Awhile back I mentioned the upcoming Envisioning The Future of Urban Warfare panel presented by the Atlantic Council in Washington, DC. This is the fourth in a series of “The Art Of Future Warfare”. The Atlantic Council is dedicated to bringing new voices and ideas to the national security arena. It holds numerous symposiums throughout the year and publishes various studies.
Somehow the comments in the post where I mentioned this event went sideways with readers concerned that this was some group of whacko artists hell bent to leverage a visit to America’s foreign battlefields in order to get a glimpse of realism in order to make their more realistic. The truth of the matter is the opposite. We need them. Sessions like this are used by think tanks to leverage the imagination of artists and help develop a “concept of the possible” regarding future operational environments. The idea is to envision what the environment might look like, but also how our adversaries might fight. Their creativity was put to work to illuminate novel concepts and disruptive technologies in the 2040-2050 timeframe.
The “Envisioning The Future of Urban Warfare” session consisted of three panelists guided by August Cole, Director, Art of Future Warfare Project at the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, Atlantic Council. Two panelsists are artists in their own right and the third, an intelligence analyst amd advisor to the US government. All focused their efforts to offer some insight into future operating environments.
Max Brooks
Author Max Brooks is well known to many. His focus has been on Urban Chaos and comes to prominence in his works, World War Z and Extinction Parade.
He offered these insights:
-We are the world’s first isolationist superpower. Brooks said he is convinced that the war of 2050 has already stated. It isn’t a conflict yet, it’s an environmental dispute, a border issue, a tribal turf war. About 2030, the war starts, and in 2050, we are drawn in. This goes back to his point that we are a reluctant superpower and leery about wading in.
-America is very good at reinventing itself. We adapt as a nation, in fairly short periods of time. As an example he explained that the Army that went into World War Two was quite different than the Army that emerged triumphant in 1945.
-Multiculturalism is our strength. No matter where we go in the world, we have diaspora living here who can bridge across cultures and we have mega cities that are similar to those we will see in the future. He did however, add one comment about those megacities that struck me as flippant, “Thanks to the gun lobby, they are armed to the teeth.”
-As a medium, Brooks mentioned that he needs science fiction to be able to educate. He went on to said that in order to look forward, we need to look back. In WWZ, he did exactly that. Take the Battle of Yonkers vignette for instance. It’s based on history. He also suggests we look sideways for other, similar situations.
One thing impressed me. Max Brooks has been studying. He understands the concept of the elements of national power, or DIME (Diplomatic, Information, Military, Economic). Even our federal government, outside of the military seems oblivious to the concept that we wage conflict as a nation and not just via force of arms.
Brooks also gave some good advice, “Always try to feel like a seventh grader, the dumbest person in the room. Then you’re learning.”
Interestingly, Max Brooks related that he is dyslexic and didn’t pick up his first book until he was 16 when he read “Hunt for Red October”. Tom Clancy was very influential. He was not only entertained by the book but also educated and this helps you understand how he uses science fiction to inform as well as entertain.
Jon Chang
Many of you know Jon Chang for his work on the “Black Powder, Red Earth” video games and graphic novels. He also works for Haley Strategic Partners.
Chang sees art as an expression of data. BPRE was written based on study, but of experience, more than of raw data. He had access to several people with extensive experience in Iraq that helped him understand the environmemt.
Based on what he has learned studying modern conflict, Chang made a couple of observations.
-Tools may change but the techniques don’t.
-There are no shortcuts.
-People are always in conflict. It’s about managing that conflict to make it unpalatable enough that they don’t escalate.
Chang also sees future conflict very much a function of corporate, rather than national interests. He believes that corporations will work engagement angles like funding NGOs in order to build goodwill.
When asked what art form influenced him growing up, Chang mentioned Manga.
Dr Erin M Simpson
Dr Erin Simpson is the President and CEO of Caerus Associates. She isn’t the typical artist. Her training is in Political Science but has a great deal of experience in using statistics and other data to support analysis. Most recently, she has examined cities as systems, making her contribution to this panel most excellent, in my opinion.
Dr Simpson’s observations:
-Her recent work on a Mega cities project led her to conclude that cities are not an engineering problem, but rather a systems problem. She sees an explosion of connectivity and a move to instrument cities which has led to an ubiquitousness of sensors. As far as analysis of the urban environment goes, Dr Simpson advises to look at how a city behaves as a system and remove the emotion from the equation.
