Contemporary Strategy & Landpower FOR THIS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS, VISIT US AT http://www.carlisle.army.mil/The Quarterly The US Army War College rfntbnnDavid E. JohnsonnrKevin M. Felix and Frederick D. Wong Michael Evans William G. AdamsonrntnMatthew Morton Charles D. Allen Andrew HillrnrnnGlenn J. Voelz Benjamin M. Jensen VOL. 45 NO. 1 SPRING 2015PARAMETERS (USPS 869) US Army War College ATTN: Parameters47 Ashburn Drive Carlisle, PA 17013-5010 Periodicals Postage Paid VOL. 45 NO. 1 SPRING 2015
Disclaimer: Parameters Parameters Editorial Board MembersEmeritusSecretary of the Army, Commandant, Editor, Managing Editor, Assistant Editor,
Vol. 45 No. 1 Spring 2015 FEATURES Special Commentary7 Fighting the Islamic State The Case for US Ground ForcesDavid E. Johnson Our Policy Outcomes are at Stake Megacities: Pros and Cons19 The Case for MegacitiesKevin M. Felix and Frederick D. Wong The Megacity Challenge33 The Case against MegacitiesMichael Evans The Megacity Myth45 Megacities and the US ArmyWilliam G. Adamson Toward Better Readiness Culture and the US Army55 Learning from the Past, Looking to the FutureMatthew Morton Assessing Success and Failure69 Ethics and Army Leadership: Climate MattersCharles D. Allen Assessing Right and Wrong85 Military Innovation and Military CultureAndrew Hill Facilitating Innovation Changes in Wars Character99 The Individualization of American WarfareGlenn J. Voelz Individuals vs Formations113 Small Forces and Crisis ManagementBenjamin M. Jensen Rethinking Coercion Of Note125 Reconsidering Why We LostDaniel Glickstein Where the Analysis Fell Short
2 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015 DEPARTMENTS 5 From the Editor 129 Commentary & Reply 129 On Defeating the Islamic StateJason W. Warren Paul Rexton Kan Replies Mercy-Killings Be Allowed?G. K. Cunningham David L. Perry Replies137 Book ReviewsOn Strategy137 Strategy and Defence Planning: Meeting the Challenge of Uncertainty Perspectives on Strategy The Strategy Bridge: Theory for PracticeBy Colin S. Gray Reviewed by Major Nathan K. Finney,139 Restraint: A New Foundation for US Grand Strategy By Barry R. Posen Reviewed by Joseph BeckerMemoirs/Biography142 Knife Fights: A Memoir of Modern War in Theory and PracticeBy John Nagl Reviewed by Paul J. Springer144 The Strategist: Brent Scowcroft and the Call of National SecurityBy Bartholomew Sparrow Review by Steven MetzAsia146 Asias Cauldron: The South China Sea and By Robert Kaplan Reviewed by Andrew Scobell147 The Indian Ocean and US Grand Strategy: Ensuring Access and Promoting Security Edited by Peter Dombrowski & Andrew C. Winner Reviewed by Larry A. Grant149 The Hundred-Year Marathon: Chinas Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global SuperpowerBy Michael Pillsbury Reviewed by Timothy L. Thomas150 Asian Maritime Strategies: Navigating Troubled WatersBy Bernard D. Cole Reviewed by Richard HalloranModern Soldiers153 The Combat Soldier: Infantry Tactics and Cohesion in the Twentieth and Twenty-First CenturiesBy Anthony King Reviewed by George J. Woods, III155 Every Citizen a Soldier: The Campaign for Universal Military Training after World War IIBy William A. Taylor Reviewed by Charles D. AllenIrregular Fighters158 The Islamist Phoenix: The Islamic State and the Redrawing of the Middle EastBy Loretta Napoleoni Reviewed by Jos de Arimatia da Cruz159 Laws, Outlaws, and Terrorists: Lessons from the War on Terrorism Edited by Gabriella Blum & Philip B. Heymann Reviewed by Sibylle Scheipers
Content 3 Canadian Army161 A National Force: The Evolution of Canadas Army, 1950-2000 By Peter Kasurak Reviewed by Andrew B. Godefroy162 Stopping the Panzers: The Untold Story of D-DayBy Marc Milner Reviewed by Gert-Jan KooijCivil War, WWI, WWII, & the Vietnam War as Commander in Chief By James M. McPherson Reviewed by Matthew Pinsker166 Doughboys on the Great War: How American Soldiers Viewed Their Military ExperienceBy Edward A. Gutirrez Reviewed by Douglas V. Mastriano167 A Mad Catastrophe: The Outbreak of World War I and the Collapse of the Habsburg EmpireBy Geoffrey Wawro Reviewed by James D. Scudieri170 The Devils Alliance: Hitlers Pact with Stalin, 1939-1941 By Roger Moorhouse Reviewed by Joseph A. Maiolo171 Four Decades On: Vietnam, the United States, and the Legacies of the Second Indochina WarEdited by Scott Laderman and Edwin A. Martini Reviewed by William Thomas Allison
From the EditorDavid Johnson opens our Spring issue with a Special Commentary, Fighting the Islamic State The Case for US Ground Forces, in which he argues a clear assessment of the nature of war the United States is engaged in against the Islamic State will point to the necessity for using American ground troops. Megacities: Pros and Cons features three articles with opposing views regarding the importance of megacities in future for Megacities, by Kevin Felix and Frederick Wong, contends that megacities are becoming an increasingly important in tomorrows rapidly evolving strategic and operational environments. The US military will likely avoid combat in megacities whenever possible; however, Felix and Wong claim operating in such environments will not always be avoidable. To neglect preparing for them is, therefore, strategically unwise. Michael Evans challenges that view in The Case against Megacities. Evans maintains the megacities argument is an unproven hypothesis; rushing to embrace it is like replac ing population-centric counterinsurgency with population-centric megacity operations. Doing so without careful research and analysis is, thus, ill-advised. William Adamsons Megacities and the US Army argues the Department of Defenses current urban strategy is on an uncertain trajectory and is need of new leadership, and the US Army is the right service to provide it. The second forum Culture and the US Army, considers three themes Looking to the Future by Matthew Morton, offers a framework to aid prepare themselves to offer the best advice they can in the future. The second article, Ethics and Army Leadership: Climate Matters by Charles Allen, examines the apparent lapse in ethical conduct among the Armys leaders and their organizations, and critiques how the Department of Defense assesses ethical climates. The third, Military Innovation and Military Culture by Andrew Hill, highlights impor moderating effect on military innovation. He also offers two principal recommendations for creating a culture of innovation. Changes in Wars Character which offers two articles Individualization of American Warfare by Glenn Voelz, contends the increased focus on targeting individuals rather than formations, and on cant alteration in wars character. Whether and how long this change will persist remains to be seen. The second, Small Forces and Crisis multi-domain forces that can facilitate compelling an adversary to do ones willshort of escalating to major war; however, in his view, crisis management has not yet adjusted to this trend. In our Of Note section, Daniel Glickstein takes yet another look at Why We Lost ~AJE
ABSTRA CT : This article argues counterinsurgency wars are not analo gous to the challenges presented by the Islamic State. The United States needs to accept the nature of the war it is in, and undertake a clear and comprehensive assessment of the means necessary for strategic success. Such an assessment will make apparent the need to commit US ground combat forces.1 The rise of the Islamic State has forced policy makers to confront uncomfortable questions: What will it take to defeat the Islamic State? Islamic State? Can the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), bolstered by US and allied air power, advisers, special forces almost everything short of experienced in taking Tikrit and the recent abandonment of Ramadi should be instructive, as was the premature announcement by US Central Command of a coming ISF spring 2015 offensive to retake Mosul, which was followed by an admission that the ISF is not yet ready for the kind 2 Many have already commented on the need to have all US options on the table to defeat the Islamic State. Retired Marine Corps General James Mattis recently wrote US strategy should include ground combat forces to achieve our war aims.3 This article explains why US ground forces are not just a better option than the ISF, but absolutely necessary for achieving US policy objectives against the Islamic State.Does Our Strategy Fit the War We Are In?All students of strategy have had the ends-ways-means catechism drummed into them at some point in their education. Assessing the US strategy for the war with the Islamic State from this perspective is useful in reaching an understanding of what needs to be done to defeat the Islamic State. Additionally, it will illustrate the continuing challenges 1 This article is derived from my commentary in War on the Rocks which argues US ground forces are necessary to defeat the Islamic State, and that a crucial test would come with the battle to retake Mosul. This essay expands on that premise, even though it is being written as events unfold on the ground in Iraq. See David Johnson, Means Matter: Competent Ground Forces and the Fight Against ISIL, War on the Rocks March 19, 2015. This essay incorporates much of this earlier commentary. 2 Loveday Morris, Iraqi Offensive for Tikrit Stalls as Casualties Mount, Washington Post, March Associated Press, March 3, 2015; and Nancy A. Youssef, Exclusive: Pentagon Doubts Its Own ISIS War Plan, Daily Beast, February 20, 2015, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/20/pentagon-doubtsits-own-isis-war-plan.html. 3 James Mattis, Using Military Force Against ISIS, March 4, 2015, http://www. hoover.org/research/using-military-force-against-isis. SPECIAL COMMENTARY Fighting the Islamic State The Case for US Ground ForcesDavid E. JohnsonDr. David Johnson is a senior historian at the RAND Corporation and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University. From June 2012 until July 2014, he established and directed the inaugural Chief of Staff of the Army Strategic Studies Group. He is a retired US Army Colonel with a PhD in history from Duke University. He is the author of numer ous books and articles on military strategy.
