Editor’s note: In this article for the US Army War College journal Parameters, Dr. Buddhika Jayamaha and MWI Non-Resident Fellow Dr. Jahara Matisek, demonstrate how adversaries have turned Western civil society into a new battlespace by attacking it through a strategy of schismogenesis.
While there is nothing new about the idea of waging political and information warfare, the rise of the internet in the twenty-first century and the prevalence of social media and other forms of interconnectedness have given hostile actors (e.g., China, Iran, ISIS, Russia, etc.) a new way of attacking the West’s greatest strength: civil society. The societal cohesion and ways in which Americans (and others in Western liberal democracies) organize themselves and positively interact is being fragmented and polarized by nefarious “social media warriors,” backed mainly by anti-Western adversaries, as a way of weakening state and military power. This is a new twenty-first-century strategy of schismogenesis against Western civil society: creating “extreme rivalry and ultimately [leading] to hostility and the breakdown of the whole system.” Make no mistake; purposeful actions are being taken by China and Russia to degrade civil society in the United States (and allies) as a way of disrupting the normal policy-making progress that typically generates American power and strength in the international system.
The West, in this case, has been unable to respond adequately to the newly weaponized battlespace of civil society. Liberal democracies—unlike authoritarian China and Russia—do not regulate or repress civil society groups. Thus, China and Russia can attack the strongest tenets of a Western democracy as a way of strengthening their own positions. Western political and military leaders must account for this “blind spot” by creating new strategies to counter attempts at schismogenesis by China and Russia (and other hostile state and nonstate actors), while enabling civil society to have more resilience against foreign influence.
Buddhika Jayamaha completed his PhD in Political Science in August 2018 at Northwestern University, focusing on dynamics of violence in civil wars. He is currently an assistant research scientist at the University of Wisconsin (Madison) and a former Airborne Infantryman in the US Army. He authored Nightcap at Dawn: American Soldiers’ Counterinsurgency in Iraq.
Jahara “FRANKY” Matisek completed his PhD in Political Science in the spring of 2018 at Northwestern University, on the topic of creating strong African armies and how weak states redefine military effectiveness. He is an officer in the US Air Force, an assistant professor in the Military and Strategic Studies department at the US. Air Force Academy, and a non-resident fellow with the Modern War Institute at West Point.
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.
Image credit: lyncconf
Radio Free Europe Bad.Face Book not? <omore speech better than less. Attempting a non-electoral removal of a president must have consequences. I tire of spending millions, worse yet years of human time pretending we can clean up this mess. You don't clean up a terminal lack of judgement by punishing or retribution or re-education camps. So, what's left? Doing what
Jefferson did. Move the capital. Modernize. Best technology office space sufficient for all DC USG employees can be rented in El Paso close to their International airport, co-located with an AF base, Fiber to glue it all together. Record all communications and data and store it in real time. Indexed and available to all, worldwide, no secrets, only operational security, use it quickly or lose it. No more FOIA expense. Moynihan predicted our mess and observed that only permanent sunlight cures. Encourage current USG DC employees to take early retirement, with a generous severance package and an amnesty if they go quietly. Else a PATCO moment. With guaranteed blue-collar job placement, no education required, OJT. A new start. Employees Managed and bonused in an MBO framework, competitively paid for performance not time in grade. After the move, there will be a burned in memory of the consequences of a terminal lack of judgement. This direct approach will save us billions. Which Means many thousand fair jobs, and a good living for a family with two working adults. Search “Moynihan Secrecy” for his prescient insights. Even better is the most American of cities, Ysleta, is nearby with a 4th of July Children’s parade, red wagons, flags, picnics and patriotic music in the Band shell.
From the original article appearing in Parameters:
"Civil society presents a fundamental blind spot in the American military understanding of warfare. Long associated by philosophers as a bulwark against tyranny in liberal democracies, civil society has been weaponized by hostile actors, such as Russia and China, and violent non-state actors, such as the Islamic State. The adversaries’ strategy involves infiltrating Western civil society in order to foment dissent and create breaches along ethnic, racial, religious, and socioeconomic lines. These actions generate and intensify hyperpartisanship on both sides of the political spectrum for the purposes of deepening societal divisions. Such new tactics differ from their historical antecedents in which hostile adversaries (Cold War Communist states) supported one side of Western civil society (left-wing political movements) in hopes of shifting political attitudes."
Should we take issue with the thought/the contention offered in the final sentence of the above paragraph, to wit: that these new tactics ARE NOT designed to support one side of Western civil society or another? In this regard consider, for example, certain of the goals of Russian New Generation Warfare:
"The main battle space is in the mind. As a result, new-generation wars are to be dominated by information and psychological warfare. The objective is to reduce the necessity for deploying hard military power to the minimum necessary, making the opponent’s military and civil population support the attacker to the detriment of their government and country.”
(See the Jerusalem Post article entitled "New-Generation Warfare’ and the Future of State Security by Shahzada Rahim dated Sep 3, 2018.)
With regard to "making the opponent's military and civil population" (or at least a significant portion thereof) "support the attacker" (for example Russia) "to the detriment of their government and country;" in this regard consider — re: the United States — the matters presented here:
First, from "National Review:" "Compounding it all, Russia’s dictator has achieved all of this while creating sympathy in elements of the Right that mirrors the sympathy the Soviet Union achieved in elements of the Left. In other words, Putin is expanding Russian power and influence while mounting a cultural critique that resonates with some American audiences, casting himself as a defender of Christian civilization against Islam and the godless, decadent West." (See the "National Review" item entitled: "How Russia Wins," by David French, December 12, 2016)
Next, from "Voice of America:" "Russian efforts to weaken the West through a relentless campaign of information warfare may be starting to pay off, cracking a key bastion of the U.S. line of defense: the military. While most Americans still see Moscow as a key U.S. adversary, new polling suggests that view is changing, most notably among the households of military members." (See the "Voice of America" item entitled: "Pentagon Concerned Russia Cultivating Sympathy Among U.S. Troops" by Jeff Seldin.)
Last, from the "Daily Beast:" "Earlier this week Donald Trump, commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces, tweeted that his impeachment 'will cause a Civil War' from which the country might never recover. Picking up on remarks made by an evangelical pastor on Fox News, Trump did not just say his removal would lead to a huge electoral defeat for the Democrats, or even mass demonstrations. He said 'civil war'. Americans taking up arms against other Americans in his name." (See the "Daily Beast" article entitled "If Trump’s Rage Brings ‘Civil War,’ Where Will the Military Stand?" by Patricia Ravalgi on Oct. 6, 2019.)
Based on the information provided here, should we say that opponent/enemy countries, such Russia, have indeed "chosen a side;" this, so as to achieve the goal of New Generation Warfare noted above, to wit: "Making the opponent’s military and civil population support the attacker to the detriment of their government and country?”
(In order to counter my New Generation Warfare "DOES pick sides" argument above — and support the authors' contention that our opponents' "DO NOT pick sides" instead — then should we consider that those making such an argument will need to show that our opponents have [a] made a similar effort to "co-opt" the political "Left" and, indeed, [b] have made similar progress, in this regard, as they have with the political Right?
Good article. Really informative and helpful. Keep it up.