Misdirection & Target Selection, Part 1

We’re up against a lot. With hun­dreds of species going extinct every day, with the oceans being vac­u­umed of life, with the last ves­tiges of wild forests being felled or burned and the heart of the plan­et being torn up to poi­son the air, civ­i­liza­tion is dri­ving Earth towards biot­ic col­lapse.

We’re up against a lot. With hun­dreds of species going extinct every day, with the oceans being vac­u­umed of life, with the last ves­tiges of wild forests being felled or burned and the heart of the plan­et being torn up to poi­son the air, civ­i­liza­tion is dri­ving Earth towards biot­ic col­lapse. We can’t afford to waste time or ener­gy with so much at stake; dis­man­tling the soci­ety that is dis­man­tling the plan­et is no easy task.

For more than 30 years now, the envi­ron­men­tal move­ment has been work­ing toward that end, yet in few (if any) cir­cum­stances have we been able to seri­ous­ly dis­lodge the foun­da­tions of indus­tri­al­ism. Despite our best efforts, the species count con­tin­ues to decline as the car­bon con­tin­ues to rise. Those we’re up against are well pro­tect­ed and have immense resources at hand to pro­tect them­selves from dis­rup­tion.

Sys­tems of power—such as patri­archy, white suprema­cy, cap­i­tal­ism, civilization—safeguard them­selves through brute force. They react with over­whelm­ing vio­lence against those who oppose them. How­ev­er, this isn’t the only tool avail­able to those in pow­er, and rarely is it the first to which they reach when they feel threat­ened. One of the more sin­is­ter and effec­tive tech­niques is sys­temic mis­di­rec­tion.

Oppres­sive and destruc­tive sys­tems pro­tect them­selves first and fore­most through dis­guise and decep­tion. They hide their weak­ness­es and vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties, coax­ing us into attack­ing dum­my tar­gets or sym­bols of their pow­er, rather than the mate­r­i­al struc­tures that sup­port their pow­er. The results are ones we’re all famil­iar with (or should be): we focus our atten­tion on spe­cif­ic symp­toms of the prob­lem rather than the under­ly­ing caus­es, and our efforts for polit­i­cal change are dif­fuse and unco­or­di­nat­ed, chal­leng­ing only par­tic­u­lar man­i­fes­ta­tions of larg­er oppres­sive pow­er sys­tems, rather than the sys­tems them­selves. We wan­der into a strate­gic dead-end, and ener­gy is redi­rect­ed into the sys­tem itself.

We are guid­ed into a strate­gic dead-end, and our ener­gy is redi­rect­ed to bol­ster the sys­tem itself.

Break­ing free of this mis­di­rec­tion-dynam­ic requires a thor­ough lift­ing-back of the veil that’s been draped over our eyes. It means focus­ing our efforts where they will be most effec­tive, tar­get­ing crit­i­cal nodes and bot­tle­necks with­in indus­tri­al sys­tems to bring civ­i­liza­tion down upon itself.

We need crit­i­cal and strate­gic process­es of tar­get selec­tion. One pow­er­ful tool towards this end is the CARVER Matrix. CARVER is an ana­lyt­ic for­mu­la used by mil­i­taries and secu­ri­ty cor­po­ra­tions for the selec­tion of tar­gets (and the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of weak points). “CARVER” is an acronym for six dif­fer­ent cri­te­ria: crit­i­cal­i­ty, acces­si­bil­i­ty, recu­per­abil­i­ty, vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty, effect, and rec­og­niz­abil­i­ty.

Crit­i­cal­i­ty is an assess­ment of tar­get val­ue and is the pri­ma­ry con­sid­er­a­tion in CARVER and tar­get selec­tion. A tar­get is crit­i­cal if destruc­tion, dam­age or dis­rup­tion has sig­nif­i­cant impact on the oper­a­tion of an enti­ty; or more blunt­ly, ‘how impor­tant is this tar­get to ene­my oper­a­tions?”  Dif­fer­ent tar­gets can be crit­i­cal to dif­fer­ent sys­tems in dif­fer­ent ways: phys­i­cal­ly (as in inter­state trans­mis­sion lines), eco­nom­i­cal­ly (such as a stock exchange), polit­i­cal­ly, social­ly, etc.

It’s impor­tant to remem­ber that noth­ing exists in a vac­u­um; soci­ety is made up of inter-relat­ed enti­ties and insti­tu­tions, and our tar­gets will be as well. Thus the crit­i­cal­i­ty of a poten­tial tar­get should be con­sid­ered in the con­text of the way that tar­get relates to larg­er sys­tems. For exam­ple, there are thou­sands of elec­tri­cal trans­mis­sion sub­sta­tions all over the world, and hence they may ini­tial­ly seem non-crit­i­cal. How­ev­er, some sub­sta­tions car­ry a much greater load than oth­ers and are sys­temic bot­tle­necks, whose dis­abling would have rip­ple effects across entire regions. Crit­i­cal­i­ty depends on sev­er­al fac­tors, includ­ing:

  • Time: How rapid­ly will the impact of the attack affect oper­a­tions?
  • Qual­i­ty: What per­cent­age of out­put, pro­duc­tion, or ser­vice will be cur­tailed by the attack?
  • Rel­a­tiv­i­ty: What will be affect­ed in the sys­tems of which the tar­get is a com­po­nent?

