Cultivation of subversive capabilities, especially from within or below, can require years or more to put in place. It is most effective when considered a strategic asset or weapon, and not as a mere operational-tactical ancillary tool like PSYOP/MISO. Subversion occurs in a state or society that is in “neither war nor peace,” and that can be in either or both. And politics is subjective.Ĭore features of subversion. Just as warfare is politics by other means in a Clausewitzian sense, subversion is politics in a Machiavellian sense. But there is little understanding of, or consensus on, a civilian definition. Post-Soviet Russia, the People’s Republic of China, and the Islamic Republic Iran, as well as jihadist movements, certainly do.ĭoD defines subversion in a military context suited to its role, but the concept is, at its core, a civilian one. Western societies have no doctrine of operative principles for waging or defending against subversion.
And oftentimes, we don’t see it when we see it.
Definition is difficult, sometimes reduced to “I know it when I see it.” But we don’t always know what to see.
IDEOLOGICAL SUBVERSION MEANING FREE
Subversion is both a tangible action and an intangible object, and in societies based on the free exchange of ideas and association, the idea can be difficult to grasp. We will explore the DoD definition after discussing other definitions and historical contexts.ĭefinitional challenges. government references to subversion presently provide further definition. Under the DoD definition, then, subversion is a means of (1) military warfare, (2) economic warfare, (3) psychological warfare, and (4) political warfare. DoD defines subversion as “ actions designed to undermine the military, economic, psychological, or political strength or morale of a governing authority.” The scope is understood as both tactical and strategic, the mode both overt and covert, and carried out by civilian and/or military entities but not limited to either. The NIC anticipated that “most intrastate conflict will be characterized by irregular warfare – terrorism, subversion, sabotage, insurgency, and criminal activities.” The same can be argued about interstate conflict, especially concerning China, Iran, and Russia. Well before the current presidential campaign revived concerns about foreign subversion directed at the United States, the National Intelligence Council found that both state and non-state actors would rely more on subversion as a means of waging conflict.
From the perspective of the target, subversion is so ambiguous – and often gradual and long-term – that American diplomatic, security, and military planners find it difficult to identify, recognize, understand, and neutralize. Subversion is an ambiguous form of conflict in war and peace that does not rely on violence. Title: "Subversion: Non-Violent Warfare in an Age of Countering Violent Extremism." Abstract Kennedy Special Warfare Center, Fort Bragg, NC, September 12, 2016.
0 kommentar(er)
