The Committee of Public Safety

A victim of Twitter War

Three levels of power proposed by RAND:

…(1) resources or capabilities, or power-in-being; (2) how that power is converted…; (3) and power in outcomes, or [who] prevails in particular circumstances…[C]apabilities—demographic, economic, technological, and the like—only become manifest through a process of conversion. [Politics needs] to convert material resources into more usable instruments, such as combat proficiency. In the end, however, what policymakers care most about is not power as capability or power-in-being as converted through national ethos, politics, and social cohesion. They care about power in outcomes. That third level is by far the most elusive, for it is contingent and relative. It depends on power for what, and against whom.

This suggests three stages in the life cycle of power:

1. Potential Power: power that has not been used to pursue desire.
2. Applied Power: power in the process of being used to pursue desire.
3. Realized Power: effect of the use of power on the pursuit of desire.

Thus there are three zones of power in space:

1. Zone of Potential: where power is unconsumed in pursuit of desire.
2. Zone of Application: where power is being consumed in pursuit of desire.
3. Zone of Realization: where the use of power in pursuit of desire produces its effects.

Power cycles through the stages of power in time and the zones of power in space. The point of power is to move through the cycle from potential to application to realization. Successful realization of the use of power constitutes success while failure to realize the use of power is failure. This process parallels the adaption cycle of the OODA loop. The OODA loop passes through a zone of potential in orientation and decision, a zone of application in action, and a zone of realization in observation.

War is a strategy intended to make the enemy conform to our desires when doing so is contrary to what they’d do if they possessed both the power to resist us and sufficient knowledge about our true desires. As a strategy, war is an instrument of politics and the main preoccupation of politics is power. Therefore, the main preoccupation of war is power. To paraphrase J.C. Wylie:

The primary aim of the strategist in the conduct of war is some selected degree of [power over] the enemy for the strategist’s own purpose; this is achieved by [power over] the pattern of war; and this [power over] the pattern of war is [obtained through] manipulation of the center of gravity of war to the advantage of the strategist and the disadvantage of the opponent.

The successful strategist is the one who [has power over] the nature and the placement and the timing and the weight of the centers of gravity of war, and who exploits the resulting [power over] the pattern of war toward his own ends.

This power follows a few working principles:

1. Power is exercised in several dimensions of power such as land, water, air, space, society, and cyberspace.
2. Each dimension of power is both a target of power and a medium of power. A medium of power allows power to be projected through it on to a target of power.
3. Each dimension of power has two characteristics: resistance, how well it acts as a medium of power, and persistence, how well some selected degree of power can be maintained over a target of power.
4. While a dimension of power that offers little resistance is a good medium of power, the same lack of resistance gives them a lack of persistence. Thus they function better as a medium for power than as a target for power.
5. Power is accumulated faster through power over a dimension of power characterized by low resistance than a dimension of power characterized by high persistence.

There are three levels of power over a dimension of power:

1. Sufficient power to collect knowledge within a dimension of power (read).
2. Sufficient power to generate change within a dimension of power (write).
3. Sufficient power to exercise absolutely power over a dimension of power (execute).

There are six sub-levels of power, three negative and three positive. The negative (and defensive) sub-levels are:

1. Sufficient power to prevent others from collecting knowledge within a dimension of power.
2. Sufficient power to prevent others from generating change within a dimension of power.
3. Sufficient power to prevent others from gaining absolute power over a dimension of power.

The positive (and offensive) sub-levels are:

1. Sufficient power to collect knowledge about others within a dimension of power.
2. Sufficient power to generate change in others within a dimension of power.
3. Sufficient power to exercise absolute power over others within a dimension of power.

Example: Twitter War. Millions of people got twitter-painted over events in Iran. This is the zone of potential. In the zone of potential things seemed great. People turned their icons green and RT’d many a tweet emanating from Iran. This passed the war into the zone of application. Noise increased due to confused Iranians, mullah disinformation, well-meaning but clueless Westerners, and Iran’s advanced surveillance architecture. Much information passed out of and into Iran. The end result once we reached the zone of realization? Before Iran, Twitter was a way to get millions of nerds excited about a topic to no great end. After Iran, Twitter was a way to get millions of nerds excited about a topic to no great end.

The mullahs and IRG may have been dazed by the reaction of the people just before and just after the election, but they are professionals. Many of the core cadres have extensive revolutionary, subversive, or combat experience. The opposition is primarily composed of hippies who’s appeal and identification with the West is that they are interested in this life. The regime is backed by hardened fanatics who are often, among the rank and file, more interested in the next life. Khamenei, in the words of Zenpundit, is a political valet interested in this life. He is interested in concrete power. The opposition would only ever triumph if they attracted government elements who could present a sufficient physical counter-force to Khamenei’s forces. As of yet, that has not happened. Twitter War would have to…

• Trigger internal forces to side with the opposition.

Or.

• Trigger external forces to intervene on the side of the opposition.

…in order to actually reach the zone of realization with any impact. It is only in that zone that the dream of Iranian regime change can be effected. Twitter is a dimension of power characterized by low resistance and low persistence. It is a target of power primarily because it’s a medium of power through which a war of influence could be waged. It is not the goal. Control of Twitter does not bring you into the zone of realization. Twitter is only a medium of power, a zone of application. The target of power, the zone of realization, is any force sufficient to bring kinetic power to bear on the regime. That didn’t happen because the medium was mistaken for the target. Twitter, a subset of cyberspace, like the sea and the air and space, is not a medium in which power persists. It’s a medium through which power passes through on the way to the target of that power. It is the road to realization, not the destination of realization. At this point, it’s role as a medium seems deficient. Airpower, sea power, and ultimately land power seem to be better bets for shaping the regime’s actions. Broader social power may also contribute in the long run. At this point, Twitter power ain’t there yet.