Notes on Power, Conflicts, and AI: Ambiguity, Attention, and Trickle-Down Technology

Ambiguity of Power

Power is discussed as inherently ambiguous in both its meaning and its expression. The term ambiguity is defined in-class as having unclear or shifting meaning depending on perspective, goals, and the situation. The lecturer frames power as a function of multiple interacting variables, not a single fixed attribute. A simple way to express this idea is with a basic equation: P = f(C, A, E, T) where

  • $P$ = power,
  • $C$ = capabilities (military, economic, technological, organizational),
  • $A$ = alliances and international influence,
  • $E$ = economic resources and interests,
  • $T$ = technology and its rapid evolution.
    This captures the idea that power depends on material means, relationships, and the ability to leverage new tools and information. The discussion highlights how conventional military strength can fail in practice (e.g., Vietnam) due to terrain, strategy, and nonstate actors, and how modern power also hinges on technology, information, and global networks. The conversation also touches on the paradox that even powerful states can lose contests (Nicaragua, Afghanistan, or Vietnam) when other variables such as geography, insurgency, or public support interact unfavorably with conventional might. The ambiguity of power is further illustrated by how different conflicts rise and fall in perceived importance depending on who is watching and what technologies are available. The class conversation emphasizes that power is not stable or monotone; it shifts with context and with the introduction of new tools, such as drones and artificial intelligence, that can redefine what is possible in conflict. The discussion also notes that power is socially constructed and may be valued differently across actors, which adds to its interpretive and contested nature. Examples cited include: the U.S. experience in Vietnam (forest knowledge and guerrilla warfare giving an advantage to fighters familiar with the terrain), the resilience of the Syrian regime under external pressure, and the way political leadership and alliances shape outcomes in places like Ukraine, Syria, and beyond. The instructor also notes the complexity of power from a national-security and policy perspective: power is not just military might but also political legitimacy, economic leverage, and the capacity to control or influence information and narratives. The broader point is that as technology evolves, the calculus of power changes, and new actors can alter the balance in surprising ways. The class question—“What does ambiguity mean?”—is used to ground students in the idea that power depends on changing values, interests, and capabilities across time and space. The discussion returns to the idea that power, and thus security, is about how different actors mobilize resources, form alliances, and adapt to new tools and information, all of which can render even dominant powers vulnerable to new forms of contestation.

Why some conflicts get attention; why others are neglected

A central topic is why the media and policymakers focus on certain conflicts while others remain under the radar. The conversation highlights Haiti as a case where attention has waned despite ongoing crisis, versus the Sudan as a theme that some students want to explore more deeply. The students note that conflicts with big, powerful countries, strong media presence, and clear geopolitical stakes (e.g., Israel/Palestine, Ukraine) tend to attract more coverage. In contrast, crises in weaker states or those lacking significant external actors or media access—such as parts of Africa or less-publicized zones—receive less sustained scrutiny. The idea of a “hierarchy of attention” is introduced, where linkage to national security priorities, interstate rivalries (e.g., Russia, China, the West), and economic interests helps determine where attention goes. The class debates whether tariffs and trade policies influence which conflicts are prioritized, since economic linkages can both amplify and dampen geopolitical focus. The discussion also touches on how U.S. policy decisions (for example, embassy moves in certain cases like Haiti vs. Libya) signal which crises are deemed strategically salient. The point is not just about media coverage but about how political actors frame conflicts within broader security and economic objectives, which in turn shapes public understanding and resource allocation.