-She’d like to see a narrative piece added to intelligence analysis. Most information is presented as raw data and a narrative agent might be used to create a story from the data. Furthermore, a storybook tool could be used for predictive analysis to see how outcomes might change as different data is fed into the system.
-Her work is driven by human and organizational behavior. She considers who has power but doesn’t stop there, wanting to determine the source of that power. Take, for instance, access to water. Is it just access, or is it something else like having control of the village with the engineers that manage the water system?
-Nature abhors a vacuum. Even though a state doesn’t have control of an area, someone does.
-Regarding expeditionary operations, she says that we won’t bring everything with us anymore and will rely on host nation services.
Dr Simpson was very careful to differentiate urban operations vice urban warfare since there is such a wide mission set that may be accomplished in urban areas.
I found this comment regatding US intervention abroad most enlightening, “It’s the santa clause problem, the State department is not coming.”
She is fascinated by discovery. It’s not about collecting info once you know what the problem is, but rather, the real issue is identifying the problem itself. For example, having a hunch that there is an international Islamic terrorist network. The hard work is in the proving it. The book, “Band Played On” that chronicals the discovery if the AIDS virus is about that; “There’s a disease killing people. What is it?” She also mentioned Neal Stephenson’s “Snow Crash” as particularly influential.
Alex Brady
Artist Alex Brady Winner of the War-Art challenge contest. It was obviously inspired by the events of 1999 in Tiannemen Square. I’m curious though, what does it say to you?
Tags: Atlantic Council
More articles like this would be hugely appreciated as complementary content to SSD. Pieces like this that have addressed bigger picture considerations, or the recommended reading list that came out around Christmas, have been incredible content.
Cheers.
+1
Like this stuff…
Felt like looping back. Christmas two years ago for when the list came out.
Was there a 2014 list?
https://ssdaily.tempurl.host/2013/12/01/admiral-mcravens-reading-list/
2015 List – http://jsou.libguides.com/c.php?g=83707&p=1206210
Glad to see Twilight and Cyber on there. Can anyone speak for others?
*puts on nerdy wonk hat*
I really like this piece. To me, it depicts a growing divide between civilians and the security establishments globally.
The tank, obviously larger than current state-of-the-technology, represents a growing and ever ominous presence of a military/surveillance state in our lives. The diminutive woman and her sub-compact car represent the feeling of those under the oppression of that state, but show the defiance that still remains.
Very provocative.
the tank immediately reminded me of one of science fiction author Keith Laumer’s “BOLO” Continental Siege Units
“Thanks to the gun lobby, they are armed to the teeth.”
“Always try to feel like a seventh grader, the dumbest person in the room. Then you’re learning.”
He has much to learn about the 2nd Amendment.
Great article, thanks SSD.
I always encourage those seeking higher education through TA or the GI Bill to learn about something other than their job, like security studies or criminal justice. I firmly believe that what makes our thinkers creative in the US is the ability to think laterally across the aisle.
As Heinlein said, “specialization is for insects.”
To clarify, I mean to seek out studies other than CJ or SS, something tangential to your work-life system. For example, I think any studies into education and teaching are highly beneficial.
Very interesting; I do have to disagree with Dr. Simpson’s ideas about the future of expeditionary warfare, though. Especially with increased rollout of high technology warfighting equipment, we are going to stay in a ‘bring your own crap’ logsitics model for a LONG time. Combine that with warfare on the fringes, and you end up with more of a Falklands model–campaigns fought at the extreme edge of the logsitics tether in a previously unplanned location.
Max Brooks is another smarmy city boy who wouldn’t be anywhere if his dad weren’t Mel Brooks (who was actually funny). His spiel about the M16 was infuriating and ugh. ..the zombie BS. Ugh. America the world’s isolationist superpower? I WISH. We dump so much money and American life trying to save a world that will never appreciate it. It’s like the Life of Brian where this Jew is shouting “Aside from working government, running water, law, order, and civilization; what have the Romans done for us?!”
The tank picture is stupid. It’s like a 21st century Maus. That was a stupid idea.
To me a terrifying image would be girl looking at her cell phone smiling while teams of NSA huddle at work to descramble her text code of ‘OMG Brad is so HOTT???’ while they have their backs turned to a monitor showing a dumb kid walking into the arms of ISIS.