8 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015in post-9/11 strategy formulation and, in particular, the chasm between desired ends and deployed means. President Obama, in his February 11, 2015 letter to the Congress requesting an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to and defeat ISIL.4 the US way has been limited to a systematic campaign of airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq and Syria and supporting various anti-Islamic State security forces.5 American means are limited to air power, advisers, and US support to the Iraqis. The other means beyond US support ing forcesthe boots on the groundinclude the ISF, Kurdish Peshmerga and Sunni and Shia militias, the latter backed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Indeed, Major General Qasem Soleimaini, commander of the Iranian Quds Force, was at one point directing the offensive to retake Tikrit.6 This is problematic in terms of US strategy in the region, but also creates sectarian tensions with Iranians deeply involved in taking Sunni areas. The AUMF explicitly states it would not authorize long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our Nation conducted izing a strategy for defeating the Islamic State in Iraqseeing this new and Iraq. Clausewitz is instructive when he stresses that war is an instru ment of policy . . This way of looking at it will show us how wars must vary with the nature of their motives and of the situations which give rise to them.7 Quite simply, the United States needs to understand the war it is in and the adversary it faces in the Islamic State. The Islamic State is not an insurgency like the United States fought from 2003 until its departure from Iraq. Rather, it is an aspiring proto-state bent on taking and holding territory. Thus, the centrality of protecting the people from the insurgents that is the cornerstone of US counterinsurgency doctrinethe way the United States eventu ally approached the wars in Afghanistan and Iraqis irrelevant to the Islamic State itself. Protecting the Iraqi population from the Islamic State is important, but that will be accomplished through conventional operations that destroy the Islamic State and seize the territory it cur rently occupies in Iraq. To date, air power and limited Iraqi ground operations have degraded the Islamic State and put it at risk when it moves in the open. In response, the Islamic State has gone to ground in urban areas. This creates a new reality on the ground and a problem that cannot be solved through air strikes alone, though retired US Air Force Lieutenant General David Deptula has argued that a stepped-up air campaign could defeat the 4 Barack Obama, Letter from the PresidentAuthorization for the Use of United States Armed Forces in Connection with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, The White House authorization-use-united-states-armed-forces-connection. 5 Ibid. 6 Paul McCleary, Iranian General again in Iraq for Tikrit Offensive, Defense News March 2, 2015, http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/blog/intercepts/2015/03/02/iraq-iran -is-war-terrorism/24270363/. 7 Carl von Clausewitz, On War, trans. and ed. by Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), 88.
SPECIAL COMMENTARY Johnson 9Islamic State.8 in the terrain and amongst the people of the cities they occupy. They are more akin to Hamas in Gaza or the North Vietnamese Army in Hue than they are to an insurgency of the type we fought in Iraq and State will have to be defeated if the United States is to realize President Obamas stated policy objective. US success is, therefore, inextricably linked to the success of ISF ground combat operations against the US strategy.ISF Is Not the Army We Need combat to defeat a conventional force that is holding territory, the crucial next step is deciding the appropriate means to execute that way. Although the administration continues to emphasize all options are on the table, the letter from the President to Congress requesting an should be deployed to conduct such operations.9 Furthermore, the role of US ground forces is extremely limited in the AUMF: ground combat operations in other, more limited circumstances, such as rescue operations involving US or coalition personnel or the use of special operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership. It would also authorize the use of US forces in situations where ground combat operations are not expected or intended, such as intelligence collection and sharing, missions to enable kinetic strikes, or the provision of operational planning and other forms of advice and assistance to partner forces.10Although some like General Mattis have argued for the need to to providing advisors and tactical air controllers at lower levels to the ISF.11 John Nagl has been a consistent voice in this debate arguing:We are going to have to put those American troops embedded inside Iraqi units, in close support of those Iraqi units, in order to enable and empower them to expel the Islamic State from that country in a reasonable period it will be American troops in close support, calling in airstrikes, providing intelligence, providing a number of the enablers and the logistical support 8 See Sydney J. Freedburg, Jr., Trench Warfare With Wings: Can ISIL Airstrikes Go Beyond Attrition? Breaking Defense April 9, 2015. In this article Deptula, a noted airpower theorist and in Syria] and Mosul, for example, still open? Why is electricity not terminated in either city? Wouldnt shutting down the electrical grid harm the local civilian population? Yes, Deptula said, but not to an extent that would violate the laws of war. This is one of the problems, theres been more attention to the avoidance of collateral damage and civilian casualties than there has been to the accomplishment of eliminating ISIL, he said. In fact, he argued, in an echo of long-ago airpower theorist Giulio Douhet that bringing the war home to ISIL-controlled populations might turn them against their occupiers. 9 Obama, Letter from the PresidentAuthorization for the Use of United States Armed Forces in Connection with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. 10 Ibid. 11 Mattis, Using Military Force Against ISIS. General Mattis chafed at restricting the means in hearts of many, especially those living in close proximity to this foe, we must not reassure that enemy
10 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015 and the dying. So I am talking about the total force of some 10-20 thousand support to an Iraqi military that collapsed under pressure last year and that 12Thus, the central assumptionand the Achilles heelin the current US strategy is this: with foreign training and assistance, the means to achieve US strategic ends. The question yet to be asked and answered (without spin) is: What if the ISF cannot be trained and advised to achieve the level of competency necessary to roll back the Islamic State? Ironically, the way the United States defeated Saddam Hussein in 2003destroying the enemy through joint combined arms maneuver for what would replace the Hussein regime and letting Iraq descend into chaos; but that is not the central issue now. There is an Iraqi government in place that the United States intends to sustain. Yet, debates about the way to defeat the Islamic State are frequently, and incorrectly, trapped in the counterinsurgency model of the past decade, as can be seen in this statement by Janine Davidson at a recent Council on Foreign Relations event: the people in Iraq feel like this civil war has insurgency-like ele are embedded, then there are counterinsurgency-like approaches. Max Boot, Davidsons fellow panelist at the event, agreed: I think a COIN track record of success. And its not an easy strategy, but its the only strategy that has any track record of success in dealing with an enemy that is entrenched among the people.13Will the ISF be able to drive the Islamic State out of Iraq? Operations in Tikrit, which had to be stopped because of lack of progress and high casualties and could only resume once US airpower was employed, provide some indication of the lack of competence of the ISF for the task of defeating the Islamic State.14 ing was reportedly done by Shia militias as the ISF was not up to the task. Nevertheless, the key test will be the retaking of Mosul, a much larger Sunni city of some 1.5 million residents. As already noted, doubts for an offensive to take Mosul from this spring to an undetermined date in the future. There is likely to be a long wait: reports from US train ers indicate ISF is in bad shape. Lieutenant Colonel John Schwemmer, taken aback at the poor state of the ISF, observing: Its pretty incred ible . I was kind of surprised. What training did they have after we left?15 Finally, there appears to be doubt among at least some senior Strategist, RT February 16, 2015, http://rt.com/shows/sophieco/232635-us-isis-middle-east. 13 Council on Foreign Relations, What to Do About ISIS, transcript, March 31, 2015, http:// www.cfr.org/middle-east-and-north-africa/do-isis/p36333, accessed April 15, 2015). 14 Morris, Iraqi Offensive for Tikrit Stalls as Casualties Mount. 15 Rod Nordland, US Soldiers, Back in Iraq, Find Security Forces in Disrepair, New York Times April 14, 2015..