Case studies and examples discussed in the session

  • Haiti: The conversation connects Haiti’s enduring crises to its colonial history, racism, and the long arc of external interventions. The speakers note that Haiti has often been treated differently from its neighbor the Dominican Republic, with Racism and colonial legacies shaping development and aid effectiveness. The dialogue mentions a history involving French rule, U.S. and regional interventions, and complex aid dynamics (including arguments about whether aid actually reaches the Haitian people).
  • Sudan: Referred to as a forgotten conflict that nonetheless merits serious attention due to humanitarian crises and political instability. The discussion hints at violent elites and internal complexities, and it is suggested that a broader look at Sudan is warranted as part of understanding persistent internal conflict in the region.
  • Somalia / “Nice Somalia”: The group notes that Somalia’s history includes European colonization (Portugal, Italy) and a longstanding fragmentation that has persisted into the present, contributing to a fractured political and security landscape. This case is used to illustrate how colonial borders and modern state weakness interact to produce persistent instability.
  • Haiti’s piracy point: A claim is made that piracy partly arose because of poaching and ongoing insecurity, linking economic desperation and criminal activity to broader security concerns.
  • Myanmar (Rohingya / Ringa): The session discusses the Rohingya crisis and Buddhist nationalism as a threat to minority groups, highlighting how ethnic and religious tensions contribute to regional instability.
  • Dominican Republic and racism: The discussion connects the Haiti-Dominican Republic dynamic to broader patterns of racism and regional exploitation, noting that perceptions of legitimacy and respect for rights matter to stability.
  • Congo (DRC): The group emphasizes the scale of death in the Congo and the long-running internal conflict, as well as historical episodes such as Patrice Lumumba and Belgian colonial brutality. The role of foreign intervention and humanitarian aid in such conflicts is treated as a key topic for policy analysis.
  • Libya and Gaddafi: The speaker references past intervention in Libya under Gaddafi as an example of how quickly regimes can fall or survive, illustrating unpredictability and the limits of external power in reshaping internal politics.
  • Syria and Bashar al-Assad: Syria is discussed as a crisis where the regime’s endurance surprised observers after the Arab Spring, with ongoing debates about foreign involvement and potential fragmentation of the country.
  • Ukraine and Russia: The session spends considerable time on Ukraine, NATO, and Western support, noting how public opinion and political narratives shift as a conflict unfolds, and how such wars influence global security perceptions.
  • Yemen and Aramco: Yemen’s use of drones to strike Saudi oil facilities (e.g., Aramco) is highlighted as a sign of how weaponized drones can affect critical infrastructure and regional stability.
  • Iran and drones: Iran is identified as a major drone producer, underscoring the transnational dimensions of drone proliferation and the strategic implications for regional power dynamics.
  • China and Uighurs; censorship: The discussion discusses harsh state control in China and the global implications for human rights discourse, narrative control, and international response to abuses.
  • Cuba and historical interventions: The conversation nods to U.S.-Cuba dynamics and the broader history of Cold War era interventions and power plays.
  • Vietnam and guerrilla warfare: A key lesson is the importance of terrain knowledge and guerrilla tactics, illustrating why conventional power can be less decisive when confronted with determined irregular forces.
  • Afghanistan and the limits of power: The discussion notes how a powerful external actor can be expelled or outmaneuvered in a protracted conflict, highlighting the difficulty of nation-building in fragile states.
  • Iraq and Libya contrasts: The class contrasts different outcomes in Iraq and Libya to illustrate the variability of outcomes when external powers attempt regime change or stabilization.
  • 9/11 and historical shocks: The conversation references major security shocks like 9/11 and the subsequent shifts in U.S. security posture and foreign policy priorities.
  • Clinton’s Haiti intervention (1992): Mentioned as an example of how American domestic politics and international actions intersect, with consequences for legitimacy and stability in the region.
  • Central African Republic and broader Africa: The discussion acknowledges ongoing conflicts beyond the most publicized crises, urging a broader regional focus.

The role of technology: drones, AI, and the trickle-down problem

The session pivots to the transformative potential of artificial intelligence (AI) and unmanned aerial systems (UAS/drones) for warfare and security. AI is described as a game changer for war due to its ability to process information, control autonomous systems, and enable decision-making at scales and speeds beyond human capability. The discussion emphasizes the “trickle-down” nature of technology: military-grade capabilities eventually become accessible to civilians and non-state actors, reshaping risk and policy.

