Book Post: Brave New War Revisited

Networked Warfare

In 2007, John Robb's "Brave New War" introduced a radical new framework for understanding conflict in the 21st century. At the time, Robb's predictions may have seemed speculative, but they have since proven to be disturbingly accurate. Robb argued that the future of warfare would be dominated not by nation-states and traditional military forces, but by decentralized, networked insurgencies and super-empowered individuals who would leverage technology to disrupt societies in ways previously unimaginable.

This book, which I picked up as a freshman polisci major in 2007 shaded many of the papers I wrote, and as I sit here in 2024 writing this, the world has seen Robb's vision unfold in real-time. From the rise of ISIS to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, from cyber attacks on critical infrastructure to the influence of tech billionaires on global affairs, the concepts outlined in "Global Guerrillas" have moved from the realm of theory to stark reality.

When Robb introduced the concept of networked warfare in "Global Guerrillas" in 2007, it represented a radical shift from traditional military doctrine. Robb envisioned a world where decentralized groups, operating without rigid hierarchies, would challenge state powers through adaptability and resilience. Today, this form of warfare has become the norm rather than the exception, with many parallels to what we see in the cybersec world.

The evolution of cyber warfare provides a perfect parallel to the rise of networked warfare in physical space. In many ways, cyber threat actors were the vanguard of this decentralized, agile approach that's now reshaping conventional conflicts. In cybersecurity, we've long observed how decentralized hacking groups and state-sponsored actors consistently outmaneuver more traditional, hierarchical defense structures.

Consider groups like Anonymous or the countless ransomware gangs operating today. They function as loose collectives, often with members spread across the globe, coordinating their efforts through encrypted channels and dark web forums. This structure allows them to rapidly adapt to new security measures, share zero-day exploits, and launch coordinated attacks that are difficult to attribute or counter.

This dynamic, which emerged in the digital worlds first due to the inherent nature of the internet as a decentralized network, has now manifested in physical conflicts. The ongoing war in Ukraine serves as a prime example of networked warfare in action, mirroring the tactics we've seen in cyberspace.

Ukrainian forces, bolstered by volunteer battalions and local defense groups, initially employed a networked approach that allowed them to effectively resist a larger, more conventionally structured Russian military. These decentralized units operated with high autonomy, making decisions on the ground without waiting for orders from a central command. This flexibility proved crucial in responding to the fluid and unpredictable nature of the conflict, especially during the early days of the 2022 Russian invasion.

However, the effectiveness of Ukraine's networked warfare tactics didn't go unchallenged. As the conflict progressed, Russian forces began to adapt, albeit slowly and at great cost. This adaptation underscores a key aspect of networked warfare - it's not a silver bullet, but rather a constantly evolving approach.

Russia's shift became evident in several ways. They increased autonomy for frontline commanders and adopted smaller, more mobile units. Their information sharing improved, though still not matching Ukraine's speed. The integration of mercenary groups like Wagner, which often operated with more autonomy than traditional military units, allowed for more flexible tactics. Russia also ramped up efforts to disrupt Ukrainian communications through enhanced electronic warfare capabilities.

This evolution mirrors what we see in cybersecurity, where threat actors and defenders are locked in a constant arms race of tactical innovation. The side that adapts faster and more effectively gains a temporary advantage, until the other side catches up. As many of us know, the attackers almost always have the advantage.

The lesson here isn't that networked warfare doesn't work, but rather that its effectiveness depends on continual evolution and the ability to stay one step ahead of the opponent. Ukraine's initial success came from being more adept at networked operations than Russia. As Russia has slowly closed that gap, the conflict has entered a new phase where both sides are employing elements of networked warfare.

This dynamic isn't unique to Ukraine. We've seen similar patterns play out in various conflicts around the world. The rise and fall of ISIS demonstrated how a decentralized network could rapidly gain territory and influence across multiple countries, challenging traditional state powers. Their use of social media for propaganda and recruitment mirrored tactics used by cyber threat actors.

In Mexico, drug cartels operate through highly decentralized networks that extend their influence across vast territories and even into international markets. This structure makes them incredibly resilient and difficult to dismantle, much like persistent cyber threat groups.

The 2020 protests and riots in the United States saw decentralized groups like Antifa rapidly mobilize and coordinate actions across multiple cities, often outmaneuvering more hierarchical law enforcement structures.
The prevalence of networked warfare poses significant challenges to traditional military and security structures in both cyber and physical domains. State actors are being forced to adapt, moving away from rigid command hierarchies towards more flexible, mission-oriented command structures. However, this adaptation is often slow and hampered by institutional inertia.

In cybersecurity, defenders often find themselves playing catch-up, constrained by organizational hierarchies, compliance requirements, and the need to protect vast attack surfaces. The "assumed breach" mentality that's become prevalent in cybersecurity is a tacit acknowledgment that networks will be compromised, the goal is now to detect and respond rapidly rather than trying to create an impenetrable perimeter.

This mindset has carried over to physical conflicts. Ukrainian forces, adopting an approach similar to modern cybersecurity practices, operate under the assumption that Russian forces will break through at some point. Their networked structure allowed them to rapidly detect incursions and respond flexibly, much like a well-designed incident response plan in cybersecurity.

The line between cyber and physical warfare will likely continue to blur. The skills and mindset required to operate effectively whether you're a cyber defender or a military strategist are remarkably similar. Adaptability, decentralized decision-making, and the ability to function as part of a resilient network are becoming the core competencies of modern conflict, regardless of the domain.

The success of networked actors in recent conflicts, both in cyberspace and on physical battlefields, underscores Robb's prescient understanding of how technology and social dynamics would reshape modern warfare. However, it also highlights that networked warfare isn't a static concept, but a dynamic, evolving approach that requires constant innovation to remain effective.

As the 21st century marches on, the ability to operate in a networked, decentralized manner and to continually evolve these tactics will likely become even more critical in determining the outcome of conflicts, both large and small, in all domains of warfare. The challenge for both state and non-state actors will be the continuous adaptation and innovation to stay ahead in this new generation of warfare.