SPECIAL COMMENTARY Johnson 11 Major General Najim Abdullah al-Jubouri, the individual selected by Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to command operations to liber ate Nineveh, Nineweh without American forces.16 Islamic States offensive in 2014 bolted because it was designed largely as an internal security force that did little more than staff checkpoints.17 when facing anything other than moderate-scale internal threats. It is incapable of the combined arms maneuver required to defeat the Islamic (2008)were dominated by US forces with modest ISF participation. The battle for Basra (2008), while Iraqi conceived and led, required massive US assistance to succeed. The US ground formations in these key battles were not just boots on the ground. They were skilled, profes sional forces capable of something the ISF is not: the expert execution of highly synchronized joint combined arms operations. This competence is paramount in defeating determined adversaries and avoiding friendly and unwarranted noncombatant casualties and collateral damage. This is the ground force needed to defeat the Islamic State. US advisers cannot transplant these competencies into the ISF in a relatively short time, if ever, even if the ISF did not have all of its other challenges to overcome. Indeed, eight years of large-scale efforts from 2003 to 2011 failed to do the ISF; it is not capable of this level of sophisticated synchronization of joint combined arms.The Singular Importance of US Ground ForcesThe 2008 Battle of Sadr City is perhaps the most illustrative example of the capability chasm between US ground forces and the ISFor almost any other military in the world, for that matter. In that battle the US Armys 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, destroyed contained over 2 million Iraqi noncombatants, with an estimated 6,000 to that which forces trying to retake Mosul will face: How to defeat a amongst whom they are hiding and destroying the city.18 To reverse a famous quote reported by Peter Arnett during the Vietnam War, How do you save the city without destroying it?19In the Battle of Sadr City, the US Army created a condition intol erable to JAM by sealing off the city with a concrete wall and using Offensive to Re-take Mosul But Will He Ask for US Ground Forces? Foreign Policy, April 22, 2015, https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/22/former-fp-roundtable-participant-tapped-to-lead-iraqioffensive-to-re-take-mosul-but-will-he-ask-for-u-s-ground-forces. 17 Ibid.; and Nordland, US Soldiers, Back in Iraq, Find Security Forces in Disrepair. 18 David E. Johnson, M. Wade Markel, and Brian Shannon, The 2008 Battle of Sadr City: Reimagining Urban Combat (Santa Monica: RAND, 2013). 19 Major Describe Moves, New York Times, February 8, 1968, 14.
12 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015 ground operations in Gaza during Operations Cast Lead and Protective Edgecompetent ground forces, enabled by a joint system, can create 3rd Brigade executed a high-technology, complex hunt for JAM rocket Zone, where the US Embassy was located. The brigade staff, augmented aerial surveillance and attack systems (Predator and Shadow), Apache rocket launchers. infantry role, assisted by US advisers, focused on consolidating gains be expected of the ISF, because it could not execute synchronized joint operations, nor did it have the capabilitiesthe US military provided all illustrates the unique effectiveness US ground forces in orchestrating State. Competent ground forces are fundamental to the joint force equa competence to another ground force is folly. The ISF of 2008, before then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki riddled it with crony appoint the Islamic State last year. Still, it is unimaginable that the ISF of 2008 could have done what US forces did in Sadr City or Fallujah, for that matter. It took years of effort to create the ISF of 2008 and the adversaries they joined us imagine the ISF ground forces will be able to take Mosul this year? The Fallacy of the Advisor OptionThis is a central fallacy in US advisory efforts in areas with ongoing operate within the context of a supporting US joint system that pro vides air, artillery, intelligence, logistical supportand ground combat forces. Advisors are essentially a link for the local security forces into that system, which also has US ground forces in the event of the need for reinforcement. This is essentially the system we had in Iraq during the surge. It is not dissimilar to the program of Vietnamization during the Vietnam War. So long as the South Vietnamese had access to US enablers, particularly airpower, they could endure as they did during the North Vietnamese failed Easter Offensive in 1972. Three years later, absent this US system and sustained security assistance support, the South Vietnamese military deteriorated and collapsed under a conven tional attack by North Vietnam. In the case of the ISF, the Islamic State
SPECIAL COMMENTARY Johnson 13 to overrun much of Iraq. Finally, in the past when the United States built militaries that gradually became truly joint, combined arms-capable, the US army provided military assistance and forces in largely benign secu rity environments for decades (e.g., South Korea). It strains credulity to believe we can create an ISF capable of effective operations in an urban area like Mosul in short order, even if we provide intelligence, planning, The Perils of SectarianismTrying to take Sunni cities with combinations of Shia militias, Peshmerga, and ISF forces would also present another challenge. None of these forces would be trusted by the Sunni populations, which might therefore continue to support the Islamic State. Nor would they trust each other. In the eyes of the locals, US ground forces are least likely to have sectarian agendas and, thus, are potentially trustworthyor at least honest brokers. The aftermath of the ISF victory in Tikrit reinforces this view. As Reuters reported, the looting and violence in Tikrit threaten Sunni Iraqis that the central government is weak and not trustworthy enough to recapture other territory held by Islamic State, including the much larger city of Mosul.20 Future depredations against the Sunnis also risk exacerbating the already deep sectarian divides that would undermine a central pillar of our strategy in Iraq of creating an inclusive Iraqi government. This brings us back to the importance of having the means to achieve our ends. If the ISF is incapable of defeating the Islamic State in the cities available are US ground combat forces. They have all the skills in joint combined arms warfare the ISF lacks. US Army armor and mechanized infantry formations should be at the heart of this joint task force, just as they were in Sadr City, to provide US forces with the mobile, protected, Islamic State. If the United States is unwilling to deploy ground combat forces, the end state of a degraded and destroyed Islamic State is at risk. Capacity MattersTwo Recent Examples Two recent cases when the United States chose to embark on a new strategy in the midst of failing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan provide instance was when President George W. Bush announced on January more US Army brigades, to Iraq. Quite simply, the strategy of turning the war over to the Iraqisstanding down as they stand upwas not working.21 These surge forces were the critical to a new strategy for Iraq that made possible the establishment of a level of internal security that 20 After Iraqi Forces Take Tikrit, a Wave of Looting and Lynching, Reuters April 3, 2015,. 21 Thomas E. Ricks, The Gamble: General Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq (New York: Penguin Press, 2009), 74-128.
