Wow, I've read John Robb off and on for years (working at UserLand he became one of the earliest bloggers, pushed into it IIRC by Dave Winer), but I've never seen him this dystopian. Asymmetrical warfare yes, armed communities, no, not that I remember.

This has been my introduction to Robb's writings and I must say, I'm impressed. From the blog

Iraq's state is hollow -- it exists but without any meaningful functionality.... A hollow state doesn't provide the first two layers, which by extension makes the layers above it inconsequential (contrast this to the US strategy for Iraq). These services, to the extent that they do exist, are being supplied by black markets (from gasoline to the 2 MW ad-hoc electricity network in Baghdad) and neighborhood militias. In order to get these services, the population has replaced any residual loyalty to the state with primary loyalties (to tribe, family, mosque, religion, gang, etc.).

Now that this transition to primary loyalties is complete, the feedback loops of ongoing decentralized conflict ... and large scale systems disruption ... will ensure that it stays that way. Also, the alternative transnational market structures of black globalization, driven primarily by the smuggling of hundreds of millions of dollars in bunkered fuel every month, will provide much of the fuel to keep this situation going.

Robb provides a different view of the dissolution in Iraq. The conventional wisdom is a Shia'/Sunni civil war. But Robb both here and in the essay, sees a highly fragmented but efficient set of groups [the open source war cemented by a primary loyalties in a decentralized conflict] operating independently but making marriages of convenience to cooperate when it's in everyone's self-interest. And, from the essay...

Indeed, because the insurgents in Iraq lack a recognizable center of gravity--a leadership structure or an ideology--they are nearly immune to the application of conventional military force.

I respect Robb's arguments but still think the primary loyalty is religious sectarianism. Recent events following the destruction of the sacred mosque

The nature of the Iraq war has been changing since at least the late autumn, when political friction between Sunni and Shiite Arabs rose even as U.S. troops began carrying out a long-term plan to decrease their street presence. But the killings accelerated after the bombing on Feb. 22 of a revered Shiite shrine.... ... that Sunni-Shiite tension sharpened when insurgents destroyed the golden dome of the Askariya shrine in Samarra in February and vengeful Shiite militiamen rampaged through Baghdad and other cities.

There's no doubt that a free-for-all is still in place with little intra-sect discipline. There are a number of Shiite political parties who must agree to unify their political block in any new government. One is led by Moqtada al-Sadr

who seems to be operating independently of the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani or incumbent prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari. From the NY Times Iraq's Premier Is Asked to Quit as Shiites Split

Any dispute between the Shiite bloc's two biggest factions -- Mr. [Abdul-Aziz] al-Hakim's party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and the party led by Mr. Sadr -- carries with it the possibility of armed violence. The factions are longtime rivals, have backing from Iran and operate militias with members in the Iraqi security forces. Their militias fought street battles last August throughout Baghdad and the south, even hijacking double-decker buses to storm office buildings.

Robb's view is true as far as it goes but I don't think its the end of the story. The greater conflict with the Sunnis could escalate, which would unite all now disparate groups along sectarian lines.

Let's see. A sidebar to John Robb's original article says "A new, more resilient approach to national security, one built not around the state but around private citizens and companies, will change how we live and work." Now would 'private citizens and companies' be a lot like vigilantes and mercenaries? Would 'national security...built not around the state' be a lot like a Hobbesian free-for-all?

The original article here is just an ex-Seal looking for employment. Try to be a little more critical, a little more analytical people.

I must say: what drivel!

"We have entered the age of the faceless, agile enemy. From London to Madrid and Nigeria to Russia, stateless terrorist groups have emerged to score blow after blow against us."

Nigeria? What did they do to us except lay claim to their oil? Russia? What has Russia done to us -- except resist opening up their gas and oil to us on our terms?

London and Madrid? I'd rather start with 9-11. What did they do to us? Well, it wasn't necessarily they as has been recognized by, most recently, Charlie Sheen; for some time, Ed Asner; several officials from Bush and Reagan administrations (Paul Craig Roberts, Morgan Reynolds, Katherine Austin Fitts); several retired AF Lt Colonels (George Nelson, Robert Bowman, Karen Kwiatkowski); and many others. And once again, the case has been made by theologian David Ray Griffin in his two books: New Pearl Harbor and 9-11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. And of course, Colin Campbell, in a chapter of his Oil Crisis, adds his voice. But Griffin is the Colin Campbell of 9-11, maybe even the Campbell, Deffeyes and Simmons.

The ones doing the dirty work around the globe right now are all too often major corporations and agencies of the US gov't. That's a reality that cannot be talked away.

There rest of the picture painted by Robb is totally bizarre. The idea that cities (and /or corporations) will somehow become self-reliant in face of societal collapse is -- well, I have no words. He somehow imagines that collapse means we'll transit to some kind of high-tech feudalism. He has no idea of the pre-requisites for our current social structure and way of life, nor any idea of the consequences of collapse. His is sort of a high-end type of  survivalism. He's not all that different from Mike Ruppert in some respects, except that Mike is more realistic about some of the things our gov't is up to -- but totally unrealistic in thinking they won't come and pull up our vegetables.

OK eric blair I'll take the bait just a little.

All the memes, hooks, buzzwords, rhetorical flourishes and bogeymen that John Robb uses to scare you are borrowed straight from Minitrue. If you don't get that reference start rereading the other eric blair. After allowing state propaganda to prepare the psychic ground he moves in and puts the actual physical means of coercion (and yes he is very interested in that) into private hands, his own.

As repellent a dystopia as I've ever hears of. And if someone believes that's the dystopia that's gonna come please don't enthuse over the "business opportunities".

"Terrorism" and "international crime" in Iraq. LOL. LOL. How about just the locals with rusty 1947 model carbines trying to defend their homes?

Jeez, hasn't this guy read Sun Tzu's The Art of War from something like 512BC  http://www.kimsoft.com/polwar02.htm  or know anything about 4th gen warfare?

I feel really constrained given TOD's now wide readership but a well devloped plan could probably shut down the US without WMD or any fancy stuff with 1,000 people.

I was really unimpressed by the article.

"But because globalization and technology are morally neutral forces..."

Sorry John, but anyone who has ever done a cultural studies course knows that there is nothing neutral, morally or ethically about technology, let alone globalization.

Of course, millions of readers should have had all of this information decades ago...IF they had actually bothered to read the books they bought...

Go get an old dusty copy of the great trilogy by Alvin Toffler:

"Future Shock"
"The Third Wave"
"Powershift"

If you can only read one of the above, go with the "Third Wave" and be astounded at the accuracy and inclusiveness of foresight DECADES in advance.