  • Accessibility and cost: Drones are described as affordable and widely accessible, with prices ranging from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand dollars per unit. A concrete price range is captured in the discussion as 100 \, \le \, price \, \le \, 2000 dollars per drone, highlighting how cheap reach enables mass adoption and potentially widespread misuse.
  • Two types of AI in defense: The class distinguishes two broad categories of AI development:
    • Type I: Programmed AI (rule-based or designed decision-making) that follows explicit instructions.
    • Type II: Self-learning AI (machine learning) that improves based on past data and experience, potentially developing novel strategies or patterns without explicit human instructions.
  • Real-world examples of drone use:
    • A Colombian case where a guerrilla group reportedly used drone-enabled capabilities against a military helicopter, illustrating how affordable drones can alter conventional military advantages.
    • Yemen’s use of drones to strike the Saudi Aramco facility, demonstrating the way non-state actors can target critical infrastructure with relatively low-cost hardware.
  • Drone supply and smuggling: The conversation notes that drones can be smuggled into countries, bypassing traditional procurement controls, which compounds policy challenges for arms control and civil-military integration.
  • Global sources of drone technology: Iran is identified as a major drone producer, highlighting the international and cross-border nature of drone proliferation. The role of allied manufacturers (and potentially illicit channels) in equipping non-state actors is a key policy concern.
  • Policy implications and risk management: The discussion raises important questions about how to regulate, monitor, and counter trickle-down AI and drone technology. Topics include the risk of assassination, civilian harm, and the potential for targeted or indiscriminate violence facilitated by autonomous or semi-autonomous systems.
  • Ethics and governance: The conversation underscores that weapons that democratize violence also raise ethical concerns about accountability, civilian harm, and the potential for misuse by non-state actors. The discussion hints at the tension between the benefits of democratized tech (e.g., civilian access to powerful tools) and the risks of weaponization and social disruption.
  • The broader point on power and technology: The AI/drones discussion ties back to the idea that power is dynamic and contingent on technology, institutions, and social norms. The ability of AI to learn and adapt can outpace traditional policy responses, requiring forward-looking governance and robust oversight.
  • Foundational sense of AI: A basic history is provided, tracing AI’s origins to chess programs and early computer games, highlighting how simple computational challenges evolved into sophisticated autonomous systems. The narrative emphasizes how AI’s progression—from scripted logic to learning from data—changed what is possible in warfare and security.

Implications for policy, ethics, and education

The overarching thread is the need for thoughtful policy responses to rapidly evolving technology and shifting conflict dynamics. Key considerations include:

  • Regulation and nonproliferation: How to set norms and rules for drone usage, semi-autonomous weapons, and AI-enabled decision-making to reduce civilian harm and prevent escalation.
  • Accountability: Determining responsibility for AI-generated or drone-enabled actions in conflict zones, including cross-border incidents and civilian casualties.
  • Mitigating inequality in access: Addressing how trickle-down technology may exacerbate disparities between state actors, non-state actors, and civilian populations, with a focus on preventing weaponization by less accountable actors.
  • Strategic planning under uncertainty: Acknowledging power’s ambiguity and recognizing that new technologies can upend traditional power calculations, necessitating adaptive and resilient security strategies.
  • Educational implications: The course foregrounds the importance of teaching about power, conflicts, and technology, as students grapple with complex, interconnected security challenges rather than straightforward, single-cause narratives.

Connecting the dots: synthesis and real-world relevance

  • Linkages between history and technology: The discussion repeatedly links colonial legacies, racism, and governance challenges to present-day conflicts, illustrating how past structures shape current security landscapes. Understanding how power has shifted in conflicts (e.g., Vietnam’s geography vs. U.S. conventional power) helps explain why some conflicts persist and how new tools may alter outcomes.
  • The politics of attention: How media coverage, political priorities, and international alliances determine which conflicts are studied and funded. The conversation emphasizes that attention is not evenly distributed and is influenced by strategic interests, media access, and perceived national security stakes.
  • The ethics of intervention and aid: Across cases like Haiti, the Congo, and Libya, the dialogue questions whether aid, sanctions, or interventions actually improve outcomes for local populations, pointing to a need for more accountable and effective humanitarian and security policies.

Final reflections: questions to guide further study

  • How does power remain ambiguous as technology reshapes capabilities and perceptions? What are the limits of military power in a world where nonstate actors can access powerful tools?
  • Why do certain conflicts receive sustained attention while others fade from public view, and what are the consequences for global security and humanitarian relief?
  • How should policymakers respond to the democratization of drone and AI technology to balance security with civil liberties and human rights?
  • In what ways does geography, history, and culture continually interact with technology to determine conflict outcomes, and how can education prepare students to analyze these dynamics critically?
  • What theoretical frameworks best explain the rise and fall of states in the 21st century, given the uncertain and evolving nature of power and technology?