14 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015the Iraqis could maintain independently and allowed the United States to withdraw in 2011.22 The second case is the increased commitment in Afghanistan that General Stanley McChrystal designed for the Obama administration in 2009. The ends for the campaign were clear: denying al Qaeda a safe haven, reversing the Talibans momentum, and strengthening the capac ity of Afghanistans security forces and government for the long haul. The ways were also understoodpopulation-centric COIN. What was inadequate were the means allocated to achieve the strategy. According to US COIN doctrine, the number of security forces available to execute attained.23 Today, over four years after the surge in Afghanistan, the United States has had to revisit its plans to withdraw US forces from Afghanistan.24 Moving ForwardThere is understandable reluctance to deploy US ground forces to military objective against the Islamic State would not be nation-building or counterinsurgency, but rather removing the Islamic State from Iraq. The surest means of attaining this strategic objective is with the intro duction of US ground combat forces and the necessary sustainment both domestically and internationally, given likely Iraqi objections and the substantial Iranian presence in Iraq. political will for a US ground commitment against the Islamic State. The President will have to make the American people understand why US ground forces are the only sure means available to achieve our national objectives. President Bush did this in 2007 for Iraq; President Obama did it 2009 for Afghanistan. It is, however, clear the American people understand the threat posed by the Islamic State. A recent CNN/ORC Poll found: 22 Peter Mansoor, Surge: My Journey with General David Petraeus and the Remaking of the Iraq War Iraq during the surge. What mattered was the show of US resolve, which enabled the Sunni to stand 23 David E. Johnson, What Are You Prepared to Do? NATO and the Strategic Mismatch Between Ends, Ways, and Means in Afghanistanand in the Future, Terrorism 34, no. 5 (May 2011): 383-401. See US Department of the Army and US Marine Corps, Counterinsurgency, FM 3/MCWP 3.5 (Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, 2006), 1-13, which notes: Twenty counterinsurgents per 1000 residents is often considered the minimum troop density required for effective COIN opera tion. There is an ongoing debate about the relevance of these ratios. See, for example, Jeffrey A. Friedman, Manpower and Counterinsurgency: Empirical Foundations for Theory and Doctrine, Security Studies 20, no. 4 (2011): 556-591. One could argue that they were not met across Iraq during the surge, but within Baghdad, considered by many to be the center of gravity of the war, there were approximately 131,000 US-Iraqi security forces in a city with a population of some 7,000,000, which came close to the doctrinal ratio. Interestingly, these ratios do not appear in the 2014 version of the US Army-Marine Corps FM 3-24/MCWP 3-33.5: Insurgencies and Countering Insurgencies 24 Greg Jaffe and David Nakamura, Obama Agrees to Slow US Troop Withdrawal from Afghanistan, Washington Post March 24, 2015.
SPECIAL COMMENTARY Johnson 15Americans see ISIS as a bigger threat to the United States than Iran, Russia, North Korea or China. . Overall, 68% say ISIS is a very serious threat, compared with just 39% who say so about Iran, 32% about North Korea, 25% on Russia and 18% on China. Nearly 9 in 10 see ISIS as at least a moderately serious threat.25The argument to the American people for greater US involve the introduction of US ground forces, the success of the US strategy is inextricably tied to meansthe ISF, Shia militias backed by Iran, and the Peshmerga whose capabilities and competence for the task is questionable, as are for some of them their increasingly retaliatory methods against Sunnis. If the ISF fails, the Islamic State will receive a boost in prestige and recruiting appeal, thus increasing its threat to the region, US friends and allies, and possibly even the homeland. If we rec ognize the inability of the ISF to defeat the Islamic State, the alternative approach to employing US ground combat forces would be continued strategic patience and kicking the can down the road. This course is also problematic, given that it will surely increase an already sizable Iranian region about US commitment and credibility. In the words of retired Lieutenant General Daniel Bolger, a broad chasm gapes between what the United States accomplished and what it aspired to do in the wake of the 9/11 attack.26 Why is that? My sense is that is the responsibility of the military to provide expert advice to civilians on the necessary means to attain policy ends is either not being fully expressed, being shaped in ways to make it palatable to the recipi Nevertheless, whatever the reason, it boggles the mind that a com mander could offer a plan to the president for Afghanistan that failed to address the three critical mandates of our own doctrine: adequate security force to population ratios, denial of sanctuary for the adversary, and a legitimate host nation government. A we will do the best we can with what means we get, is something other than expert military advice and a formula for disaster. But this caution was not put forward on Afghanistan. Indeed, the to the fundamental question about the strategy: could it succeed with the forces the president was willing to commit and in the timeframe The Promise: President Obama, Year One General David A. Petraeus, Commander, US Central Command and General McChrystals commander: 18 months? ANA (Afghan National Army) in that time frame. 25 Jennifer Agiesta, CNN/ORC Poll: ISIS a Bigger Threat Than Iran, Russia, CNN, April 22, 2015, http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/22/politics/cnn-orc-poll-isis-iran-russia/index.html. 26 Daniel P. Bolger, Why We Lost: A Generals Inside Account of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars
16 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015Alter also writes that Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael G. Mullen agreed with General Petraeuss assessment.27Every war college student learns about the tools available to policy makers to meet strategic endsDiplomatic, Information, Military, Economic, Financial, Intelligence and Law Enforcement (DIMEFIL). When the critical moment in a policy occurs that the other than mili tary elements are not achieving the policy ends, policy continues, as Clausewitz reminds us, with the addition of other means.28 These means are military capability and capacity. Absent a rigorous and forthright assessment and commitment of the means required to accomplish the strategic ends policy will be placed at risk. This is the critical juncture we are rapidly approaching in Iraq and the broader Middle East. It is time for strategic clarity. An ISF military failure against the Islamic State or a protracted delay in defeating the Islamic State could unhinge US policy in the region and provide the Islamic State with a to accord with the means we have devoted to the strategy: degrade and contain the Islamic State. Indeed, there are reasonable arguments regarding cultural, political, and military considerations for doing just that. If, however, our policy actually requires the defeat of the Islamic State, which I believe it does, then we need to provide the necessary meanscompetent US ground forces at the core of a joint, combined arms teamto realize our policy objectives. The advance of the Islamic State into Iraq should also force a rethinking of our broader national security strategy and force posture. Islamic Stateand in the Middle East and elsewhereare being com promised by the continued reluctance to put US boots on the ground in a direct combat role. In part, this is because of the current strategy important, but it should not divert our attention from the rest of the world. The collapse of the Yemeni government, the chaos in Syria and Libya, an ever present threat in North Korea, and Russian adventurism in the Ukraine require a broader discussion about the military means necessary to attain US policy objectives worldwide. Air strikes, counter terrorism with drones, and special operations raids against high value targets create immediate, but transitory effectswhat has been termed by Israelis mowing the grass. They are also clearly less risky than com mitting ground combat forces. Nevertheless, while these stand-off and small-scale operations might attain short term political objectives, they most often do not achieve or support the longer term policy ends of creating enduring conditions of stability and security we seek in the world. Nor do they deter aggression and assure partners and allies. This is the role of US ground forces. 27 Jonathan Alter, The Promise: President Obama, Year One (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010), 390. See also Peter Baker, How Obama Came to Plan for Surge in Afghanistan, New York Times, December 5, 2009. 28 Clausewitz, On War, 605.
SPECIAL COMMENTARY Johnson 17The decision to commit US ground forces to the war against the the burden of our recent history in Afghanistan and Iraq. These coun terinsurgency wars are not analogous to the challenges posed by the Islamic State. It is the job of military professionals to explain why the current ways and means in the war against the Islamic State will likely lead to policy failure. They must also tell those they advise that strategic success demands the commitment of US ground forces. These forces are not merely boots on the ground, but the competent professionals required to defeat the Islamic State. Accepting the nature the war we are in, understanding the way in which it must be prosecuted, and undertak ing a clear and comprehensive assessment of the means necessary for strategic success will make apparent the need to commit US ground combat forces. The clock is ticking and the stakes are high in Iraqand elsewhere.
