Posted by: purpleslog | May 2, 2008

Working Definition v0.1 - “Strategic Citizen” [Update]

How is this for a definition of Strategic Citizen:

Ordinary individuals and/or Super-Empowered Individuals who
successfully make use of any of the technological, socio, economic, or political domains to have a strategic impact on the world.

Any comments? Suggestions? Corrections? Alternatives?

Update - Phil writes:

I think that the key to the strategic citizen idea is that we citizens no longer have to passively defer to government professionals but rather that we have the means to act on our own initiative in certain areas, such as strategic communication. In fact a decentralized, leaderless, complex self-organizing movement of citizens may prove to be far superior at waging the war of ideas than the centralized, large, unwieldy government bureaucracy that is now charged with that task.

Phil is (at least to me) the popularizer (and maybe the initiator) of the Strategic Citizen concept.

Posted in 5GW, National Security, xGW | Tags:

« Music Break: Cover of New Order’s Bizarre Love Triangle…on Ukuleles!
Of the People, By The People: The Strategic Citizen 5GW Style [Updated] »

Responses

If we’re evolving past the nation-state, why hang on to dead language? The SC’s “citizenship” is a technicality at best.

Is this term intended to distinguish the SC from military combatants, like “civilian”?

By: Justin Boland on May 4, 2008
at 9:42 am

“If we’re evolving past the nation-state,…”

I don’t agree that we are. It is true that some analyst see this happening, and some pundits are advocating it. I definitely see the increase civil society and other actors have an importance in global affairs, and that those with primary loyalties to the state have decreased.

I will be discussing the state system in an upcoming post.

Note: Just because I am a 5GW theorist, doesn’t mean I am against the state system.
http://purpleslog.wordpress.com/2007/09/05/should-4gw5gw-theorist-be-against-the-state/

Definitely, SC are not military units or operators. Though I suppose if they operated outside of their role as military purpose they could be.

So, why did I term it strategic citizen as opposed to something like Strategic Human?

I had a couple of reason…none perfect

1) The term Strategic Citizen has already been introduced. I just wanted to lock down a definition and generate a discussion to improve that def if needed.

2) The Citizenship term implies a positive connection to the state, In 5GW offense and defense kind of blur. I suspect in the new world environment, some 5GW will be done by SC against their own state. This will not be done to destroy it or overthrow it. SC may direct a campaign against their own state for the benefit of the state.

Remember always, 5GW is a means, not a goal.

By: purpleslog on May 4, 2008
at 4:12 pm

Fair enough — I very much appreciate the response.

By: Justin Boland on May 4, 2008
at 6:27 pm

The European Union was the latest attempt in “evolving past the nation state”. It is a complete and absolute failure; it would have been a complete and absolute failure even if the leaders were serious about unifying Europe to suck power from America.

I’m not a fan of the xGW concepts. I look at them as being too clunky and/or artificial to adapt to changing circumstances. Or rather, it can adapt, but it loses definition and traditional wisdom to do so.

I look at warfare as being based upon constant and eternal principles that have always been true for human beings. It doesn’t change because of technology or social environments. This makes adapting principles to new problems much more streamlined than trying to learn the various xGWarfare concepts and then apply them to the problem and to each other as well.

By: ymarsakar on May 6, 2008
at 10:24 am

Ym, I see the XGW as just a category framework to distinguish types of conflict.

“I look at warfare as being based upon constant and eternal principles that have always been true for human beings. It doesn’t change because of technology or social environments. ”

Lin’s the father of the “Generation of Modern Warfare” scheme.

The “XGW” you mentioned here and among related sites in this corner of the blogosphere is a branch off that idea an dhas moved beyond it.

XGW has discarded lLnd’s timeframe mapping, the technology dirvers and other stuff. It has brought in new stuff like OODA mapping, kinetcis, etc.

I have about 75% of an XGW Primer on my notepad. I am filling in some the blanks, and getting my references and attributions correct. I hope to post it in the next week or so.

“The European Union was the latest attempt in “evolving past the nation state”. It is a complete and absolute failure; it would have been a complete and absolute failure even if the leaders were serious about unifying Europe to suck power from America.”

I have had two related posts simmering for months on the above.

1) You can characterize to EU founding as a particular example of a 5GW.

2) The evaluations of the state forms and system. I start with Bobbit’s and then speculate on the emerging competing new forms.

Thanks for your comments! I am better blogger when I am asked good questions.

BTW, here is a blog I read on the EU:

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/

By: purpleslog on May 6, 2008
at 3:56 pm

Leave a response






Your response:

Categories