@ Peter Pearson
> Those slides are the most entertainingly vacuous
> pile of pompous bafflegab I've seen in years.
Would that be 'most vacuous' you've seen since you last set the benchmark with your posts on the rectal temperature of raccoons or the feasting habits of water bugs, or, just 'most pompous' since you started channelling Milton Smith?
Seriously, little P.P., thanks for adding your deeply insightful comments to understanding the policy issues raised by the slides. With helpful input like yours governments should have no trouble developing coherent and accountable national security policies for information operations. It is in part, of course, contributions like yours to the public dialogue that result in these issues usually being resolved in secret. But, I can't commend your self-evidence of towering intellect enough - please post more useful commentary like this.
Let me see if I have this right. Historical counterexamples of general evolutionary trends invalidate the commenting on those trends -- even in a single slide of what looks like a rather lengthy, wide-ranging briefing. How novel, I guess we can finally do away with narrative in historical or policy analysis.
Likewise, I guess, because Sun Tzu and Tacticus (and Homer) wrote about the principles of maneuver and information dominance, and Machiavelli, among others, about the principles of political warfare, (and there is ample evidence throughout history of the successful employ of these principles - particularly in insurgencies - to achieve victory, not just in the Peninsular War - aka "Napoleon's Vietnam" - with which you seem vaguely acquainted) there is probably no point in even trying to develop doctrine for the use of information operations in a modern ICT based, information reliant world since, as you so eruditely point out, nihil sub sole novum (Eccl. 1:10 in the Vulgate).
On the other hand, I'm confused since your specific example - the defeat of Napoleon by "4GW" tactics - seems to make the very point the briefer seems to be making in the slide - that 4GW principles can defeat armies organized on earlier models. Indeed, the specific focus of the slide in question seems to be on the principles of organization (USA, USMC, SOF, etc.) rather than an espousal of the linearity of history. (Also, I'm not sure what the "cumulative" in the slide title refers to but it would seem to acknowledge non-exclusivity of the paradigms.)
>I think people should be very wary of propounding new doctrines
> without first studying what has gone before: "Nihil sub sole novum."
Personally, I think people should be wary of propounding pedantic pettifoggery based on a passing familiarity with military history without understanding the need to develop policy to meet new challenges: "adapto vel intereo".
>Same old monkeys; bigger better rocks.
Isn't that the point of the briefing - understanding the characteristics of "bigger better" [sic] (or, in this case, potentially more insidious, subtle and dangerous) rocks and developing policy to govern or control their use?
>It always comes as a surprise to people who dont study history how little
>humans and human soiciety have changed over the past 10,000 years.
Actually, it always comes as a surprise to people who study history from armchairs when new opportunities and new threats present themselves.
BTW, this isn't just about government "CNO": for example, see http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue1/...