ABSTRA CT : We cannot know for certain what the future operating environment will be, but we must prepare for it. To date, the US military has not paid enough attention to the rise of megacities. This article argues the US Army must continue developing new concepts, capabilities, and ultimately solutions for achieving national security objectives within the current and future operational environments of the megacity.T complex as an environment that is not only unknown, but unknowable and constantly changing.1 It goes on to claim that to win in a complex world, Army forces must provide the Joint Force with multiple options, integrate the efforts of multiple partners, operate across multiple domains, and present enemies and adversaries with multiple dilemmas.2 plish than in the complex urban environment of a megacity. Such cities present the Army and joint force with a level of complexity for which they are not fully prepared. However, many opportunities exist for the Army and joint force to reinvigorate past research efforts, to consolidate learning, and to prepare the current and future force for operations in such environments. Historical ContextUrban warfare is not a new phenomenon. For example, in the ancient Syrian city of Hamoukar, archeologists have discovered evidence of urban combat as early as 5,500 years ago.3 Throughout the ages, urban wars centered on the sieges and defense of urban centers of all sizes, while large battles have for centuries been the exception rather than the rule. Contemporary reminders of urban warfare and its inherent chal lenges include the battles of Stalingrad and Aachen during World War II, Hu during Vietnam, and Grozny in 1994-1995, and again 1999-2000. some form of urban warfare. As such, the Armys capacity to engage, of future operational and strategic endeavors. dency for urban combat operations to blend the levels of war, creating 1 US Army Training and Doctrine Command, The US Army Operating Concept: Win in A Complex World (Fort Eustis: US Army Training and Doctrine Command, 2014), iii. 2 Ibid. 3 Owen Jarus, Site of Earliest Known Urban Warfare Threatened by Syrian War, LiveScience June 24, 2013, http://www.livescience.com/37672-ancient-urban-warfare-site-threatened.html. MEGACITIES: PROS AND CONS The Case for MegacitiesKevin M. Felix and Frederick D. Wong
20 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015 cations. Arguably, the bloodiest battle during the Tet Offensive took enemy established in a defense-in-depth. Major urban combat operations occurred in the midst of a civilian population of around 140,000 people, and against an initial enemy force estimated at 7,500 North Vietnamese Army (NVA) and Viet Cong (VC) troops, later reinforced to a divisionsized element. Facing them were three US Marine battalions and 11 Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) battalions.4 Although the United States employed Army units from the 1st Cavalry Division and 101st Airborne Division during the Battle of Hu, these forces focused on the outlying areas to prevent NVA reinforcement. The US Marines city. The US military suffered 216 killed and 1,364 wounded, while the ARVN lost 384 killed and 1,830 wounded. Civilian casualties were around 5,800 people killed or executed by NVA/VC due to their politi cal allegiances. Estimated enemy casualties were 1,042 killed and 4,000 wounded.5 Despite the tactical gains from retaking the city and repelling enemy forces across South Vietnam, the United States and Republic of Vietnam faced the strategic repercussions of having laid in ruins an estimated 80 percent of the city, with over 116,000 persons left homeless. Moreover, existing political issues adversely impacting US policy. In essence, the The ProblemImagine if the US military had to conduct operations similar to Hu in a megacity, a complex urban environment over 100 times larger and with a population of nearly 10 million. Add in the challenges presented by subterranean, cyber, and space environments against a determined enemy, established in-depth, comprised of conventional and special operations forces, paramilitaries, and terrorist and criminal elements with access to a wide spectrum of advanced warfare capabilities. While urban combat operations are not new, a megacity presents old challenges at previously unimaginable scale and complexity. megacities represent strategic key terrain interconnected to national and even international centers of gravity. Megacities, due to their increasing number, geographical locations, and crucial strategic importance, are also the most likely environments where the US military will have to execute its missions. 4 Norman L. Cooling, Hue City, 1968: Winning A Battle While Losing A War, Marine Corps Gazette July 2001, https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/hue-city-1968-winning-battle-while-losing -war. 5 Ibid.
MEGACITIES: PROS AND CONS Felix and Wong 21Despite the crucial importance of megacities, the US military has not yet made a concerted effort to prepare for combat in these ultracomplex environments. The operational challenge is in plain view, but the Army and joint community have barely begun to climb the steep learning curve. A requirement for additional in-depth research to deter mine how US forces could operate in and around such environments remains in many areas. Discovering optimal organizational structures, what specialized materiel and munitions are necessary, and how to best adjust leader development and training programs, are just some of the megacity challenges the US military must continue to address. The Army Chief of Staffs Strategic Studies Group recognized these shortcomings in its analysis of megacities conducted in 2013-2014, stating: the Army is currently unprepared. Although the Army has a long history beyond the scope of its resources. A decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan has taught the Army that it must shape itself to the complex environment in which it is called to operate. This is a process that must begin now with megacities.6To examine further what megacities represent in terms of military challenges and their implications for future military operations, this article addresses the following areas: the strategic context of megaci ties with regards to social trends; the characteristics of megacities; the operational challenges they present; and the current thinking is and what studies of megacities have revealed to date. Strategic ContextCities have long been the focus of culture, politics, economics, reli gion, and many other characteristics of civilization.7 Not surprisingly, the emergence of megacities and their massive increase in scale, popula developing and enlarging is changing the strategic landscape faster than strategists and policymakers are coping with them. As described in a McKinsey Global Institute article published in Foreign Policy magazine, over the next two decades, the world will see a burst of urban expan sion at a speed and on a scale never before witnessed in human history.8 Such a vast urbanization at an unprecedented rate will cause societal disruptions and put stress on the global economic system. Additionally, the era when the US could hope to avoid getting engaged in is an urban one. Avoiding major urban areas is usually the desired course of action, but the desirable is not always possible. 6 Chief of Staff of the Army, Strategic Studies Group, Megacities and the United States Army: Preparing for an Uncertain Future Studies Group, 2014), 21. 7 Lou DiMarco, Attacking the Heart and Guts: Urban Operations through the Ages (Fort Leavenworth: US Army Command and General Staff College Press, 2014), 1. 8 Richard Dobbs, Prime Numbers: Megacities, Foreign Policy Magazine, McKinsey Global Institute October 2010, http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi/in_the_news/prime_numbers_ megacities.
22 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015In a recent National Intelligence Council study, Global Trends 2030 social scientists and analysts assessed that by 2030, the estimated urban population will grow by nearly 60 percent, or 4.9 billion people, from 50 percent today.9 Urban centers already generate an estimated 80 percent of economic growth, a trend that will likely increase and continue to drive more social migration towards cities.10 This social migration will likely drive increasing demands for housing, public infrastructure expansion, food, energy, water, and other basic natural resources.Characteristics of Megacities really distinguishes one urban area as a megacity? What makes Tokyo and Rio de Janeiro megacities, while Pittsburgh is not? As a start point, the characteristics common to megacities and major urban areas are both physical (and virtual) across air, ground, sea, and subterranean domains. Physically, both possess buildings of varying size, age, and construction, complex networks of ground, air, and/or sea transportations, formal governance structures, and support infrastructures such as for power and water distribution. Both also have and informal governance structures, such as community activists and religious leaders. Additionally, both are likely to be globally intercon nected to national and international economic centers of gravity. Given these common traits, what then distinguishes megacities from major urban areas? The European Association of National Metrology erations which concentrate more than 10 million inhabitants.11 Other related studies conducted by RAND, McKinsey Global Institute, and the French Ministry of Defenses Strategic Horizons 2040 further describe the characteristics of megacities in terms of two major inter-related factors: explosive population growth and potential volatility. Whereas population growth in major urban areas like St. Petersburg, Russia, remains steady in the low percentiles and ranges in the thousands over the course of several years, population growth in megacities like Jakarta is extremely rapid, running in the millions within that same time span. Rapid population shifts often lead to situations where the demand for jobs, public services, and other resources exceeds the capacity of existing physical infrastructure, and far outstrips the ability of many states to add infrastructure at the pace of population growth. Megacities promote economic growth for nations and regions, but also represent potential nightmares of poverty, widespread disease, as well as crime and other related tensions. The effects of an already exist ing wealth disparity amongst social classes can be further complicated 9 McKinsey Global Institute, Urbanization, http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi/re search/ urbanization. 10 National Intelligence Council, Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds (Washington, DC: National Intelligence Council, 2012), 26. 11 European Association of National Metrology Institutes, Mega Cities (Braunschweig: EURAMET, 2013), 1.
