At the risk of sounding repetitive, social media platforms have become ubiquitous in our lives for both good (allowing news from dangerous war zones journalists are unable to reach in great numbers) and ill (the Russian social media disinformation campaign). Everything from citizen journalists to the infamous troll farms have been made possible by these technologies, part of what is commonly termed "Web 2.0," websites that offer various tools for Internet users to become active producers of content rather than passive consumers (Partikarakos, 2017, p. 9). Author and journalist David Patrikarakos explores how these technologically-empowered networks of individuals (the homo digitalis) are impacting twenty-first century warfare in his 2017 book War in 140 Characters: How Social Media is Reshaping Conflict in the Twenty-First Century.
Warfare is by no means a novel concept for humanity. However, Patrikarakos sees the emerging breed of tech-savvy homo digitalis as reshaping conflict into both a physical contest on the battlefield between competing armies or militias and a parallel one in cyberspace. In other words, the narrative about a conflict matters equally as much as the battlefield reality. This is made possible by a variety of factors, including the inauguration of Web 2.0 technologies in an era of post-truth or subjective reality, where individuals can at low or no cost network with other like-minded individuals and broadcast to the world. This has had the effect of circumventing or even undermining traditional actors like the state and media organizations when individuals can get various tasks done without the aid of these often slow-moving, hierarchical institutions.
Patrikarakos illustrates the latter decentralizing and destabilizing effect of social media technology and homo digitalis by exploring from various angles the conflicts in Gaza, Syria and Ukraine. In the Gaza strip, we are introduced to a Gazan teenage citizen journalist named Farah, whose emotive tweets and blog posts helped to galvanize international outrage against Israel during its Operation Protective Edge campaign in July 2014. On the other side of the conflict, Israel's IDF (military) Spokesperson's Unit attempted to contest the narrative space that Farah and other Gazans had utilized to their advantage, by countering their narrative of a people under cruel siege by a superior military force with one of an embattled military doing everything it could to protect their own civilians and Gazan ones from an organization (Hamas) accused of using their people as shields. However, because the Israeli government was largely playing catch-up for much of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the fact is is that Palestinians were able to fortify their position in the narrative arena by virtue of having established a strong presence there first on social media (and giving mainstream media enough time and exposure to then pick up their content).
Meanwhile, in a Ukraine destabilized by the annexation of Crimea by Russia utilizing underhanded propaganda and military aid to back-up eastern Ukrainian separatist militias, a middle-aged Ukrainian woman named Anna Sandalova used Facebook to aid the embattled and under-equipped Ukrainian military. In a country beset with corruption issues, Sandalova was able to create a Facebook page as a private fundraising engine to supply necessities to Ukrainian army personnel battling the separatists in the east, bypassing often corrupt and slow-moving governmental institutions leftover from the Soviet days. Up against Sandalova and individuals like her, however, is a massive propaganda machine in autocratic Russia who is admittedly ahead of the game in comparison with Western democracies with embracing a new doctrine of hybrid-warfare. This has aided them in destabilizing both Ukraine and Syria, where a civil war currently rages.
For all the actors both Eastern and Western involved in Syria, ISIS stands out, even as it is currently in retreat from its peak territory and recruitment game. Just as individuals like Anna Sandalova can use social media for good, various non-state actors and individuals like ISIS, who are often out-matched in resources compared to state institutions, can use those same tools for ill. The ISIS siren song created by their cyberspace recruiters was able to cast a wide net, catching both educated individuals and die-hard jihadi ideologues with a message specifically targeted to these disaffected groups feeling like passive spectators in the lives: with ISIS, you can serve various roles (from caretakers to soldiers) in an idyllic caliphate. The call to something bigger than yourself is a universal narrative, inspiring people to serve states and non-state actors alike. Add this social media and the message's reach, serving whatever group, is amplified greatly.
While I enjoyed Patrikarakos's scholarship on this important topic of 21st century war, War in 140 Characters may be prematurely signing the death certificate of established institutions and states. Sure, outmatched networks of people can definitely influence the political dimension of war when they themselves aren't soldiers of the traditional kind. Yes, states and other slow moving organizations like diplomatic corps are playing catch-up right now in terms of embracing the potential of these Web 2.0 technologies. However, states probably will be able to close the gap, using their vast resources to back-up their own teams of cyber-warriors, as Russia appears to be doing to great effect with their troll farms and misinformation campaigns. As for Patrikarakos's concluding assertion that the destabilizing effects of social media embedded in today's globalization-crazed world facing innumerable transnational crises can precipitate WWIII, I'm less able to dismiss this assertion. While social media can bring people together, it often brings together diverse groups that can and often oppose others, spewing out huge tides of often unverified claims that even the best-equipped fast-checkers cannot keep up with. This is how we end up with autocrats inflaming divisions among their peoples and even those of foreign populations, a situation not the most stable or conducive to democratic dialogues and processes.
All in all, War in 140 Characters is a well-written and researched treatise on an important emergent topic in technology-driven warfare. While the jury is out as to whether or not states are a dying breed in the international arena, readers nonetheless will appreciate the intriguing and thought-provoking intellectual discussion found in Patrikarakos's book. It will be interesting to see how social media continues to play out with the conflicts explored in this book and many others, as the implications will certainly be far-reaching.
Works Cited:
Patrikarakos, David. (2017). War in 140 Characters: How Social Media is Reshaping Conflict in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Basic Books.
No comments:
Post a Comment