CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES
July/August 2002, Vol. 44, No. 7
Under the sponsorship of the Department of Defense, the co-authors/co-editors completed their research and their report before September 11, 2001. The now familiar names Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are prominent in chapters covering international terrorism. However, terrorist organizations are only one of several categories of organizations covered by Arquilla and Ronfeldt in their inquiry into the nature of network organizations and the challenges they pose to government officials.
Traditionally, humankind's most powerful organizations have been hierarchical in structure. Hierarchy evolved over the centuries to provide large enterprises with efficient communications and centralized command and control. Most of us take this organizational architecture for granted. What if, almost out of sight, we humans were also evolving a competing structure, a network structure? This new structure would cut layers of bureaucracy. It would thrive in an information-dense environment. It would resemble pieces that never quite form an integrated whole.
It is the nature of conflict between powerful hierarchies and emerging networks that Arquilla and Ronfeldt refer to when they use the term "netwar." While battles in cyberspace and weapons forged from information technology rather than steel might be aspects of netwar, they do not define it. Rather, netwar is "an emerging mode of conflict..., short of traditional military warfare, in which the protagonists use network forms of organization and related doctrines, strategies, and technologies attuned to the information age." The authors go on to explain that protagonists will be independent organizations and individuals who may "communicate, coordinate, and conduct their campaigns" without a precise central command. They predict that network-based warfare and crime will be common in the near future as terrorist groups, crime syndicates, smugglers, and even urban gangs adopt network organizational structures.
Netwar is a work-in-progress, and not all networks are the same. The authors describe the "all-channel" or "full matrix" network as the most highly-developed because all of its members are connected to, and can communicate with, all other members. In contrast, "chain" or "line" networks are simpler structures, often used, for example, by smugglers. Information or goods move in a linear direction from one node to the next. Each contact knows his or her next contact, but can identify no one beyond that next contact. Another variation is the "hub" or "star" network. The "star" employs a central node to coordinate communication among members, but not to control them. As with other networks, nodes function fairly independently.
The all-channel network represents the greatest potential threat to traditional hierarchical organizations and established governments, especially as information technologies enhance communication capabilities among constituent members. The all-channel network's flat organizational architecture means that there may be no single leader, no head to cut off. Decision-making and tactical operations will instead be distributed among autonomous groups who share an "overarching doctrine" or strategic point of view. Maintenance of such shared principles, beliefs, and mission will, however, require the means for "mutual consultation and consensus-building" among network nodes. Information technology can play a vital role in providing these means, but personal contact among node members may also be a necessity.
It may be that, if al-Qaeda is an all-channel network, the death or capture of bin Laden will have minimal effect on international terrorism. Those men who we refer to as his "lieutenants" will have already been acting independently and will continue to do so with or without him. However, it is also possible, even probable, that al-Qaeda is something less than a fully developed all-channel network. Remember, network structures are still evolving and not fully understood. In that case, even if bin Laden is not the "puppet master" making all decisions himself, he may still be the "spiritual leader" whose charisma and doctrine unite international terrorists under one banner for a single strategic purpose.
Combating international terrorism requires measures on several levels. Since information technology provides terrorist groups with excellent communication and new weapons at increasingly affordable prices, Western governments must monitor use of IT by such groups. They must identify the communications systems used, but also note any shifts in technology use from communications functions to offensive capabilities such as disruptive attacks on business or government systems. Because good communication is vital to network survival, Western governments should not only monitor, but also disrupt the flow of information among terrorist groups, both through electronic means and through human intelligence. Librarians may cringe, but the authors suggest this might take the form of disseminating false or misleading information. Government and business must also make their infrastructures less vulnerable to IT-based attack. Improvements in the means of protection should continually raise the bar for terrorist "hackers." Finally, governments need to adopt network designs for their counter-terrorist organizations if they are to respond rapidly and effectively to threats posed by nimble network adversaries. Put simply, it takes a network to thwart a network.
Return to Looking at Books Online