MEGACITIES: PROS AND CONS Felix and Wong 23decay (i.e. slums). These areas create opportunities for illicit activities, diseases, and economic dependence on governmental support. Explosive population growth brings with it the potential for social unrest, and in a megacity is likely to have international repercussions Megacities inherently contain the conditions for political unrest where populations split along ethnic or religious lines into cities within cities. Ineffective and/or corrupt state governance often results in the creation of informal power structures and safe havens for illicit and threat networks. For example, a lack of basic policing by the state in the poorer regions of a megacity may result in a black market economy run by a shadow government of criminal and/or terrorist networks. Furthermore, threats can hide and operate more readily, and, unlike the rural countryside, they have easy access to technology to mobilize support and coordinate activities. The 2011 uprising in Egypt as part of the Arab Spring led to the end of President Hosni Mubaraks 29-year regime in less than 30 days, off a chain of events. On January 17, 2011, the video of an Egyptian dispute with local authorities over receiving his monthly coupons for subsidized bread went viral. The event proved to be tipping point of long-standing social grievances that galvanized protests in Cairo and Alexandria. Information technology access enabled the videos mass distribution and mobilization of a broad-based coalition of opposition groups (e.g. Muslim Brotherhood) that began and sustained a succession of large-scale protests. Despite Mubaraks deployment of the military to restore his author ity on January 30th, by February 6th the opposition leaders were holding talks with the Egyptian Vice President and on February 11, 2011, Mubarak resigned and surrendered his power to the military, ending between Islamist and secular groups over government control, affecting regional stability in the Middle East and US foreign policy.12 As evident in Egypt as part of the Arab Spring, the global reach afforded through technology and the sheer mass of resources available in megacities afford threats a greater potential to escalate social unrest with local, regional, and potentially international impact. Social migration trends indicate the movement from rural areas to cities will likely continue; life in urban areas, even in slums, is still better than rural poverty where there are no opportunities for economic nomic system may be, typically enough food arrives to feed populations of 10 million people or more versus the rural areas where such resources are unavailable. Likewise, even in slums there are economic systems that sanitation to avoid the entire area from becoming a giant cesspool. Clearly, not all megacities are equal in this regard. Each possesses unique physical, political, and social characteristics. Shenzhen is not like Delhi, nor like Mumbai or So Paulo. Even cities within the same nation 12 Kelsey Jane Clark, et. al., Timeline: Revolution in Egypt, Los Angeles Times June 19, 2012, http://timelines.latimes.com/egypt/.
24 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015demonstrate numerous crucial differences; consider Los Angeles and New York City. What distinguishes well-run megacities from poorly-run ones are their capacities for maintaining economic systems, effective gover nance, and resilience. The people of New York City demonstrated such resilience through their public resolve and emergency response opera tions following the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center in 2001, and ership and emergency response capacity to keep the city running and key infrastructure and displaced hundreds of thousands of people. By contrast, a natural disaster in a megacity like Lagos, challenged by its own ethnic tensions and internal governance struggles, might plunge the Nigerian government into chaos due to the scale of death, disease, and ensuing reconstruction costs, resulting in regional and international economic consequences.Operational Challenges Presented by Megacities Megacities can be best described as systems of systems, comparable to a living organism. They are dynamic environments that change not only block by block, but day to day. While this is not a new idea, the cantly greater due to the complexity, density, and scale of the physical and human terrain. Future intervention within these unique environ ments will likely be brought about by their vulnerability to humanitarian crises and suitability as safe havens for threats to the United States and its allies. Because of their interrelationship within a nation or regions centers of gravity, megacities will likely have greater strategic value beyond material military advantage. The following complex challenges require close coordination between tactical actions and strategic objectives: Regional and international interconnectedness and centers of gravity Extended urban infrastructures supporting dense, diverse populations Formal and informal sources of power Congested and constraining terrain Interconnected, embedded threats across super-surface, surface, subsurface, and cyber/space Mission execution in one megacity would be tough; working in several across the range of military operations at the same time might be horrendous. The US military could be conducting combat operations in and around a megacity overseas while simultaneously, a natural disas ter affects one in the United States, requiring extensive humanitarian aid and disaster relief operations, analogous to Hurricane Katrina and larger scale. At a minimum, mission planning in and around such envi ronments involves the following considerations. Strategically, leaders and planners must consider the rest of the country and region when examining megacities. Regardless of the type
MEGACITIES: PROS AND CONS Felix and Wong 25of military operation, a primary objective is to provide safe and secure environments to facilitate effective governance. US military forces will likely support broader efforts directed by the US government or other entities whose priorities may limit freedom of action (e.g. limiting col lateral damage). Many of the problems associated with megacities are not isolated, and are likely interconnected with national or regional prob lems. Such planning considerations are comparable to maintaining the health of a whole body versus treating symptoms (i.e. megacity slums). As an example, efforts to improve megacities will likely increase urban migration, setting conditions for problems to recur. Planning efforts may have to include options to improve conditions throughout the rest of the country as part of a whole-of-government approach. Additionally, megacities possess critical vulnerabilities that favor an attacker due to the magnitude of resources needed to keep them running. The effective disruption or denial of energy, water, and/or food supply through isolation of key infrastructure nodes could affect millions within the span of a few days. These vulnerabilities will be areas for the US military to exploit or mitigate, depending on its role as the attacker, defender, or occupier. Operationally, a key consideration is the adversaries ability to attack and exploit United States and Allied military vulnerabilities from megacities due to the resources available and ability to hide and operate within the population. Adversaries will continue to employ both advanced and simple technologies to avoid US strengths, emulate US capabilities, disrupt US technological advantages, and to expand opera tions to the US homeland.13 US and Allied vulnerabilities also might include dependency on improved ports or intermediate staging bases to deploy and employ forces, as well as an inability to secure lines of com munication through extended urban areas. Population congestion and/ or a persistent threat environment may also prohibit basing, movement, and maneuver within urban areas. In addition to the physical urban terrain that would favor a defending conventional force, unregulated cities with poor social services also provide havens for other threats such as terrorists. While this is true of urban areas in general, the scale of a megacity will likely exceed military capacity to execute operations effectively. Tactically, civil and environmental considerations will likely strain governance and law enforcement: Physical land constraints Energy, water, and sanitation demands Vehicular congestion Aging infrastructure Entrenched criminal networks Political corruption/gridlock Modern-day buildings and dense shanty-towns provide ample cover and concealment for threats to maneuver, hide, and operate. Essentially, 13 US Army Training and Doctrine Command, The US Army Operating Concept: Win in A Complex World, 10.
