The strongest networks will be those in which the organizational design is sustained by a winning story and a well-defined doctrine, and in which all this is layered atop advanced communications systems and rests on strong personal and social ties at the base. Each level, and the overall design, may benefit from redundancy and diversity. Each level's characteristics are likely to affect those of the other levels. These are not idle academic issues. Getting a network form "right" - like getting a hierarchical or market form "right" - can be a delicate enterprise. For practitioners trying to organize a new network or adjust one that already exists, various options may merit consideration - and their assessment should assure that all the organizational, narrative, doctrinal, technological, and social levels are well-designed and integrated. This applies to netwar and counternetwar actors across the spectrum. However, our discussion emphasizes evidence from social netwar actors, mainly activist NGOs, because they have been more open and expressive than have terrorist, criminal, and other violent, secretive actors. The discussion draws on some of the cases presented in our new book, but also affords an opportunity to bring in other recent examples. Each of these levels of analysis deserves more elaboration than we give here. Our goals are to get people to think in these terms and point the way, even though we cannot pretend to offer final methodological guidance. APster might be considered roughly to be at the stage where Stallman,torvalds and Cox were at with kernel testing early 90's.(Rebel Code) Section 25,paragraph 18 is now strictly enforced,"need to know."kill the president.