IN THE 90'S, the concept of an information revolution was in the minds of many thinkers. It was observed during that time that the emerging technological trends in the fields of computer processing, networking systems, and multimedia storage and communications, shall inevitably pave the way towards an evolution in the nature and science of information.
The science that have fueled those relevant technological trends was not very recent as the needs that drove these developments were born primarily from war-time military
requirements dating back to the early 40's through to the Cold-War era right up to the tenuous years leading
up to the Y2K countdown.
As such, the inescapable probability that affected the thinking that seeks to address the undefined potential of the information effect of those technological trends was first observed in military and defense circles.
That these technological trends in question possess wide and various applications in many fields of human endeavor can not be denied but it can not also be denied that these technologies
inadvertently combine to create a convergent effect which was perceived at the time, during the 90's, as a revolution in military affairs.
This
convergent effect is better known as the
information revolution.
It establishes the recognition, initially within military and defense circles, that the information revolution shall inevitably require from those communities a necessary adaptation.
It was understood at the time that this revolution in military affairs, particularly in western and coalition armed forces, constitute a vital and necessary effort.
The
fore casted changes, it was perceived at the time, that shall from the information revolution exert an inescapable necessity shall require the relevant military not only to adapt to the current nature of things but also to evolve with the realities that constitute the shape of a new age, an
information age.
The expectation that was inherent during those times was so great that there were some who were inclined to argue that the nature of conflict itself shall be irreversibly altered by the information age and while this is quite a very worthwhile hope to have, I argue the negative in
this regard.
I am of the conviction that the nature of conflict is unalterable and this unalterable nature underscores the significance and the gravity of the military undertaking.
Conflict shall always involve violence and this violence requires from the military as a whole both disciplined effort and willing sacrifice. The rigors of the battlefield expects from the military at the very least, an understanding of the intrinsic nature of conflict that the noble commander may understand the damage that results from using the military.
In the Art of War, Sun
Tzu wrote that to prolong conflict is inhuman. I also subscribe to this ageless wisdom not because I understand that either decisiveness and/or victory can be constrained by time or space but precisely because I am of the conviction that the nature of
conflict is both unchanging and unchangeable.
If conflict were to be shortened because one's strategy is constrained by time considerations then one's military shall constantly suffer disadvantage in the field; timing and background timing, in the Art of War, heaven and earth, these are essential elements of sound military
strategy.
Furthermore, to prolong conflict is inhuman not because the noble military lacks the will to attain to the victory but because military victory is pointless if one does not maintain the people.
I argue that the nature of conflict and the nature of the military are distinct and separate realities and where these natures are confused, the deception that the nature of conflict can become anything but evil and attempt to be true and that the noble military can become anything but itself and attain to the peace becomes quite
problematic.
The soul of every human being, being established on reason, is prone to question matters regarding the nature of things, most especially those things related to our both our survival and happiness; individual as well as social; immediate, temporal and eternal.
And conflict being what it is when treated as one of these questions is frequently left unasked, ignored or suppressed, because most of us have acquired through learned history and our own experience of it that war and the threat of war are accepted as common realities where in fact, they are not common for the reality of war is very particular.
The divergent, incomplete or non-existent histories of many an untold record of our common existence as the one whole of humanity stand in mute testimony to the particularity of war.
One implicitly knows that these unsung songs exist for many are the questions that stir in the hearts of our nations and evident are the hopes that empower our sacred remembrances.
And we hope with the hope that is common to all nations that these questions shall find their peace with the farewell of our heroes at the sacred resting places of the guardians of our nations.
But these questions that stir in the heart must not stir for conflict for the
stirring within the heart of man is so that his soul may come to a remembrance of the peace and peace as the common reality upon which our shared humanity may build those necessary bridges that shall in time restore mutual trust and create the necessary conditions to enable the establishment of the necessary moral certitude that shall serve to hold together in universal good will the one family of the nations of mankind.
