Dr. Ben Zweibelson, director of the Strategic Innovation Group (SIG) at U.S. Space Command joined me recently on The Business of Government Hour to discuss his work at the SIG as well as his latest book, Beyond the Pale: Designing Military Decision-Making Anew.
In this interview, we discuss conventional military decision-making paradigms, exploring current doctrines that tend to be rooted in Newtonian, linear thinking that may oversimplify the complexities of modern conflicts.
Ben's insights reveal the complexities of military innovation, the unique characteristics of the space domain, and the philosophical underpinnings of his approach to strategic thinking -- introducing the concept of complexity theory and the need for adaptive, non-linear approaches to navigate these challenges effectively. Here’s a detailed look into the key insights from our discussion.
Understanding U.S. Space Command and the Strategic Innovation Group
Dr. Zweibelson begins by clarifying the often misunderstood distinction between the U.S. Space Command (SPACECOM) and the U.S. Space Force. While the Space Force is a military service that provides personnel, training, and equipment, USSPACECOM is a combatant command responsible for operations in the space domain. It oversees activities from approximately 100 kilometers above Earth to the Moon, managing assets critical to commerce, industry, academia, exploration, and security.
The Strategic Innovation Group (SIG), led by Zweibelson, operates directly under the commander.
He highlights a fundamental tension in military innovation: the need to balance hierarchical, traditional frameworks with the demand for innovative, outside-the-box thinking.
This challenge is particularly acute in defense organizations, which are structured to prioritize stability, predictability, and adherence to historical patterns. The SIG's role is to navigate this tension by introducing unconventional perspectives and methodologies, thus enabling leaders to consider new possibilities without completely upending institutional norms.
Career Path and Background
Zweibelson's career path is a fascinating blend of artistic roots, military service, and academic pursuit. Initially trained as an oil painter, he found himself in a financial bind during his early college years, leading him to join the National Guard to fund his education at the University of Connecticut. This decision marked the beginning of a transformative journey that saw him transition from an artistic background to a 22-year career in the infantry, deploying multiple times to Iraq and Afghanistan.
His pivotal shift towards military theory and design occurred around 2010 when he attended the School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS). Here, influenced by Israeli General Shimon Naveh, a pioneer of military design thinking, Dr. Zweibelson delved into complex systems theory, postmodern philosophy, and critical theory. This intellectual journey culminated in a doctorate in philosophy focused on reimagining military decision-making processes.
Design Thinking in Military Context
Zweibelson's work is deeply rooted in applying "design thinking" to military strategy, a concept he explores extensively in his book. Design thinking, as he explains, is about creating solutions that don't yet exist, addressing immediate needs while disrupting traditional methods. Drawing parallels to the commercial sector's innovation (e.g., smartphone development), he emphasizes design's role in propelling organizations forward by challenging established norms.
The military context of design thinking originated with efforts in the late 1990s, notably through systemic operational design, which integrated complexity theory and systems thinking into military planning. Despite initial resistance within military institutions favoring more conventional planning approaches, the concept evolved globally, influencing military strategies in countries like the U.S., Canada, and Australia.
Complexity Theory and Military Doctrine
During our conversation, Zweibelson highlighted the limitations of linear thinking with the analogy of a maze. In a simple, linear system, progress is straightforward and predictable, akin to navigating through a maze with trial and error. However, he contrasts this with nonlinear systems where unconventional approaches, such as digging under the maze, can redefine the problem-solving process. This analogy underscores the necessity for military strategies that embrace unpredictability and emergent behaviors in complex environments.
In a maze analogy, linear navigation implies moving step-by-step towards a known goal, while non-linear approaches involve unexpected, unorthodox methods that adapt to changing circumstances.
Central to Zweibelson's critique is the concept of emergence. Emergence introduces the idea of systems evolving unpredictably, where both the environment and objectives continuously change, challenging conventional decision-making models. He posits that traditional military decision-making may fail to address emergent behaviors, which are inherent in dynamic, complex systems like modern warfare. The inability to adapt to these emergent challenges limits effective response and strategy formulation.
Zweibelson recognizes a paradigmatic shift in military and governmental decision-making frameworks.
He sees value in embracing more flexible, dynamic models that integrate complexity theory and adapt to emergent challenges.
This entails experimental and prototypical approaches to enhance agility and resilience in strategic planning and execution.
Reconceptualizing the Space Domain
Zweibelson offers ideas on reconceptualizing the space domain. He emphasizes that space, unlike terrestrial domains, requires a different strategic mindset. Traditional concepts of warfare, developed in the contexts of land, sea, and air, do not translate directly to space. Space is governed by celestial mechanics, which differ fundamentally from terrestrial physics, and it presents unique operational challenges due to its vastness and the hostile environment.
He critiques popular media representations of space, such as those in the TV show "Space Force" and Pixar's "WALL-E," for perpetuating misconceptions. For instance, the notion of easily navigating through space debris is unrealistic given the high velocities involved. These misconceptions underscore the need for a paradigm shift in how space operations are understood and executed.
Technological Advancements: AI, Singleton, and Future Scenarios
The interview shifts focus to technological advancements, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), and its implications for military operations. Addressing technological advancements, Zweibelson discusses AI's increasing role in warfare. He highlights AI's potential to surpass human cognition in speed and complexity, leading to significant implications for military operations.
Drawing from Nick Bostrom's concept of Singleton, Zweibelson explores the potential scenario where a superintelligent AI, capable of autonomous decision-making, poses existential risks.
Unlike traditional weapons, AGI could redefine its objectives beyond human control, necessitating new governance frameworks to ensure AI's alignment with human values and intentions.
The Singleton concept underscores the profound implications of AI's development, challenging current notions of strategic stability and international security.
This introduces new challenges in governance, control, and ethical considerations regarding AI's autonomous decision-making capabilities.
Conclusion
Dr. Ben Zweibelson's journey from artist to infantry soldier to military strategist and philosopher underscores the transformative potential of interdisciplinary thinking in military contexts. He understands that design thinking represents a paradigm shift towards more agile and effective decision-making.
Whether in military strategy, international relations, or technological policy, adopting a complexity-aware approach can foster innovative solutions and mitigate risks associated with emergent threats and technological advancements.
Zweibelson's insights challenge us to rethink how we conceptualize and approach strategic decision-making in an era defined by rapid technological change and geopolitical uncertainty.