But it would be TOO REAL. So let’s just ooh and ahh at the Command and Conquer looking tank and compare ourselves to China.
Disco – I agree with everything you just wrote; spot on
/thread
Great points, Disco.
SSD,
I’m certainly guilty of taking the conversation “sideways” as you describe based on my original less than clear understanding of the intent of these conferences.
I really do see the value of bringing outside perspectives into the discussion of future warfare. In fact more of these kinds of events would probably be very beneficial. Thank you very much for sharing this.
But, having seen how the sausage is made, I still have some (I believe) valid concerns about how the military internalizes this type of worthwhile input. In my experience ‘we” have an unfortunate tendency to fixate on the newest shiny idea. Especially if that idea seems to promise quick or cheap or virtually bloodless success.
Remember how just about 15 years ago some very smart outside tech gurus promised us “perfect situational awareness”. And therefore we would always be able to hit the enemy before he could hit us. A heady concept. Unfortunately, no matter how attractive it sounded, we just couldn’t make it work in real life.
Finally, I’ll admit I don’t have much artistic sensibility and maybe not enough imagination. When I look at the tank picture I see a vehicle that appears slow, cumbersome and perfectly impractical. Frankly nothing but a huge target for some airborne platform to quickly defeat. But otherwise it is a cool image.
TLB
I don’t think anyone is betting the farm on the information from these sessions but it is definitely good to get an outside perspective.
I agree, I get the impression that the whole point of this was to get some people to take a look at this from a different perspective. Not all of their ideas may have merit but sometimes when people from the outside take a look at a problem they can see things that the experts don’t because they haven’t been trained to look at things the same way.
I agree.
TLB
From a ground fighting perspective (the air and sea services by virtue of where they operate must be more technically oriented though they go overboard at times e.g. F35 vs. A10), I believe the military’s affection for technological solutions over other approaches is an expression of the American mindset vs. a military one.
As part of the FCS fiasco there were many of us that had gotten dirty downrange or were firmly based in the unchanging principles of war that realized FCS was violating many of them.
LOL “perfect situational awareness” reminds me of the shoveled bull crap that is “sensor fusion!” peddled by woo-meister transformationalists since the Shinseki black beret era.
People want a picture of what future urban warfare will be like? imagine Baquba, Fallujah, Najaf, Grozny in multitudes. Nothing will change in 20 years for the next era of resource wars, say for the occassional new drone design and means of surveillance.
I thought the city’s being armed to the teeth quip was rather out of place since we would be (well hopefully) engaged overseas where they lack a “gun lobby” and not at home.
All and all pretty interesting though.
My thoughts exactly.
Experience shows that cities in overseas countries without a “gun lobby” seem to magically have a hell of a lot of guns, and even more insidious stuff, when the train goes off the track. When the party’s on, someone always brings the party favors.
Symposiums like this could be very useful for the government because it allows for input from people who would think outside of the box because they have no dog in the fight, as it were, and because of that they’re more likely to speak more openly and honestly on the subject since they don’t have to worry about possible repercussions. It also promotes outside of the box thinking since they don’t come from the same background as the people in the Pentagon and DoD, they haven’t been exposed to the same ideas and concepts of what to expect and how to do things and so are able to approach the problem(s) from a different angle and possibly see things things that others don’t because the way they were “raised” blinds them to certain things.
I was thinking of Max’s comments:
– The U.S. is obvious NOT an isolationist superpower. Honestly, this struck me as someone with a very odd view of the reality in which we live — not automatically making them wrong, but certainly a red flag to me.
– America has seen success in reinventing itself, but the direction of adaptation in the last decade has been one of more political correctness than adapting to defeat an actual enemy.
– Multiculturalism, while certainly having many positives, also brings a lot of negatives — largely due to political correctness today, in my opinion. Multiculturalism presents a plethora of issues related to the creation of factions within a single society. In the political battlefield in which we all live regardless of wanting to or not, this can be very decisive and doesn’t necessarily result in an inclusive society. The “melting pot” that the U.S. was supposed to be has largely morphed into something far different. The point of the gun lobby just seems silly to me.
– His point at looking at history is good, but zombies don’t exactly adapt — they’re a single strategy enemy which means they can be defeated by a single strategy. The way that history is taught today, it’s largely whitewashed of actual lessons and discussions in favor of… political correctness.