Acces­si­bil­i­ty refers to how fea­si­ble it is to reach the tar­get with suf­fi­cient peo­ple and resources to accom­plish the goal. What sorts of bar­ri­ers or deter­rents are in place, and how eas­i­ly they can be over­come? Acces­si­bil­i­ty includes not only reach­ing a tar­get, but the abil­i­ty to get away as well.

Recu­per­abil­i­ty is a mea­sure of how quick­ly the dam­age done to a tar­get will be repaired, replaced or bypassed. Just about any­thing can be replaced or rebuilt, but some par­tic­u­lar things are much more dif­fi­cult, such as elec­tri­cal trans­form­ers, few of which are man­u­fac­tured in the U.S. and which take months to pro­duce.

The fourth selec­tion fac­tor is vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty. Tar­gets are vul­ner­a­ble if one has the means to suc­cess­ful­ly dam­age, dis­able, or destroy them. In deter­min­ing vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty, it’s impor­tant to com­pare the scale of what is nec­es­sary to dis­able the tar­get to the capa­bil­i­ty of the “attack­ing ele­ment” to do so. For exam­ple, while an unguard­ed dam might seem a vul­ner­a­ble tar­get, if resisters had no means of brin­ing it down, it wouldn’t be con­sid­ered vul­ner­a­ble. Specif­i­cal­ly, vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty depends on the nature & con­struc­tion of the tar­get, the amount & qual­i­ty of dam­age required to dis­able it, and the avail­able assets (per­son­nel, funds, equip­ment, weapons, moti­va­tion, exper­tise, etc.).

Next is effect.  Effect con­sid­ers the sec­ondary and ter­tiary impli­ca­tions of attack­ing a tar­get, includ­ing polit­i­cal, eco­nom­ic, social, and psy­cho­log­i­cal effects. Put anoth­er way, this could be rephrased as “con­sid­er all the con­se­quences of your actions.” How will those in pow­er respond? How will the gen­er­al pop­u­lace respond? How will this affect future efforts?

Last is rec­og­niz­abil­i­ty; will the attack be rec­og­nized as such, or might it be attrib­uted to oth­er fac­tors (e.g. “It wasn’t arson­ists that burned down the facil­i­ty, it was an elec­tri­cal fire”). Depend­ing on the par­tic­u­lar cir­cum­stances, this can cut either way; tak­ing cred­it for an attack can bol­ster sup­port and bring more atten­tion to an issue, but it may also make action­ists more vul­ner­a­ble to repres­sion. Rec­og­niz­abil­i­ty also applies at a more indi­vid­ual lev­el: were fin­ger­prints or oth­er evi­dence left at the site of the tar­get through which the iden­ti­ty of the attack­ers can be deter­mined?

Often, numer­i­cal val­ues between 1 and 10 are giv­en to each of the tar­get selec­tion cri­te­ria in the CARVER Matrix, and then totaled for each poten­tial tar­get. More gen­er­al­ly, CARVER presents a crit­i­cal frame­work for strate­gic plan­ning and deci­sion-mak­ing, help­ing us to avoid mis­di­rect­ed action.

It needs to be said that this sort of crit­i­cal and cal­cu­lat­ed approach to resis­tance efforts applies to non­vi­o­lent & above­ground groups and oper­a­tions as well as those that are mil­i­tant or under­ground. Non­vi­o­lent resis­tance is too often dis­tort­ed to fit roman­ti­cized ideas of a moral high ground, and is rel­e­gat­ed to pure sym­bol­ism. But strug­gle (whether vio­lent or non­vi­o­lent) isn’t about sym­bol­ic resis­tance; it’s about fac­ing down the real­i­ty of pow­er, iden­ti­fy­ing its lynch­pins, and using force to dis­able or break them. The par­tic­u­lar tac­tics we use deter­mine the form the force will be applied in, but unless we iden­ti­fy and tar­get the crit­i­cal lynch­pins, the dai­ly destruc­tion wrought upon the earth will con­tin­ue unabat­ed as we strike at the dis­trac­tions dan­gled before us.

For too long our move­ments have fall­en prey to poor tar­get selec­tion or mis­di­rec­tion. When we’re not too busy fight­ing defen­sive bat­tles, we focus our ener­gies on those enti­ties which are either entire­ly non-crit­i­cal to the func­tion of indus­tri­al­ism or are invul­ner­a­ble giv­en our capac­i­ty for action. And the world burns while we spin our wheels.

In part 2, we will take a clos­er look at sev­er­al exam­ples of dif­fer­ent actions, apply­ing this ana­lyt­i­cal exam­i­na­tion to bet­ter under­stand the impor­tance and rel­e­vance of tar­get selec­tion in rad­i­cal move­ments.

The forces we’re up against are ruth­less and cal­cu­lat­ed; they’ll do what­ev­er they can to keep us inef­fec­tive, and when that fails, they bring down all the repres­sive force of which they’re capa­ble. If we’re to be suc­cess­ful in stop­ping indus­tri­al civ­i­liza­tion, we’ll have to iden­ti­fy and under­mine its crit­i­cal sup­port sys­tems. We don’t have much time, which is why we can’t afford to waste it on actions, tar­gets or strate­gies that don’t move us tan­gi­bly clos­er to our goals.