My feeling is that you are still essentially discounting the possibility that something can be both a kind of order and yet not a nation-state. So you draw up a dichotomy either a) state + order or b) non-state + nihilist.

From there you make a distinction between “destroy order” which is what you say nihilistic Global Guerrillas want. And “replace states” which is what you say Insurgents want. In this case “replace” really means “take over the state” or “replace it with a different state”

In fact, you make this difference in *goals* the crucial distinction between GGs and Insurgents.

But I think there can be non-states that are also order. And someone who believes in non-state order could want to both destroy *and* replace a state *at the same time*.

You destroy the existing state and replace it with a kind of order which is not a state.

In that case, the dichotomy you are trying to drive between GGs and insurgents based on their goals will evaporate. GGs are revealed not as a distinctly different kind of thing from an insurgent or a criminal, but really part of the same family of similar phenomena. Much as fascist and Stalinist totalitarianisms share a resemblance and many common features.

Now, your argument that GGism is “suicidal” and doomed to failure, rests on your claim that there is no “order” possible if the state is destroyed. And because no-one will be willing to live without order, you think that the bazaar will extinguish itself (presumably reverting to a state.)

Once again, if you accept non-state order, then GGs may very well have a goal which is neither nihilistic nor “mere” insurgency. They may even be able to achieve such a goal of a perpetual, orderful, non-state. If we're really unlucky, that order might support an ongoing low-level bazaar of vendeta and blood-feud.

In fact, much of human history and pre-history has consisted of such squabbling small tribes at low intensity war with each other. There's no reason to think that such configurations are unstable and will tend to collapse *into* larger, more rigid nation-states.

Traditionally, when larger scale entities have formed, what has happened is that a tribe which has proved more successful militarily has swollen and conquered its neighbours to become an empire or kingdom.

Now imagine that the traditional military advantages of being larger have pretty much been negated. The barbarians are not isolated at the fringes of the empire, waiting to be subjugated one by one, but in constant communication with each other, swapping tactics, always knowing when the imperial army is coming their way or going the other.

The existing empire is at bay, surrounded by a pack of jackels. The next empire never really gets born or grows at all. There *is* only a constant flux of small scale tribes and low level skirmishing between them.

Hmmm… good points. Would you agree that the passage “create and maintain a bazaar of violence and” should be stricken from a working definition of global guerrillas?

TDL,

I think the use of the term bazaar is taken from the free software world: [1]

“The essay contrasts two different free software development models:

* The Cathedral model, in which source code is available with each software release, but code developed between releases is restricted to an exclusive group of developers. GNU Emacs and GCC are presented as examples.
* The Bazaar model, in which the code is developed over the Internet in view of the public. Raymond credits Linus Torvalds, leader of the Linux kernel project, as the inventor of this process. He also provides anecdotal accounts of his implementation of this model for the fetchmail project.

The essay's central thesis is Raymond's proposition that “given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow” (which he terms Linus' law): if the source code is available for public testing, scrutiny, and experimentation, then bugs will be discovered at a rapid rate. In contrast, Raymond claims that an inordinate amount of time and energy must be spent hunting for bugs in the Cathedral model, since the working version of the code is available only to a few developers.”

Robb seems aware of the work [2,3], so I think the closeness of terminology is not accidental.

It thus seems that outside enough openness, you don't have this bizarre of violence. That is, I don't think that even a mob-infested city with “those who offered their services to protect or destroy” would count, because besides the major players are using the “Cathedral” methods where weaknesses become rapidly visible.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar&oldid=103727239
[2] http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/09/bazaar_dynamics.html
[3] http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2005/07/journal__a_caut.html#comment-7138841

Regards,
TDL

Are you just going to say that anyone who maintains sufficient control of violence over a particular sphere of influence is, by definition, a state? In which case, let's say a tribe of around 400 people who manage to hold range of about 20 square KM of farmland is a state? Or a private company who employ security guards to successfully defend their factory complex is a state?

The reason I ask about entailing is that I wonder what sort of non-state actor could establish a monopoly of violence (or otherwise end the bazaar of violence).

Hezbollah in her areas, for instance, may not be a de jure state but is certainly viewed as a “State within a State” for analysis purposes. So were the Teutonic Knights and so is Taiwan, for that matter.

Robb's work is based on bottom-up analysis, he sees data points and draws trend lines – which means his analysis is inherently well grounded (or internally consistant), not just within his body of work but in the global system.

Robb has the unique ability to tie those lines together, look forward and synthesize with experience to create a/the right worldview based on his view of next generation warfare.

– This is mostly why I can't buy into any arguments stating that we aren't seeing these mechanisms at play in the real world.

http://tinyurl.com/36nvw

I haven't seen many trendlines on John's blog. He seems to focus either on anecdotes or theory. These are both important, but it's also important not to misrepresent the sort of evidence that Robb has made available (I realize the term was used as an analogy, but I think the analogy is a false one).

Phil,

“The Art of War” is internally invalid?

All,

Thank you for the wonderful, wonderful feedback. I've posted a revised definition of global guerrillas that would not have been possible without the things commentators and emailers have taught me. Thanks!

http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/02/05/working-definition-of-global-guerrillas-try-2.html