War has been the prevalent and pervasive scourge of mankind that since ancient times have enslaved our nations, annihilated our civilizations and oppressed our shared humanity. It is false to think that the nature of war or conflict is amenable to change. Even with the dawn of the new information age and the great potential that this may represent to our nations, if we should fail to receive the hope that is inherent in the evolution of the times; if we should fail to break from the pitfalls of last age; if we should fail to honor our sacred remembrances; then the blessings of this age may turn into a curse and the information age and it's capacity to foster peace and good will among our nations turn into another era of war and genocide.
I am of the conviction that it is not the nature of conflict that great promise inherent in the revolution in military affairs means to
ennoble, it is the nature of the military itself.
It is the heart of the military and by mutual extension, the heart of the nation of it's commission, that the new information age promises to renew. While the technical innovations and the necessary equipment that the military requires shall all stand to benefit from the improvements that shall advance with the science of the times, the nature of the military if it is confused with the nature of conflict shall only serve to defeat the purpose of it's mission.
The greater lethality of the conventional weapons in service today not to mention the massive capacity of unconventional weapons, nuclear and others, to inflict
catastrophic damage to our national communities when their capacity to inflict violence are combined are said to be vastly more than enough to cause the desolation of war; the ambition of war.
Conventional weapons are a necessity of the honorable defense but as for those unconventional weapons, nuclear and others, where these weapons remain active in their potential, one must be mindful that these weapons exist for one reason alone and that is to cause the desolation of war; the ambition of war.
The overkill that exists as regards to unconventional weapons, nuclear and others, is an overwhelming statement of the times that I believe we must put behind us. No weapon exists in time for anything else but to deliver it's raw potential which is to inflict violence.
And if these weapons are ever utilized out of their context by hearts who are deceived by the will of conflict as a method of war, we shall to our great regret come to the swift realization that neither any weapon by itself nor the threat of its use, most especially nuclear and other weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction, can ever maintain the peace of our nations, let alone the peace between our nations of the one family of the nations of mankind.
As an extension of the mind and heart of both the noble military and the honorable police, weapons exist to defend the peace of the state, uphold the discipline of national community and protect the common good of the people, but weapons by themselves, even brilliant weapons - the next generation of guided weaponry after smart weapons - do not have and shall never have the native capacity to discriminate as to whom, where and when their terrible utility is applied.
Having said all of that, I should like to bring all of these things together that I may clarify for you my present position as regards to the information revolution as it is pertinent to the military as well as to the nations of the peace and the outlook I have of the first half a century of this new age.
For I have given this much thought and have from before Y2K been so inclined because of personal ambitions at the time that was denied to me but which I now understand was due to those ambitions greater than myself and the purposes inherent in the calling that I now find myself serving even despite myself.
First, let us revive that expectation that was so apparent in the 90's as regards to the information revolution. This convergent effect of the emergent technologies whose actual existence we owe from the conflicts suffered by our nations in the past have found it's place not only in the military but also in all aspects of our living; from cell phones to the networks that serve them, from
LANS to
WANS to the Internet, from multimedia computers to computerized cars, from email and the virtual universe, from radio and television programming that brings us the world, from the revolution in military affairs to the globalization of our world, we are now much more aware of things around our planet and are consequently more anxious about the world around us.
Before we continue, let us not confuse anxiety with doubt. Anxiety is a fear of a problem and this fear is always irrational because the hope of the soul is not founded on the good of the established order of both the natural and the supernatural reality but in the evil inherent in the lack that brought the problem about. Anxious people are seldom trusting because of their focus on the evil of things and this focus only reinforces their anxiety and since anxiety is a fear, this passion elicits in our being either retreat or confrontation but where anxiety inclines the person to retreat, it is not to gather the self, and where anxiety inclines a person to confront, it is never to make peace. So let us not be anxious and where there is anxiety, let us be patient for hope and become for the anxious soul a guide back to the original order of things. Those of us who practice prayer and believe in the honorable religion of our particular faith traditions will do well to pray for those of us who are consumed by anxiety.
