed up with continued insurgent attacks against civilians that they en masse actively support coalition forces with intelligence and enlistment in their national armed forces.
  
• Large scale deployment of UAVs enables continuous surveillance of the movements of insurgent forces, particularly in those areas of Baghdad and other key cities that coalition forces are committed to clear and hold, thus facilitating their encirclement, preventing their escape in the face of the advancing troops and resulting in a major change of direction of the war.
  

The last one particularly interests me in the light of President Bush's new tactics in Iraq. An infusion of 21,500 more troops is aimed at clearing and holding territory in which insurgents are active. The idea is not simply to expel the insurgents and withdraw, but to expel and stay (though probably with a reduced number of troops), and move on to the next objective. Obviously this new approach will require more troops. If a few UAVs over Fallujah can detect localized movement patterns of militants, then masses of UAVs may enable the tracing of movement patterns on a regional scale. The intelligence derived from a large number of UAVs will require sophisticated software for integration and analysis. It is in this context that the mass collaboration of knowledgeable scientists (especially geographers and other spatial analysts) and soldiers (and others) may play a role. A model that the military may find useful to emulate is InnoCentive. InnoCentive® is an exciting web-based community matching seekers with problems to solvers with solutions. Of course, in the context of ongoing warfare there are key issues of timeliness and security. However it is accomplished there is a need to level the playing field. Our forces operate pretty much in a fish bowl while our opponents are virtually indistinguishable from the civilian population, and choose their targets with impunity. Infiltration of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) by the British was probably a key factor leading to the IRA's acceptance of a ceasefire and the destruction of its weapons. It is extremely difficult, for cultural reasons (though not impossible), to infiltrate the insurgent network and thus our best bet may be to observe behaviour, in full awareness that such behaviour may be intended to mislead us!

Six Steps to Victory and "Mass Collaboration"

Message from Eric Egland, author of Six Steps to Victory:

Hey Team Blackfive,

Here is an update on "Six Steps to Victory--A Bottom Up Solution in Iraq:"

Feedback has been incredible. Blogs and e-mail forwarding have yielded hundreds of responses in the last few days from troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, active duty generals, Vietnam vets, civilian experts, and concerned citizens.

Thanks to sites like Blackfive, this has the makings of an internet-enabled prairie fire. The grass roots wisdom of the American people is awesome, and it is exciting to use the internet to tap into the collective insights out there, which are leading to action and informing the manuscript I am finishing for publication in the spring.

Hey, do you know anyone who is just about to deploy, or has just arrived in Iraq, preferably in a line infantry, ground-owner type unit? Goal is to implement Step 3--connect the American (and Canadian (Editor)) people to the effort by giving them the chance to directly support the guys on the ground.

I am trying to line up a few battalions who would want to get sponsored by a city here and use the WalMart 'wedding registry' to order what they need-- video games, dvd's and books for themselves; cell phone cameras, laptops and video cameras to give to supportive locals for help with spotting bad guys; and dolls, bicycles, microwaves and generators to strengthen relations with the locals.

I have the list of deploying units, but prefer to go grass roots so I don't have to put up with some brigade XO tell me to send a white paper and powerpoint brief--only to never hear back from him.

Let me know if you or your readers can connect me with someone from a combat battalion either in country or about to deploy in the next few months. I can explain that all they would need to do is go to WalMart.com and sign up for a gift registry account, tell their buddies in the unit, send me the account information and I will take it from there.

Once they start getting stuff, they can take pictures and e-mail them back here so the folks supporting them can get the feedback to see that their efforts are really making a difference. I have mayors, CEOs, nonprofit presidents, church leaders, Rotary clubs, political groups and other local leaders from Alaska to Florida chomping at the bit to help out. People here really want to help but don't know how--beyond prayers, bumper stickers and care packages.

