| My dissertation argues that the emerging paradigm of Information Warfare should be refined and expanded to reflect the nature of complex dynamic systems and the control limitations inherent in such systems. It argues that successful Information Warfare strategies should be built around control schemes that more correctly address complex system interactions. Such schemes recognize opposing sides in a conflict as part of the same complex system, connected and functioning together. From a military perspective this means that an opponent's action cannot be predicted or controlled in a linear way; the way a machine can. This view of warfare is related to the fact that complex systems are bound together by many dynamically linked subsystems with feedback/feedforward loops that make the system far more flexible and far more unpredictable than linear systems. The rationale for this kind of thinking is related to the idea that warfare, especially Information Warfare, takes on all of the aspects of a complex system.; The Information Warfare model presented here recognizes societal configurations as systems, structures, and organizations all in one, and treats elements within these structures as the nodes where complex relationships intersect. The model demonstrates how complex open systems may be used to effect specified reactions in response to control inputs. In complex system, control is very much like a free system except that inputs may be specified in advance by an analyst, decision-maker, or political process. When uncontrolled and controlled input sequences are simultaneously in action, conflict between the span of control necessary to encompass the aggregate system, and the ability to properly manipulate input sequences necessary to influence the system are inevitable. Organizationally, increasing the number of elements that fall under the control of the system increases the power of the system, while employing specialized resources within the system has proven to be a highly successful means for achieving specified goals. But the desirability of controlling conditions, and thus a situation, inevitably leads to larger and larger structures and efforts at more system integration. This results in a condition where a system may be seen as constantly striving for stability. The argument thus advanced is that Information Warfare agents and their attendant spheres of influence should more properly be seen as a product of constrained control inputs. This may be seen in those instances where a limited structure, limited power, or an ineffective set of control instruments is incapable of achieving organizational goals. In such cases, restriction may be relaxed, but only at the expense of more complicated or sub-optimal control solutions, leaving the global structure more vulnerable to unwanted or uncontrolled inputs. |
