The Strategy Bridge

Annie Jacobsen wrote a book on biometrics in Afghanistan, "First Platoon: A Story of Modern War in the Age of Identity Dominance", https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2022/1/18/reviewing-first-platoon

> Jacobsen's gripping account of how a platoon's deployment revolved around biometrics and how it ultimately led to a grave betrayal of justice is a must-read. Jacobsen fails to substantiate her connection between counterinsurgency and domestic policing norms. Nonetheless, she makes a compelling case for why deliberate thought must go into how governments use biometrics in the future. She rightly points out that citizens of the U.S. must be wary of the creep of battlefield biometrics into everyday policing. Questions still exist as to who should own biometric data of populations, what rights individuals have over their biometric fingerprint, and who should have access to such databases, especially when a war is over. Perhaps a future Geneva Convention-like treatment of biometrics is the answer in our ever-connected world.

You can see from Aleksandr Dugin's Russia strategies [1][2] and the way the Russian state (Putin & Co.) have followed those ideas to attack and try to destabilize the West and with generally positive results (particularly given Russia's modest capabilities), that China could run a similar program at several times the potential outcome. Given China's openly stated ambitions (safely assume their non-stated ambitions are that much greater), of course they're doing that. If China wants to become the preeminent superpower of this century, they have to build a new order that is an extension of what they have in mind. The liberal order that has largely been dominant post WW2 is fundamentally incompatible with the CCP's vision for the future and their place in it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

[2] https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2020/5/28/putins-playbook-reviewing-dugins-foundations-of-geopolitics

I found that its often countries with a military draft and mission based command structure, were the best discussion cultures come from. Everyone can have a say, everyone can contribute, the power-hierarchy can ignored as long as that is helping to archieve the goal.

This communication culture, leaches into the civilian live and then into company culture.

It also can lead to furious conflict, as those in command feel "undermined", but its hard to argue with the results and outcome. And people will not easily back down because you are the top-dog, you will have to convince them with good arguments.

https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2017/9/20/trigger-happy-autonomous-and-disobedient-nordbat-2-and-mission-command-in-bosnia

There was an argument made that this is a misunderstanding:

https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2020/6/15/sun-tzus-fighting-words

TL;DR Sun Tzu doesn't mean "Try to win without having a fight", but "Try to win without having a formal 1-on-1 engagement".

"Battle" shouldn't be understood as generic violent conflict, but a specific formal affair in which two armies gather up and clash with each other.

So for rather than reading this as "Try to solve things non-violently", this post suggests the meaning is more like "Try not to be forced into an engagement on even terms. If you can just poison them all, or starve them, that'd be much better".