26 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015megacities have the potential to be developed by defenders into hun dreds, if not thousands, of individual mutually supporting fortresses and obstacles.14 ings, etc., that canalize maneuver and inhibit an attackers ability to mass effects. As a result, small-scale attacks are more likely to impact in the desert would likely have minimal impact on a mechanized bat talions ability to maneuver. However, in an urban environment those same obstacles would likely block units in a column formation, making them ripe for attack. While bypass opportunities will likely exist due to the number of side streets available or since a megacitys scale exceeds a defenders capacity, gaining situational understanding to employ mul tiple avenues of approach will be a challenge. In addition to major combat operations, the planning consider ations to execute and resource missions such as humanitarian aid and disaster relief are equally formidable. As a reference point, Hurricane Katrina in late August 2005 displaced upwards of one million people across multiple states in the US Gulf Region. The search-and-rescue and relief effort required the mobilization and employment of over 72,000 soldiers, sailors, and airmen across the Active, Reserve, and National Guard forces in conjunction with federal, state, and local agencies. US military forces supporting Joint Task Force Katrina helped distribute and manage the delivery of over 1.7 million gallons of water, 3.6 million meals, and 11.5 million pounds of ice, in addition to providing evacua tion and emergency medical care for thousands of people.15 The logistics to execute disaster relief operations was equally substantial, requiring the following resources just to sustain the Active component forces: 815,000 cases of Meals Ready to Eat (MREs) 215,000 lbs of ice 837,000 bottles of water 1.3 million gallons of fuel 142,000 gallons of potable water 16A natural disaster in a megacity overseas, potentially impacting mil lions, would create a demand far exceeding both host nation support capacity and the distribution capability of any realistic initial US mili tary response. Other considerations involve priorities of effort: would it be more advantageous to move international aid or focus on the host nations capacity? To what degree should US forces utilize non-state entities and organizations (e.g. tribal militias) that are more effective in providing security and essential services than the host nation? There are no easy answers to those questions. For example, the initial US military response will likely not have the capacity to execute a humanitarian aid/disaster relief operation in 14 DiMarco, Attacking the Heart and Guts: Urban Operations through the Ages, 21. 15 James A. Wombell, Army Support to the Hurricane Katrina Disaster (Fort Leavenworth: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2009), 173. 16 Ibid., 174.
MEGACITIES: PROS AND CONS Felix and Wong 27a megacity unilaterally and require host nation interaction. However, a corrupt or ineffective host nation regime would likely hoard or skim off US humanitarian aid for distribution to its ruling elites, driving existing social tensions further towards violence or worse yet, increase the risk of loss of life due to privation and disease as experienced in Haiti 2010 17 Conversely, US military utilization of an effective but ethnic minority runs the risk of the host nation interpreting the action as an endorsement of a political threat and strain US relations with the country. The Search for IdeasStudying the challenges that megacities present in order to turn new ideas into concepts capable of addressing urban operations is not 2004. Prompted by dynamic changes in the operational environment, in particular the impact of technological advances and their global prolifer ation during the past 10 years, as well as enduring operational problems related to complex urban environments, the Future Warfare Division of the Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC) once again focused nity participated in a series of studies and seminar wargames over the course of the year to reveal the following insights, operational approach ideas, and their implications for consideration: Planning operations in and around the megacity must incorporate re-evaluate and modify current information sharing and communica tions interoperability procedures and regulations such as AR 380-5, Department of the Army Information Security Program and AR 380-10, Foreign Disclosure and Contacts with Foreign Representatives .18 Current trends indicate the United States will likely not unilaterally respond to an international crisis without support and authority from the international community. Some partners will remain traditional, such as government agencies, allied military forces, and the host nation. However, examining the megacity environment revealed the need for the Army to consider non-traditional partners as potential sources of support and not just opposition, even if some have an aversion to working with the military (e.g. non-governmental aid organizations) and some that US government may be averse to engaging (e.g. shadow governments, tribal militias). information sharing to gain and maintain understanding and dialogue with these of types of partners will be vital, but likely remain contested under current policies and procedures such as the vetting process for releasing information that can take several weeks or even months. 17 Jonathan Strong, Haitian Corruption and Graft Delay Earthquake Relief Efforts, Punishes Destitute Refugees, The Daily Caller April 21, 2010, http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/21/haitian-cor ruption-and-graft-delay-earthquake-relief-efforts-punishes-destitute-refugees; and Patricia Zengerle, Will Endemic Corruption Suck Away Aid to Haiti? Reuters January 26, 2010. 18 US Department of the Army, Department of the Army Information Security Program, Army Regulation 380-5 (Washington, DC: US Department of the Army, 2000); and US Department of the Army, Foreign Disclosure and Contacts with Foreign Representatives Army Regulation 380-10 (Washington, DC: US Department of the Army, 2013).
28 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015Additionally, future land forces require the capability and capacity to gain and maintain situational understanding of the incredibly complex environment (physical, human, information, etc.) of megacities. The Army must therefore reconsider the units and capabilities allocated for its Regionally Aligned Forces to enable more persistent engagement and civilian-to-military planning in that region, in particular that regions megacities, with intelligence collection capabilities adapted to the complex urban terrain. Mass collection and big data analysis will be critical to handle the volume of information, in addition to enhancing human intelligence capabilities, with an emphasis on developing social networks. The Army should consider either developing this big data/ human intelligence analysis capability internally within its intelligence and cyber communities, or resourcing it through contracts supporting Department of Defense agencies. Maneuvering in megacities involves crossing multiple physical and virtual domains simultaneously, requiring the Army, as part of the joint community, to re-evaluate current policy on offensive tactical level cyber towards developing that capability. Currently, the employment of offensive cyber is under US Code Title 50, War and National Defense not US Code Title 10, Armed Forces Granted, while having great potential, offensive cyber at the tactical and operational level also possesses several potential repercussions and unintended consequences if employed (e.g. cyber-attack affecting both enemy and friendly systems) and methods still need to be developed. Nevertheless, it remains highly likely adver sary threats will continue developing and employing offensive cyber, and defensive cyber countermeasures will likely not be enough in the future. The Army, in conjunction with the joint community, needs to develop more operational approaches to conduct missions in and around megacities to give commanders and their staffs more options. Current doctrinal models for conducting major combat operations in urban terrain apply methods consistent with a siege where the attacking forces isolate the city to starve the defenders out or attrition-based warfare against the defending force. While the Army has several capabilities suitable for urban operations, the Army needs options beyond either siege or attrition based approaches or bypassing because the scale of requirements presents a capacity challenge for future forces. The Army will likely not have enough force to seize an entire megacity and will impede traditional forms of movement and maneuver that may not even involve armed enemy threats; anti-access and area denial of a seaport placed persons and refugees. As an example, the following six proposed operational approaches for joint urban operations by the team supporting the Joint Advanced further examination towards concept development: Precision Strike involves the employment of highly accurate attacks through remotely delivered smart munitions, special operations direct
MEGACITIES: PROS AND CONS Felix and Wong 29 detected adversary capabilities from stand-off distance to isolate them from resupply and reinforcement sources without occupying ground.19 Nodal Capture involves the control of critical nexus points (structural and non-structural) in the city to deny adversary sources of support and freedom of movement, and prevent contact between adversary forces.20 Nodal Capture and Expansion builds on the Nodal Capture approach through leveraging control of the critical nexus points to facilitate capture of the entire city. Soft Point Capture and Expansion employs seizure of undefended areas of the city and uses them as bridgeheads for decisive, multiple attacks. Segment and Capture the extent that they lose the ability to mass for offensive or defensive purposes and can be defeated piecemeal. Nodal Isolation is the approach to psychologically and/or physically seal off critical nexus points (structural or non-structural) from adversary forces to deny them sources of support and freedom of movement, and prevent contact between adversary forces.21 The search for ideas and their development into viable concepts, capabilities, and ultimately, solutions should be an ongoing process requiring extensive study, engagement, dialogue, wargaming and experi communities. While not an easy task to accomplish, the operational necessity to prepare the future force outweighs the institutional chal lenges associated with collaborative learning efforts. The Way Ahead and given strategic trends, somewhat predictable. The Army must conduct additional research to determine how US forces can and will operate in and around such environments and develop the means to execute as part of a comprehensive improvement of the current and future force. Essentially, megacities epitomize complexity through physical and virtual environments that are dynamic, interconnected, and congested while spanning multi-dimensions in a scale that exceeds military capacity. For consideration are the following proposed actions:As this article argues, the study of urban terrain is clearly not a new endeavor, nor is the idea of megacities. The Army has the respon assess lessons learned, and carry that understanding forward through the development of running estimates of past learning. For instance, ing its efforts addressing megacities in 2014. This approach ensures the 19 Alec Wahlman, Mark Bean, et al., Exploring New Concepts for Joint Urban Operations (Arlington: Institute for Defense Analyses, 2003), S-2. 20 Ibid., S-3. 21 Ibid., S-4.
