Patterns of Conflict: New Conception
There have been times I felt as though I was observing John Boyd’s Maneuver Conflict used against our society.
Essence of Maneuver Conflict
The times these effects have been observable, I can’t know if they were wittingly generated. But I think I’ve taken away a lesson. When a society faces a novel threat, there’s an opportunity for bad actors to seize upon. What I call Online Maneuver Warfare. Rapid launches of contradictory impressions of events – disrupting our orientation & maneuvering us beyond our capacity to adapt. Disorientation. Disruption. Overload.
Grand Tactics
I often see people suggest it’s going to take a big event to unify Americans (such as an attack on our country), but I believe it is more likely all such events would serve as opportunities to apply the tactics John Boyd outlined.
The reality is we cannot even agree on any of the facts of events which happened years ago with all the time we’ve had for analysis/synthesis.
The Essence of Moral Conflict
The grand tactics above incorporate the moral with the physical (attrition) and the mental (maneuver). The Essence of Moral Conflict:
Moral Leverage
In The Strategic Game of Interaction and Isolation, Boyd described how to utilize moral leverage against an adversary,
Reveal those mismatches in terms of what adversaries profess to be, what they are, and the world they have to deal with in order to surface to the world, to their citizens, and to ourselves the ineptness and corruption as well as the sub-rosa designs that they have upon their citizens, ourselves, and the world at large.
Contradictory framing of current and historical events is generating distrust and discord. The ineptness and corruption of our institutions are being surfaced. Our institutions can’t resist the impulse to react in ways which only amplify distrust – trying to control and regulate information. Boyd provided an alternate counter.
For more on how bad governance can be a critical and overlooked source of destabilizing tension in society: https://contrareport.com/bob-jones-strategic-influence/
Amplifying the Disruption
“All the responsibility to abdicate will be taken up by tyrants.” – Jordan B Peterson
Those who wish to remain free must accept responsibility for the roles they play in the disruption. It’s worth considering that we may be witnessing a form of maneuver warfare occurring at a level above most individual actors. Few participants likely play witting roles in this larger conflict; instead, many serve as unwitting vehicles for broader strategic aims. We tend to fill in unknowns with stories. We seek comfort in false certainties. We avoid the discomfort of uncertainty. (John Boyd notes the counterweight to uncertainty is adaptability.1) These vulnerabilities make us easy targets for manipulation.
“…we must continue the whirl of reorientation, [identifying] mismatches, analyses/synthesis over and over again ad infinitum as a basis to comprehend, shape, and adapt to an unfolding, evolving reality that remains uncertain, ever-changing, unpredictable.” – John Boyd, Conceptual Spiral
If we don’t, we serve as conduits in our own destruction.
“Shadow wars are armed conflicts in which plausible deniability, not firepower, forms the center of gravity. This dynamic makes war epistemological: telling what is real from fake will decide the winners and losers. … In a shadow war, cloaking is a form of power, and information is weaponized. If you twist your enemy’s perception of reality, you can manipulate him into strategic blunders that can be exploited for victory.” – Sean McFate, ‘The New Rules of War’
- Boyd: “In dealing with uncertainty, you can’t say we’re going to have certainty. All you have to do is you have to be adaptable, that’s the only way you can deal with uncertainty. You have to be adaptable, build adaptability and flexibility into the organization to deal with it. Life is inherently uncertain. Don’t say, well, we’re just going to have certainty. That’s bullshit. You’re not going to get it. You may think you are, but you aren’t.” ↩︎
