Now John Robb is in the House!

John Robb is testified today before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capability on Terrorism and the New Age of Irregular Warfare: Challenges and Opportunities. John put up a PDF of his testimony at Global Guerillas, here is a snippet but you should read John’s text in full:

MY TESTIMONY

….Against this dark picture, a combination of assault by a global economic system running amok and organic insurgency by superempowered small groups, there are few hard and fast recommendations I can provide. It’s complex. However, it is clear:

  • We will need to become more efficient. Force structure will shrink. Most of the major weapons systems we currently maintain will become too expensive to maintain, particularly given their limited utility against the emerging threat. Current efforts from the F-22 and the Future Combat System appear to be particularly out of step with the evolving environment. Smaller and more efficient systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and coordination systems built on open platforms (as in a Intranet) that alloworganic growth in complexity make much more sense.
  • We should focus on the local. In almost all of these future conflicts, our ability to manage local conditions is paramount. Soldiers should be trained to operate in uncertain environments (the work of Don Vandergriff is important here) so they can deal with local chaos. Packages of technologies and methodologies should be developed to enable communities in distressed areas to become resilient – as in, they are able to produce the food, energy, defense, water, etc. they need to prosper without reference to a dysfunction regional or national situation. Finally, we need to get build systematic methods formanaging large numbers of militias that are nominally allied with us (like Anbar Awakening, Pakistan’s Frontier Corps, etc.). Even a simple conversion of a commercial “customer relationship management” system would provide better institutional memory and oversight than we currently have.
  • We need to get better at thinking about military theory. Military theory is rapidly evolving due to globalization. It’s amazing to me that the structures and organizations tasked with this role don’t provide this. We are likely in the same situation as we wereprior to WW2, where innovative thinking by JFC Fuller and Liddell Hart on armored warfare didn’t find a home in allied militaries, but was read feverishly by innovators in the German army like Guderian and Manstein. Unfortunately, in the current environment, most of the best thinking on military theory is now only tangentially associated with the DoD (worse, it’s done, as in my situation, on a part time basis).

A classy move on John’s part to take the time during his testimony highlight Don Vandergriff’s program of adaptive leadership ( another guy whom Congress should be hearing from)!

 Chairman Ike Skelton (D -Mo), judging by his impressive reading list in military affairs, is a Member of Congress who would seem to be keen to hear what John had to say. I’m very pleased to see Congress drawing upon the insights of strategic thinkers like John Robb and Tom Barnett, instead of the usual parade of niche specialists from the Beltway tanks.

  1. Arherring:

    Much as I tend to disagree with John Robb, this is good testimony. Too bad, much like the testimony of Tom Barnett, common sense is something they don’t really want to hear, resiliency, training, and conflict theory development not being as ‘sexy’ as next-gen stealth fighter planes.

    That reading list does inspire a bit of hope though. I hope the reaction is favorable.

  2. Lexington Green:

    Good to see Robb doing this.  His printed testimony was a good introduction to his thinking, without being hopelessly apocalyptic.  The fact that he is being let into the room is a good thing in itself. 
    .
    I’ve read 13/50 on Skelton’s list and own another dozen I haven’t gotten to yet.

  3. YT:

    Zen : Robb’s book has a subtitle that sayeth "The Next Stage of Terrorism & the End of Globalization". Isn’t that like diametrically opposed to Barnett’s view of things? I haven’t had the opportunity to read Robb’s work but I’ve seen some of Barnett’s. How do you reconcile their views?

  4. zen:

    Hi YT,
    .
    Great question. In Tom’s opinion, having asked him this previously, he sees himself and John as sharing a dialectic mode of thought on strategy, despite arriving at different conclusions. Not sure how John feels about it.
    .
    From my perspective, both men have strategic worldviews strongly oriented by systems thinking and emergent patterns. The difference to me is the particular focus that each chooses to bring to bear in considering geopolitical-strategic scenarios. Creation and destruction are present and in tension in every system and Tom and John are frequently ( not always, to be sure) scanning for opposing potentialities.
    .
    That said, this is a useful situation for both of them as well as their readerships, which substantially overlap. Having an intellectual antipode in a field is like having a corrective to keep your thinking from error of excess and a stimulus for new ideas. Think Einstein-Heisenberg/Bohr or Edison-Tesla etc. Dichotomies are good things sometimes.

  5. YT:

    Zen : You meant somethin’ like this — 

    "It is probably true quite generally that in the history of human thinking the most fruitful developments frequently take place at those points where two different lines of thought meet.  These lines may have their roots in quite different parts of human nature, in different times or different cultural environments or different religious traditions:  hence if they actually meet, that is, if they are at least so much related to each other that a real interaction can take place, then one may hope that new and interesting developments may follow." : Werner Heisenberg