Doubt is not inimical to faith. Certitude in God is not reached by a soul gifted with both reason and faith without questions and no question may ever be conceived in the heart where the soul is never at times plagued by so much doubt. The absoluteness of our allegiance to the one peace does not become whole without first asking those necessary questions that are required to make the will of our faith complete so that even when doubts should and will arise in the course of time, we know enough on those occasions not to question but to seek for the answers through prayer and in consultation one with another.
What is inimical to faith is contempt for contempt casts its doubts not to seek for answers but to confound and confuse the object of its derision and where one is contemptuous of matters concerning things that belong with and pertain to a particular faith tradition proper to the honorable religion of any person of good will, the certitude that is proper to a faith that is fulfilled by answers shall become not just for ourselves, a strength and a comfort, but also to the person by whose instrumentality we stand to gain some spiritual good.
Having said all of these and considering the climate of the times, it is only understandable that many of us might be in doubt. Many of us might be of the thinking that the problems of the world can be solved by our not paying attention to the suffering of other people who are half a world away and that we must only concentrate on our own local problems. Many of us might be of the thinking that this new millennium is forlorn of opportunity not understanding that time is made for man and is therefore as itself a choice instrument that flows not only to found us in our remembrances but also to uplift us from the evils that require wings more than feet. Many of us might be of the thinking that the old ways of the past can safely and easily carry without negative consequence into this new age, and that war and the ambition of war can dwell among the closed ranks of a globalized world without tearing all into pieces.
All of these doubts arise from a lack that we all perceive, a lack of peace. This lack has given birth to a hope that is possessed by those of us who see the need in our world for respite from the relentless nature of war and the ambition of war; that not only our nations but our planetary whole itself is in great need of rest and regeneration.
The information revolution does have potential but this potential can not be completely realized without the paradigm shift that while it was mentioned by some thinkers as regards to the revolution in military affairs is not a shift heralded by external things as technology and its methods nor science and its applications but a quiet shift in the nature of the heart of the individual person.
Technological adaptations can not define the nature of conflict nor can computers of whatever capacity hold for our nations the means to attain victory for it is only attainable to those who know that where the Tao or the one whole way of war is deception, the Tao of war is not the Tao of victory, for the one whole way of victory is the one whole way of the one peace and that war is useful only when the conditions for peace have already been attained in the heart of the noble commander. These conditions require that we recognize the distinctions inherent between the nature of conflict and the nature of the military and having done so, discard one for the other that we may always know where to defend from war.
If the
bi polarization of the Cold War has contained the desolation of war by the threat of no victory and at the aftermath has left our world embroiled in bitter cycles that have arisen in our regions like ghosts from the past, we can see that in a multi-polar world with its complex
geo-political landscape, the deterrent that have kept the ambition of war at bay in the last age shall no longer constitute a water tight guarantee that conflict shall not overthrow the order of our nations.
Now, in the context of a multi-polar world that is globalized, the threat of arms to ensure peace or the threat of no victory for that matter as in the Cold War doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction shall prove not only ineffective but also dangerous because the tension that was maintained by the diametric
symmetry of the opposition during the last age can not be maintained in an
asymmetric form where there are no absolutes that shall define the scope of the conflict and therefore, contain the beast of war.
This is why I am an advocate of not only of
nuclear disarmament but of a complete and global ban on weapons of mass destruction and the secure measures to control the proliferation of illegal technology that can be utilized to construct them. This is the first of the three pillars that constitute the doctrine of Mutually Assured Defense which provides an alternative to the other MAD as a means to deter and contain conflict within the established paradigm whole of the one peace.
