Global Guerrillas as Advocacy Theory

Recently I was puzzled by an online comment. Responding to something Tanguerna wrote:

It is a tragedy when someone refuses to acknowledge that their baby is dead.

John Robb seconded:

Or stillborn like tdaxp’s “secret war.”

To me this is strange. My post on 5GW, or SecretWar, attempt to describe something that I see as actually happening. If my thoughts on soundlessness and formlessness, say, are inaccurate, I would expect them to be that way: wrong from the beginning, not wrong the the day they are born (written?). Likewise, if they are accurate, they were no more “born” of me than any process is born of a discoverer — the researcher outlines what already exists, but does not create anything new.

Then I realized the obvious: Global Guerrillas is an advocacy theory. The reason that “global guerrillas” do not exist is that Robb hasn’t invented them yet. For his theory to be “true” he does not have to match the facts on the ground, but create the facts. Robb outlines his unique perspective on war not to describe something that exists but to create something new. For him, his idea could truly be stillborn if no groups can be convinced if the existence of his “systempunkt” and other ideas. This also explains his use of incoherent definitions. Robb’s theory becomes “true” if it actually happens, not if his words, deeds, &c agree with each other. “Truth” becomes defined by reality, not by our more traditional scales of veracity. This freedom from the demands of logic, allowing him to claim that the instability of grand coalitions is somehow something new, etc.

4 thoughts on “Global Guerrillas as Advocacy Theory”

  1. In my efforts to “attempt to describe something that I see as actually happening” I have prepared a longish post (1500 words) called “Toward Ensembles Acting with Authority” (http://soldiers.simplemauiweddings.com/2006/10/22/toward-ensembles-acting-with-authority/) I see this as a beginning towards an intersection of 5GW and education which I see as explicit but will require explaination. My focus will be the actual training of ensembles. I would greatly appreciate you comments on this if you have the time.

  2. Sean – LOL!

    RevG –

    I responded at another post as well [1], but here's a new comment:

    “Human society is rapidly approaching the condition where the authority to act must be located in the specific environment being analyzed. This is the result of a trend in human development that once required a vision spanning generations to fully appreciate. Current conditions no longer need rely upon multigenerational knowledge to support this conclusion. Current events outstrip the conclusions of historical precedent. History only serves to show us that which is no longer relevant. The need for speed to action, the need to analyze current constantly changing conditions, has been created by novelty.”

    I disagree completely. This reminds me of Authoritarian High Modernism and all of its failed variants — Communism, Fascism, Socialism, and all the rest of the “planning” theories — because it attempts to reduce the complex adaptive system of our world to something amenable to centralized command-and-control.

    “Protected hierarchies have guided and supported human development producing all the benefits of civilization and in this way have justified their position in human society.”

    Not sure what you mean by this.

    [1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/10/19/wary-motivation-implicit-knowledge.html#c1208880

  3. Dan tdaxp –

    Thank you for your insights. Regarding your comment:

    “This reminds me of Authoritarian High Modernism and all of its failed variants — Communism, Fascism, Socialism, and all the rest of the “planning” theories — because it attempts to reduce the complex adaptive system of our world to something amenable to centralized command-and-control.”

    I was actually going for a variant of post-modernity where authority is exercised locally by a peer group of specialists, hence my use of the term 'ensemble', in my mind the paragraph you quote is a critique of failed AHM. In the contest of the entire post I was hoping to be clear that centralized command-and-control is as doomed as AHM. Obviously I need to work on my writing.

    As to what I meant by that: My point was only to say that generations of leaders have used the benefits that appear during their term in power to justify their power. Perhaps my reach for a general term applicable to a broad range obfuscurated rather than illuminated. I have been rightfully accused of writing too densely, perhaps I need to unpack some of these thoughts and just write more.

    Thank you again very much, I do appreciate your thoughts.

  4. RevG – Ah… gotcha. You may want to try adding visuals to your writing. I do that from time to time, when I am writing on subjects that I fear will otherwise not be clear.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *