Introduction

The overarching story of human history is a story of conflict. Interpersonal, tribal, political, religious, economic, and ideological disputes have been the driving forces behind societal changes, both progressive and regressive. As such, many efforts have been made to study and model conflicts in order to gain understanding of their function and role in society. These efforts gave rise to the field of sociology in the 19th century, and the influence of Marxism has permeated most mainstream efforts ever since. Some of the successors to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels have done better, while others have not. What is missing from all efforts thus far is a meta-structure that can be applied to all factions in all conflicts. The purpose of this article series will be to establish such a structure, defend it against alternative structures, integrate reactionary insights to obtain a viable heterodox model of conflict, and apply this model to various conflicts.

Boundary Conditions

Conflict is defined by Webster’s Dictionary as “antagonistic, competitive, or opposing action of incompatibles” and as “struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or demands”. Taken together, these definitions have implications that impose boundary conditions on our theory. First, a conflict must have at least two sides. Being incompatible with oneself is a contradiction of terms; incompatibility must occur with an external opponent. Second, the sides in conflict cannot reach a satisfactory agreement that avoids conflict, at least under current conditions. Otherwise, they would do so and there would be no more conflict between them. Third, at least one of the sides must be capable of engaging in struggle; else there may be animosity and hatred, but no conflict. These three boundary conditions will be applied to smooth some rough edges later, but for now, let us move on to defining the sides in a conflict.

Presentation of the Colors

It is always easier to build upon an existing foundation or reverse-engineer an existing code than to start from scratch. Fortunately, military strategists have given us our first two colors, which will be utilized in a similar manner here. As Gary Anderson, the United States Marine Corps’ first director of the Center for Emerging Threats and Opportunities and a director of war-gaming, writes,

“Strategic war games used to be simple. Soldiers, defense consultants and others divvied up into Blue (allied) and Red (enemy) teams and then faced off in a series of moves roughly resembling chess. The point wasn’t to predict the outcomes of future battles—though that sometimes happened—but to sort out how policies, tactics, and weapons might perform in combat. A roll of the dice set a team’s odds. Complicated mathematical formulas determined the outcome. And that worked pretty well up through the Cold War.

Today, dice seldom get rolled. In the wake of 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq, war games have had to evolve to remain relevant. Instead of a monolithic enemy, there are often several Red teams, fighting against each other as well as the Blue team. This complicates things for Red team players like me, but frankly, it’s a fascinating way to make a living.”

For our theory, let us define Blue to be allied forces and Red to be enemy forces, but give each the additional attribute of sovereignty. As of this writing, this means that Blue and Red are nation-state governments. In the past, they may be pre-modern empires, medieval kingdoms, ancient city-states, or even small tribes or clans. In the future, they may be absolute private property owners, anarchist control zones, Hoppean covenant communities, or even space colonies. Regardless of time period or form of social order, what will distinguish Blue and Red from the other colors is that they rule over a physical territory.

Anderson goes on to describe another color in a different sense than our theory will use it:

“The outcome of many games is determined by a new addition, the Green team. Green represents the civilian population, the media and the international community—once bystanders, now the ultimate arbitrators. If Red or Blue kills civilians in a manner considered unnecessary in the process of winning a battle, for instance, it may lose Green team support, thus losing the war or at least the campaign.

Green team civilians might be divided into religious or ethnic segments that mirror the nation in the scenario. They might ally with Red or Blue as the game progresses. If one or more Green factions and the media (American public opinion) turn against Red or Blue, it does not matter how well their military forces do in combat.”

The elements that Anderson calls Green will be split among our definitions of Green, Orange, and Yellow. (One may also call into question his contention that military results are secondary to media propaganda. The role of media will be addressed more broadly in Part II.) Let us define Green and Orange similarly to Blue and Red, but lacking the attribute of sovereignty. Green generally works alongside Blue and Orange alongside Red, though both frequently act independently of sovereigns. Green and Orange take the form of terrorist groups, militias, privateers, pirates, hackers, biased media outlets, non-governmental organizations, political activist groups, and donors of private capital who fund the aforementioned activities.

Gray shall be defined as entities which could become Blue, Red, Green, or Orange, but which are currently neutral and uninvolved in the conflict at hand. Finally, let us take Yellow to be the civilian populations, usually living under the rule of Blue or Red, sometimes living in fear of Green or Orange, often taxed to support the other colors or put to work supplying their war machines, but never a significant military factor itself. Contrasting Gray and Yellow yields two important results. First, Gray may or may not be sovereign, while Yellow is definitely not sovereign. Second, Yellow regularly gets caught in crossfire between Blue, Red, Green, and/or Orange, while Gray generally does not.

It should be noted that the colors are not static. Allegiances often shift over time, resulting in a color change from Red to Blue, Orange to Green, or vice versa. A faction may gain or lose sovereign status, resulting in a color change from Red to Orange, Blue to Green, or vice versa. A faction may enter or leave a conflict, resulting in a color change toward or away from Gray. Civilians may take up arms and engage in a conflict or return to their normal lives, resulting in a color change toward or away from Yellow.

Addressing Objections

Let us now deal with two potential objections to these choices. First, there is the issue of grouping civilians in friendly territory and civilians in enemy territory together under the Yellow banner. One might contend that these should be separated into two colors, perhaps Yellow and Purple. In mathematics, uniqueness is proven by positing a second solution and demonstrating that it equals the first and only solution. Let us treat Purple in this manner and show that it is actually Yellow.

In order for a distinction between Yellow and Purple to be meaningful, it must be possible to have a Yellow versus Purple conflict. That is to say, members of the civilian population of one sovereign territory must travel to another sovereign territory for the purpose of committing acts of violence against members of the civilian population there. In practice, this particular behavior occurs at a negligible rate. Those who pursue a life of crime almost always do so against their fellow countrymen (Yellow versus Yellow), and operations by non-state actors that violently victimize the innocent in another country fall under the definition of Orange and Green. Thus, our proposed Purple is functionally equivalent to Yellow, and the uniqueness of Yellow is proven. (This is not to argue that there are no meaningful differences between cultures or ethnicities; it only means that there is no meaningful difference in military role for non-combatants in different countries.)

Second, there is the matter of multiple factions engaged in mutual combat. Here, it is important to remember that the colors are subjectively assigned; whether a faction is Blue or Red, Green or Orange depends on perspective. For example, let us consider the American Revolution. From the perspective of the Americans or the French, the French are Blue, the Americans are Green, the British are Red, and the Hessians and most Native American tribes are Orange. From the perspective of the British, Hessians, or most Native American tribes, the Blue/Red and Green/Orange roles are reversed. In the case of multiple mutual enemies fighting each other, one would be Blue or Green and the others would be Red or Orange, with the choice of which is Blue/Green depending on the perspective being examined. Red/Orange versus Red/Orange are conflict types which will be contemplated in Part II.

Conclusion

In this first part, we have established a meta-structure which may be used as a lens to examine conflicts in general and defended it against the two most obvious criticisms. The following parts will examine conflicts of each color combination, integrate reactionary principles, and apply this color theory of conflict to more real-world examples.

Support The Zeroth Position on Patreon!

Like this: Like Loading...