Rethinking Security

Compression

Leah Farrell and John Robb interacting with the subjects of their writing, while fascinating, is only one element of a complex process of strategic diffusion of ideas. Many jihadist theorists, for example, make implicit and explicit reference to the theory of fourth-generation warfare.

Additionally, the writers of the Chinese military tract Unrestricted Warfare regularly lecture on their work in the United States. UW's influence has been over-exaggerated somewhat in China, but it has been immensely popular in the West, especially due to its encapsulation of campaigning principles that some believe have become "orthodoxy" in modern military doctrine about "the war amongst the people."

Science Fiction and National Security

This is a bit late, but be sure to check out the paper I wrote with Crispin Burke SWJ paper on the connection between speculative fiction and national security.

Tom Ricks read it and made some interesting connections, especially concerning the WWII Pacific overtones of Starship Troopers.

More Strykers for Army

DefenseNews:

"Two heavy brigade combat teams will vanish by 2013 to make way for two new Stryker brigades, bringing the U.S. Army's number of active Stryker Brigade Combat Teams to eight and taking another bite out of its armor formations. ...The move to convert two heavy brigades to Stryker units signals the Army's shift toward a lighter, more quickly deployable formation that is infantry-focused and proven to be highly mobile in diverse environments. And it further reduces the Army's number of heavy brigades. Defense Secretary Robert Gates had announced in April that the Army would hold the total number of brigade combat teams at 45 rather than the planned 48, and the Army nixed a plan to grow three heavy brigades."

One of the more interesting things about this move is that the most recent Military Review has an excerpt from an internal Army survey attacking the rapidly deployable BCT and advocating a focus on soldier survivability over speed. One of the better recent books about military transformation, The Army After Next , covered the travails of the "modular force" in great detail.

Trying to Find a Pardigm Shift

Quick hit on paradigm shifts at RTJ.

Capstone Comments

Short take on the draft of the Army's new Capstone Concept at ThreatsWatch.

No Carriers, No Problem

Defense correspondent Toshi Yoshihara and Naval War College professor James Holmes have a timely piece on Chinese preparations for cross-strait war:

"China does not need to compete symmetrically or across the globe to challenge US staying power in Asia, which Washington considers the main theater. That Beijing cannot fight the United States in a one-on-one contest in the Pacific says little about the strains the PLAN can impose on US naval forces short of an all-out sea battle."

China is maximizing cheap technologies such as missiles to provide a defensive umbrella for its units in a Taiwan theater contest. Meanwhile, the gap in capabilities between US technologies and emerging Chinese technologies is steadily eroding. This is not necessarily a new point, as focus on "anti-access" weapons has been a staple of US strategic analysis of China since the mid-1990s. The larger question--which is open for debate--over whether carriers are, as the authors termed it, "wasting assets," and that China can effectively contest sea control in Asia beyond nearby waters.

Air/Land Forcible Entry Operations in SCO Peace Mission 2009

Very little people paid attention to the implications of the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) military exercises:

"A noted Japanese military correspondent for the Asahi Shimbun, Shunji Taoka, recently suggested that the recent joint Sino-Russian exercises of 2009 in China’s Jillin province may be intended to intimidate the DPRK. The five-day joint military exercise, dubbed “Peace Mission 2009,” took place from July 22 in the Russian Far East and the Shenyang Military Area Command in northeast China, and were intended 'to verify operation plans and capabilities to respond to unexpected incidents under the unstable environment of countries and regions. The exercise involved paratroops, tanks, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers, helicopter gunships, fighter planes, and jet transports, which led Taoka to conclude that the scope of the operations extended beyond an anti-terrorist measure, which are the SCO’s remit. Taoka further asserts that there may be a joint plan of action for “unexpected incidents” in North Korea and that these exercises verify that claim."

As Stephen Blank observes, the involvement of Russia suggests that this isn't a dress rehearsal for the usual Taiwanese intervention scenario. And the OPFOR "terrorists" that China and Russia were fighting had conventional equipment and sophisticated capabilities that no group of terrorists or guerrillas were likely to have or employ. The contingency plan being rehearsed in these Central Asia maneuvers is likely some form of forcible entry intervention into North Korea, perhaps as a joint operation.

Considerations for Future Debate

The battles lines over future US policy and strategy in Afghanistan are being drawn, tied up with a larger backlash against counterinsurgency theory. This was largely inevitable, as the consensus over both subjects was fragile and largely contingent on a certain political, institutional, and theoretical climate that is now gone. As Zenpundit notes, the debate has equal promise and peril.

Schmedlap put it best in a SWJ comment:

"Whatever plan is come up with, all the think tanks and professors will be scrambling to take credit for being part of the brain trust that came up with it - if it works. And then the book deals, TV interviews, requests for comment and analysis, op-eds, speaking engagements, and think tank donations will follow."

This is the root of the problem. High-level political problems tend to provoke a flood of position papers, op-eds, etc offering answers. Op-eds are an important part of the debate. Yet we must take care not to see it become the entire debate. Far more important than answers (which everyone has, in some shape or form) is whether or not we are asking the right questions.

We have a foreign policy and security blogosphere that has so far exercised tremendous maturity compared to the hue and cry of regular political blogs. The unraveling of the Afghanistan consensus is both a crisis and opportunity in that allows us to focus more on the process by which we think about the issue and post-9/11 security challenges in general. I have faith that this community will handle this debate in a reasonable and thoughtful manner.

I cannot say the same, however, for the larger argument that is about to occur.

These Aren't the Drones You're Looking For

Robert Haddick on the drone wave:

"No one should doubt the unmanned tsunami is on its way. Robert Gates badly thrashed the Air Force until it increased its UAV presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. The upcoming QDR is certain to prominently promote UAS and UUV development. In addition, in his review of the Army’s FCS program, Gates terminated the combat vehicles but retained much of the sensors and unmanned systems. So unmanned systems are getting close attention from the top of the Pentagon.

In his presentation at the Pentagon, General Deptula likened UAS development to where airpower was in the 1920s. Then, rickety platforms needed to mature and military planners needed to imagine new battlefield doctrines. Pressured by OSD if by nothing else, the Air Force and Navy will push ahead with their unmanned plans. Army and Marine Corps leaders need to involve themselves in those plans to avoid being left behind."

I think it's fair to say that the AF is also looking at how drones figure intellectually into future warfare. Check out this Air and Space Power Journal debate between some leading airpower theorists and futurists on integrating UAS into the organizational structure and doctrine. Particularly interesting is Col. Sung-pyo Hong of the South Korean Air Force's input on the matter, because debate on military futurism is usually dominated by Anglosphere perspectives.

Future Forces and State Change Models

New post at RTJ on the future forces debate. Trying to look beyond the "crusaders vs. conservatives" division and more into the fundamental parameters of the debate.