– It’s absolutely true that everyone should try to learn whenever they can. I find it odd that it’s claimed that Max understands DIME as he was calling the United States an isolationist superpower. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan certainly weren’t isolationist, and neither is our Navy patrolling international waters around the globe. The government utilizes all sorts of weapons against opponents. This is true without regard to their success or failure — it’s not the tactic of an isolationist power.
I like Jon’s bits, and I think that Erin’s views are interesting.
Throughout our history we have certainly been reluctant to intervene in many a conflict. Often, our hesitation has allowed a smaller issue to grow to rather large proportions.
True, but that doesn’t make us an isolationist superpower since we’ve also been quite happy to intervene in certain circumstances outside our borders.
And don’t get me wrong — I’m not advocating we bomb the shit out of anyone that we disagree with. It’s an incredibly hard balance to find, but I think it’s something that Max is incorrect in his views about.
US bases stretched througout the world, globalism perpetuated by our financial system, and military industrial supremacy definitely refutes the notion that we are isolationist.
Isolationist is often a snarl word, but we could benefit from shifting more towards that direction than where we’re headed now.
I’m not arguing that the use couldn’t benefit from more a more isolationist view or not. Max stating that we are already an isolationist superpower is wrong is all that I’m saying.
Thanks for putting up this post, Mr. SSD. I too think that this sort of thing is a necessary adjunct to all the other vectors presented here at Soldier SYSTEMS (emphasis mine). That said…
I am very curious from where Mr. Brooks gets his isolationist rap. Isolationists do not (as of March 2015) Forward Deploy in 200+ countries. And I’m not convinced that he understands DIME. His Time Line -ish stuff is ok. He’s simply attempting an update on Toffler.
Brooks is spot-on about the use of Science Fiction. Plenty of SF writers have mentioned that one of the reasons they wrote SF was because they could get away with subject matter that the straight fiction universe would have torn them to pieces over.
Simpson nails it. Cities are indeed a systems problem, not an engineering problem, and fixing the lack of narrative would solve much. I look forward to reading more from her.
Alex Brady’s art? The first thing I thought of was vintage Heavy Metal magazine. Great Stuff.
Didn’t mean to leave out Chang. Interesting idea on where the Corporations as Nation States will ultimately wind up.
It will be interesting to see if we can avoid The Grim Meathook Future.
Thanks SSD.
I try to address this stuff on my site but it was a nice change of pace to see it here. Numerous typos aside (hey it happens when you are trying the get a story out quickly) it was a very provocative read.
The isolationist comment was ill used. Not having foresight is not isolationist. Ignoring a problem until it impacts us on our beaches is isolationist. There is certainly a strong inclination today to go that way. If successful it’ll bite us in the ass just like it did in WWII.
That tank concept was fascinating. Getting past the complete unrealistic nature of such a vehicle (the pavement behind it should have been destroyed by the sheer weight of that monstrosity) it might speak to what has become our strategic weakness of casualty aversion. The enemy doesn’t have to defeat us on the battlefield anymore. All the enemy has to do is cause enough casualties for the media to have enough footage to question any reason (no matter how valid) for us to go to war. Just look at any discussion of Afghanistran, while incurring casualties is always part of the discussion the horror of 911 rarely is.
Getting back to the photo, look at what the GCV (Bradley replacement) morphed into. It was pushing 70T until we pulled the plug as too heavy, too expensive.
“Chang also sees future conflict very much a function of corporate, rather than national interests. He believes that corporations will work engagement angles like funding NGOs in order to build goodwill.”
Very insightful, but it has already happened and been the case since the turn of the century. Yeah, all the way back to the “guilded age” era.
Okay here’s what I’m seeing in the picture:
It’s obviously set outside of the US thanks to the liscense plate on the woman’s euro-mobile. And why the heck is she holding the sack?? Was she just making a run home from the central market when she decided to protest the massive tank, which is also probably DESTROYING that concrete?? And even if she was taking a sudden moment to object to the monstrosity, why in the heck did she take the sack with her!? Whatever it is it can’t aid her in any way at all. Also, does anyone else notice that the tread area on the right of the picture is MUCH wider than the treads on the left, and that there are many more lights above the treads to the right than to the left??
I mean seriously
“The Future of Urban Warfare” conference by a group of comic book authors?
WTF?
I guess you didn’t actually read the story, did you?
The picture says to me “Gatling 155. F*ck you and your area code.”