I keep looking for something from official literature that could define organized stalking as a tool or a weapon. The closest it would be Effect-based Operations from US military. Problem is that doctrine is so encompassing it could be used to describe Iraqi freedom, police disruption tactics to curb organized crime figure, mobbing, gangstalking, whatever coercive hostile action that might be. Incidentally Military also uses word “human effect” to call reaction to stressors by Non Lethal weapons, both psychological and physiological. As Lt Col J. P. Hunerwadel explains Effect Based Operations is a “a thought process – a set of concepts and a way of thinking”. There are many conflicting opinions about it. Wikipedia provides this definition:
As defined by the United States Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM), effects-based operations are “a process for obtaining a desired strategic outcome or effect on the enemy through the synergistic and cumulative application of the full range of military and nonmilitary capabilities at all levels of conflict.” The intent and desired outcome of an effects-based approach is to employ forces that paralyze the enemy forces and minimize its ability to engage friendly forces in close combat.
Rather than focusing specifically on causing casualties and physical destruction resulting in the attrition or annihilation of enemy forces, effects-based operations emphasizes end-state goals first, and then focuses on the means available to achieve those goals. For instance, psychological operations, electronic warfare, logistical disruptions and other non-lethal means can be used to achieve the demoralization or defeat of an enemy force while minimizing civilian casualties or avoiding the destruction of infrastructure. While effects-based operations does not rule out lethal operations, it places them as options in a series of operational choices for military commanders.
EBO focuses primarily upon behavior, not just physical changes. Traditional warfare made destruction of the enemy’s military forces the leading aim. Doing so can certainly accomplish objectives and still remain a vital part of strategy, but an effects-based approach emphasizes alternatives—that the ultimate aim in war is not to overthrow the enemy’s power but to compel him to do one’s will. Sometimes one can accomplish the latter only by an overthrow, but most of the time other choices exist. Careful examination of all types of effects will suggest them. Another aspect of this principle is that “the moral is to the physical as three is to one.”16 That is, we can often achieve objectives more effectively and efficiently by maximizing the psychological impact of our operations upon an adversary—not just on the battlefield but on enemy leaders and other critical groups as well. We can carefully tailor messages to populations in the operating environment, encouraging cooperation or other desired behavior from them. Finally, affecting the behavior of friendly and neutral actors within the operational environment can often prove as important as affecting the adversary’s behavior. When we prohibit strikes on cultural or religious landmarks during operations, for instance, friendly and neutral actors in the operational environment figure just as prominently in our intended target audience as does the adversary.
Effect Based Operations is not just another fashionable buzzword. As a term it’s been around couple decades and in the last decade becoming very fashionable and spreading throughout NATO countries and supporting nations (it had it’s share of critics too) as leading doctrine. Knowing that defense industry pioneers and refines many of innovations with idea on how to commercialize it and apply it to other areas it’s no surprise that “this way of thinking” could be leaking into other areas, like vigilantism and law enforcement. So how do we treat “organized stalking” – method, tool or weapon? How do we define responsibility and accountability for it’s implementation and execution?
Another emerging doctrine is 5th generation warfare (some argue that 5th generation warfare is just 4th generation warfare misinterpreted) and it’s definition is even more perplexing:
The 5GW Educational Institute® offers the following definition for debate: 5GW is an extension of Asymmetrical and Insurgent Warfare, whereby the enemy uses all means – both conventional and unconventional military tactics and weapons; includes political, religious and social causes; incorporates 21st century Global strategic information operations campaigns (internet and 24 hours news cycle); can be conducted by organized or unorganized groups; may be nation state led or non-nation state led – to disrupt and defeat superior opponents in order to achieve their will.
“Effects-based warfare,” that is, methods geared to achieve an outcome and not cause traditional damage lacks the “visually pleasing destruction from an armed bomb.” Brig. Gen. John B. Baker.
Why could individual be targeted in the first place? It’s because you’re part of system of systems as adversary looks at the target (unless it’s personal). So I guess it also helps to examine what systems does targeted individual belongs to: business, family, personal, social, etc. Possible conflicts not only between you and the system, but inter-systems conflicts.
I don’t know what to make out of it. It’s just doctrine. Maybe it could be used as counterargument to people who say “Who would do things like that?”.