This quotation ties in with an earlier post commenting on the original paper Six Steps to Victory. It, however, looks at the larger picture, the Armed Forces and their supporters. If people are prepared to financially support the troops directly to ensure they get the equipment they need, then is it such a big leap to imagine that those who are in a position to do so, may also directly contribute to the design of better equipment and tactics? The analogy is with the changing process of manufacturing, e.g. motorcycles in China and Boeing in the United States, where mass collaboration may become the norm.

Apple introduces its new iPhone (available in June 2007)

At its MacWorld convention Apple has just introduced its new iPhone, which is the integration of the iPod video, a vastly improved mobile phone, and an Internet communicator based on the Safari browser. The integration is based upon the Macintosh Operating System X. One may move seamlessly from one mode or environment to another by simply touching icons on the screen, which takes up virtually the full face of the device. There is no keypad, but if there's a need to use one (for example, for text messaging) then touch an icon and up comes a virtual keypad on the screen.

You'll want to watch Steve Jobs's impressive demonstration of the iPhone in Quicktime. Steve says it'll be shipping in the US in June 2007. Since Apple is partnering with the mobile phone company, Cingular, I do wonder when the iPhone might come to Canada.

This device is bound to increase the opportunities for mass communication. Leveraging such opportunities will be Apple's other new partners, Google and Yahoo. It will be interesting to see how this new technology may be adapted to networked warfare. It may well enhance the current opportunities for "reachback", as exemplified in the following quotation:

"Under SHAPE, the Joint Force Command Brunssum in the Netherlands is responsible for staffing, deploying and sustaining the mission. The Command in Brunssum is the operational-level headquarters between ISAF headquarters in Kabul and the strategic command at SHAPE. Through this “reach-back” capability, the ISAF Commander in Afghanistan is able to draw on a vast pool of staff expertise and specialised assets in areas such as strategic planning, without having to deploy them to Afghanistan." Source: Briefing: Afghanistan.

Such reachback to staff expertise is clearly expandable to include out-sourcing to any individual or group who can provide valuable information. And, while the quotation specifically refers to "the ISAF Commander in Afghanistan", any soldier with due regard to security issues may avail him/herself of reachback opportunities under appropriate circumstances.

DARPA Urban Challenge - autonomous vehicle research and development program

"The DARPA Urban Challenge is an autonomous vehicle research and development program with the goal of developing technology that will keep warfighters off the battlefield and out of harm’s way. The Urban Challenge features autonomous ground vehicles maneuvering in a mock city environment, executing simulated military supply missions while merging into moving traffic, navigating traffic circles, negotiating busy intersections, and avoiding obstacles."

Here we have another instance of "mass collaboration" wherein appropriately qualified and interested individuals may apply or be invited to take up the challenge to develop new technology, or to solve a social or military problem.

"The Urban Challenge teams come from across the United States and around the world, and share a passion for the advancement of robotic technology and machine intelligence. This diverse group includes teams from both academia and the robotics, automotive, and defense industries. Some teams are affiliated with organizations, others are groups of volunteers who have come together specifically for the challenge. Each is working to develop a vehicle to complete the 60-mile urban course in less than six hours." Source: The DARPA Urban Challenge

Such autonomous ground vehicles could provide an alternative to air drops (see below or in archives) in reducing casualties on road convoys attacked by IEDs.

Allow local commanders to buy what they need

"Allow local commanders to buy what they need and nationalize the war effort by connecting the American public with the troops and their mission.

"The troops need more support, from both the military and the American people, and the ground commanders must be empowered to lead our national effort to support them. The localized insurgency, coupled with an adaptive, resilient enemy means the troops on the ground best understand how to win. Our support should fulfill their stated needs, not what Congress, the Pentagon--or even the generals in Baghdad--think they ought to need.

