This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
In his book, "Full Spectrum Dominance," Engdahl explained the RANDCorporation's groundbreaking research on military conflict by other
means. He cited researchers John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt's 1997
"Swarming & The Future of Conflict" document "on exploiting the
information revolution for the US military. By taking advantage of
network-based organizations linked via email and mobile phones to
enhance the potential of swarming, IT techniques could be transformed
into key methods of warfare."
In 1993, Arquilla and Ronfeldt prepared an earlier document titled
"Cyberwar Is Coming!" It suggested that "warfare is no longer
primarily a function of who puts the most capital, labor and
technology on the battlefield, but of who has the best information
about the battlefield" and uses it effectively.
They cited an information revolution using advanced "computerized
information and communications technologies and related innovations in
organization and management theory." They foresaw "the rise of
multi-organizational networks" using information technologies "to
communicate, consult, coordinate, and operate together across greater
distances" and said this ability will affect future conflicts and
warfare. They explained that "cyberwar may be to the 21st century what
blitzkrieg was to the 20th century" but admitted back then that the
concept was too speculative for precise definition.
Ronfeldt studied netwar and cyberwar by examining "irregular modes of
conflict, including terror, crime, and militant social activism." Then
in 1997, they presented the concept of "swarming" and suggested it
might "emerge as a definitive doctrine that will encompass and enliven
both cyberwar and netwar" through their vision of "how to prepare for
information-age conflict."
They called "swarming" a way to strike from all directions, both
"close-in as well as from stand-off positions." Effectiveness depends
on deploying small units able to interconnect using revolutionary
communication technology.
As explained above, what works on battlefields has proved successful
in achieving non-violent color revolution regime changes, or coup
d'etats by other means. The same strategy appears in play in Iran, but
it's too early to tell if it will work as so far the government has
prevailed. However, for the past 30 years, America has targeted the
Islamic Republic for regime change to control the last major country
in a part of the world over which it seeks unchallenged dominance.
If the current confrontation fails, expect future ones ahead as
imperial America never quits. Yet in the end, new political forces
within Iran may end up changing the country more than America can
achieve from the outside - short of conquest and occupation, that is.
A final point. The core issue isn't whether Iran's government is
benign or repressive or if its June 12 election was fair or
fraudulent. It's that (justifiable criticism aside) no country has a
right to meddle in the internal affairs of another unless it commits
aggression in violation of international law and the UN Security
Council authorizes a response. Washington would never tolerate outside
interference nor should it and neither should Iran.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on
Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The
Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday
at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with
distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are
archived for easy listening.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14148
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