Defense against
extra-planetary threats such as rogue asteroids of sufficient mass to threaten our surface cities, I believe, can be carried out through other means that would not involve the multiplicate risks involved in maintaining a nuclear arsenal of sufficient strength so as to present to our poor world an ever present threat comparable to the probable meteor threat it is meant to possibly counter. Of course, extra-planetary defense, in terms of the one wholes, constitute both a sacred duty and a civic responsibility of the one planetary whole and is a vital necessity that shall only increase in its significance the further we shall advance in the information age.
A multi-polar world that is globalized and that exists within the one paradigm whole of the peace is cognizant of both the interdependence of our one family of nations as well as the individual uniqueness of each of our particular endeavors of Country.
There is no mold that shall dictate how a particular national community shall grow into a mature nation-state but there are universal values that shall serve to guide all of our nation-states, from the least to the greatest, to achieve for their people, the liberation that can only be possible where the choices of the citizenry are enabled by the wisdom traditions of honorable religion and their freedoms empowered by the responsible peace of the state; a peace that is universal within a universality that is meaningful; a meaningfulness that constitute the necessary certitude understood by the hopes and good will of our one family of nations.
The second pillar of the doctrine is the noble military. This pillar stands in recognition to the nature of the military that while required to adapt the necessary innovations that shall keep current the means that determine the methods employed by tactical combat units in the field such as kit and weaponry, vehicles, armor, artillery, etc., have and must always retain the heart which is the soul of Army. Because it is the soldier's heart at the heart of the profession of arms that ultimately determines for the military whole, the sharpness of it's ability to cut through to the heart of the conflict and dispel the fog of wars' ambition which has divided the field between our one family of nations and against the one side of the peace. Of course, any where the noble military is fielded, the civilian leadership must also respond to the same doctrine that shall integrate their intentions with their generals right down the echelons to the private on the field.
The third pillar is the Mutual Lines of the Absolute Defense. In the one paradigm of the peace, the borders of our nation-states are not limits that constitute the end of the one peace. These borders are the demarcations that define for our nation-states the boundaries of our responsible labors of Country. The one peace is a continuum that must be observed both in time and dimensional space and therefore, embrace the reality of all our nation-states.
To divide the one peace is the beginning of all evil for a divided peace is nothing but war and a peace that does not embrace the one whole is nothing but an appeasement to war. One must understand that there is an absoluteness to all good things, where evil is particular, the good is ascendant in its order and are therefore, inherently whole and applicable in all times and places as well as inextricably founded within the order of the wholes upon greater wholes within which the governance of our souls, our families, our national communities, our regional community, our continental community and our one planetary whole belongs as part and parcel of the greater and universal governance of the Divine Providence of God. These wholes align in their proper order to serve the life of our shared humanity and by extension the whole of the sacred life of our one planetary whole, including all animals and plants.
What war does to one, war does to all. There is only one defensive fold within the one peace and this is the defensive fold of the one family of the nations of mankind and where there are any breaches to the one peace, the Mutual Lines of the Absolute Defense constitute an outflanking system that shall draw from nations to the immediate boundaries of the incident, the utility of their stability forces. And shall require from our elder nations - mature nations who act as the
necessary shepherd states within the one peace - as well as from our United Nations their coordination and guidance.
These breaches to the one peace are not exclusively conflict related, disaster relief, search and rescue, humanitarian assistance, and other related non-combat missions that serve to foster friendships between nations and states and uphold the well-being and the discipline of the greater wholes, from the region, to the continent, to the one planet.
Finally, information, its nature, its exponential growth, and its potential without the enabling truth which is the tongue of the one peace is not only meaningless, it is dangerous. The fifth battlespace that was conceived apart from air, land, sea and space does exist, it is the one continuum of the one whole peace and where we - as the one family of nations - to utlize this, one with another, this battlespace shall provide for all, the necessary clarity to be decisive as well as the necessary decisiveness to know where and when to absolutely defend.
---<--@Prosper the Peace. Prosper the People.Sancta Sanctis!Glory to God in the highestAdoration to Jesus ChristPeace to men of good will.
Posts