"We need to expand "commander discretionary funds" to give each battalion commander a large budget, on the order of $3 million, to spend as they see fit both before they deploy and while in country, with appropriate accountability. This would allow commanders to take action that will help the mission, but which bureaucratic practices currently prevent. For example, they could buy video cameras and phones to give to locals so that they can film and report insurgent activity; or hire military-aged males to clean roads and dig trenches that improve security while providing jobs to men who would otherwise be recruited as insurgents. It would also allow ground forces to reward a neighborhood chief with a few electric generators for his support of our mission, or to hand a $20 bill to a local who identifies a bomb that could have killed several soldiers." Source: Six Steps to Victory

I would see this suggestion as another example of "mass collaboration" insofar as it encourages the involvement of people actually on the ground. Further, it involves not only those directly involved in the operation (the commanders and troops) but also those civilians in the area who are capable of offering assistance. The suggestion above concerning the American people (which could be expanded the include Canadian, British and other coalition nationalities) clearly is another example of "mass collaboration".

Why Outsourcing Military Operations is Bunk

"The policy to outsource tasks traditionally done by the uniformed military has been going on for at least 20 years. It is based on the ideological belief that the theoretical efficiency of market capitalism can be transferred to the military. This is bunk." Source: Why Outsourcing Military Operations is Bunk

.

The context of the previous post on "mass collaboration" is that of a market or private enterprise economy. However we should probably distinguish between outsourcing actual operations in the field and outsourcing the search for ideas concerning the conduct of such operations and the technologies to be employed in those operations. It has been observed that those who are "outside the box" are not constrained by often unconscious preconceptions. One ongoing source of such ideas is the unofficial army forums where both currently serving (and retired) personnel and interested civilians may post their thoughts on military matters.

The Open-Source War

If "mass collaboration" is a form of networked war then another is "open-source war":

"the insurgency isn't a fragile hierarchical organization but rather a resilient network made up of small, autonomous groups. This means that the insurgency is virtually immune to attrition and decapitation. It will combine and recombine to form a viable network despite high rates of attrition.

"There are signs that the insurgency's goal is shifting from a withdrawal of the United States military to the collapse of the Iraqi government. So, even if American troops withdraw now, violence will probably continue to escalate.

"What's left? It's possible, as Microsoft has found, that there is no good monopolistic solution to a mature open-source effort. In that case, the United States might be better off adopting I.B.M.'s embrace of open source. This solution would require renouncing the state's monopoly on violence by using Shiite and Kurdish militias as a counterinsurgency. This is similar to the strategy used to halt the insurgencies in El Salvador in the 1980's and Colombia in the 1990's. In those cases, these militias used local knowledge, unconstrained tactics and high levels of motivation to defeat insurgents (this is in contrast to the ineffectiveness of Iraq's paycheck military). This option will probably work in Iraq too.

"In fact, it appears the American military is embracing it. In recent campaigns in Sunni areas, hastily uniformed peshmerga and Badr militia supplemented American troops; and in Basra, Shiite militias are the de facto military power." Source: The Open-Source War

.

Is "mass collaboration" the way to a new model of warfare?

I've been reading the new book by Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams entitled "Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything". Here is a brief extract from their online sample chapter:

“Call them the “weapons of mass collaboration.” New low-cost collaborative infrastructures—from free Internet telephony to open-source software to global outsourcing platforms—allow thousands upon thousands of individuals and small producers to cocreate products, access markets, and delight customers in ways that only large corporations could manage in the past. This is giving rise to new collaborative capabilities and business models that will empower the prepared firm and destroy those that fail to adjust.” Source: Sample chapter.

Can the “weapons of mass collaboration” be adapted to fighting the new “war on terrorism” or perhaps more accurately, the war on those who wish to establish a global Islamic caliphate based upon a fundamentalist form of Islam (i.e. a Taliban-like theocracy)? In this way may evolve a bottom-up strategy to combat non-state-based foes. This may be the appropriate adaptation to Web 2.0 pioneered by such sites as MySpace.com and YouTube.com. This may be the best way to involve the Muslim population whose input may be critical to ensuring an inclusive approach. The present UN, NATO and other ultimately state-based conventional warfare models seem only to exacerbate the situation by fomenting internecine warfare as is occurring in Iraq.