30 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015Army does not relearn in areas where there are volumes of data, and use resources wisely to focus learning into the future. Learn and TestWargaming and experimentation remain critical virtual compo nents in the Armys modernization strategy: Force 2025 and Beyond Maneuvers is the Armys Campaign of Learning.22 As described, have addressed megacities from a strategic and operational context, sup porting concept development. The next step is to drive experimentation which, at the operational, down to tactical and entity-based level, can further expand capabilities development in the critical areas necessary to win in this multi-domain environment (surface, sub-surface, maritime, air, cyber, and space). Build The Army lacks appropriate live-training areas that properly rep licate the scale required to train at both the operational and tactical levels, platoon and above, in a megacity. The Joint Readiness Centers Shughart-Gordon complex is useful for squad and below training, but lacks the multi-dimensional requirements for training in a megacity. As part of the physical component of Force 2025 and Beyond Maneuvers the Army must build a live training environment to support the operational force as new concepts and capabilities develop into doctrine, training and material and other Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, & Personnel (DOTMLP) solutions requiring appropriate F facilities to insure units are prepared. US Forces Command is developing options but the effort is understandably challenging given tough budget decisions ahead, will choose to support more current issues rather than to fund more mid and far-term projects. Thus, the Army should consider funding through other means, such as publicprivate ventures or federal-state options that can create value not only for the military, but for the public and private service sector as well. Overall, this kind of investment has the potential to pay great dividends and will move the Army forward more quickly in this endeavor.Collaborate The Army is connected with many academic institutions and gov ernment organizations thinking hard about the challenges of dense urban spaces. The Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC), Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA) Strategic Studies Group (SSG), Research, of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology (ASAALT) are all working to link concept and capability development. However, the Army needs to create an even greater col laborative research network to increase overall urban research capacity. Army today and in the future. Learning and collaboration can also be increased more rapidly through relations with our Allies and partners. 22 Army Capabilities Integration Center, Force 2025 and Beyond, http://www.arcic.army.mil/ Initiatives/force-2025-beyond.aspx.
MEGACITIES: PROS AND CONS Felix and Wong 31One example of a major opportunity for increased learning in this space is via collaboration with the Singaporean Army, and its access to the Urban Redevelopment Center in Singapore. This center includes advanced urban development ideas and an extensive terrain model of the entire country, which is an example of the kind of terrain model extremely useful for the Armys table-top wargames, needed to develop and assess new operational approaches to this emerging strategic trend. Collaborative research networks can assist the Army in moving forward more quickly with insights to help develop concepts and capabilities necessary to operate in megacities of the future. Establish The Army must establish a Megacities Center for Advanced Research and Collaboration, composed of strategists, concept and capability developers, academics, scientists, and international partners, as part of either the core component of this center, or as part of an advisory panel uniquely focused on this challenge. While megacities are unique envi ronments, and centers are normally organized around functions, this help develop operational theories and approaches, test them, and track academic progress at all institutions within the Armys collaborative network. It would also work closely with operational commanders to educate them on the possibilities for satisfying their unique, geographi the Armys functional Centers of Excellence (Maneuvers, Fires, etc.). The center will also educate leaders and support their development, and increase focused learning through wargaming and experimentation. It could also establish professor and student exchanges with other partners and interorganizational labs and centers to create more engagement, thinking and solution development for the unique, challenging opera tional environment of the megacity.Sustain Finally, sustaining collaboration, learning and testing is important to ensure the Army is constantly assessing current assumptions and identifying new challenges within the operational environment, and new opportunities from the science and technology community. There are many tools to accomplish this task. Arguably, one of the most useful ity of the current and future force. This tool is proving very effective today in creating unity of effort around solution strategies within the Armys Campaign of Learning. AWFCs will ensure sustained col laboration and drive unity of effort in support of concept and capability development for dealing with the challenges of the megacity. Conclusion of Defense Analyses and other related organizations examined the challenges of urbanization and megacities over the years, the problems Megacities represent the most likely and most dangerous aspects of the
32 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015current and future operational environments, requiring the Army, as part of the Joint force, to develop new approaches, concepts, and, capa bilities, and ultimately, solutions. Kevin M. Felix and Army Strategist during multiple staff and operational assignments, to include battalion and brigade commands in combat. He culminated his 30-year career serving most recently as the Chief, Future Warfare Division, Army Capabilities and Integration Center, within TRADOC. He was responsible to the Commanding General, TRADOC, and the Chief of Staff of the Army to Frederick D. WongLTC Frederick D. Wong is currently assigned to the Army Capabilities previous assignments include serving as an operational level planner in the Military Transition Team Chief/Advisor to an Iraqi Army Brigade.
ABSTRA CT : Certain kinds of urban areas may become increasingly notions that the megacity will emerge as a primary battlespace for advanced armies is an unproven hypothesis. US strategists need to avoid rushing to replace population-centric counterinsurgency with a paradigm of population-centric megacity operations. A preferable path is to develop a long-term and systematic interdisciplinary ur ban warfare lens based on careful research and analysis that is both historically informed and future-oriented. It has generally proved easier to demonstrate that defense has played an important role in many aspects of the city than to show that the city has played a role in military science. ~ G. J. Ashworth, War and the City (1991) One of the major weaknesses of recent American strategy is its relative neglect of an urban imperative. The study of of strategic studies with a literature largely unrelated to the world of contemporary security policy.1 For these reasons, it is a great pity the publication of the US Armys June 2014, Megacities and the United States Army: Preparing for a Complex and Uncertain Future is such a disappointing attempt to invigorate the relationship between strategy and the city.2 The tions over ten million now represent the epicenters of human activity on the planet and, as such, they will generate most of the friction which compels future military intervention is a selective interpretation of the highly complex process of 21st century global urbanization. Moreover, apply historical methods and therefore is fundamentally a new oper ating environment to which the Army must shape itself and discover new approaches is exaggerated. Such a view overlooks the continuing value of a body of post-Cold War military research, some of which was, Megacities and the United States Army is its typology, which by focusing mainly on a systems-analysis methodology illuminates the documents neglect of 1 For discussion, see Michael Evans, Lethal Genes: The Urban Military Imperative and Western Strategy in the Early Twenty-First Century, Journal of Strategic Studies 32, no. 4 (August 2009): 515-552, and Michael Evans, City Without Joy: Urban Military Operations into the 21st Century, Occasional Paper No. 2 (Canberra: Australian Defence College, 2007). 2 Chief of Staff of the Army, Strategic Studies Group, Megacities Concept Team, Megacities and the United States Army: Preparing for a Complex and Uncertain Future of Staff of the Army, June 2014). MEGACITIES: PROS AND CONS The Case against MegacitiesMichael Evans 2015 Michael Evans Michael Evans is the General Sir Francis Hassett Chair of Military Studies at the Australian Defense College in Canberra and a professor in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at Deakin University. He is a former Head of the Australian Armys Land Warfare Studies Center at the Royal Military College, Duntroon. Michael. Evans4@defence. gov.au.
34 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015relevant research material on cities emanating from the long-established 3 In light of the above weaknesses, this article argues the US Army would be ill-served to concentrate overly on megacities as a primary strategic environment for three further reasons. First, megacities are not necessarily the principal urban areas in which American forces may be remain just as likely to provide important operational environments in the years ahead. Second, megacities are not sui generis ; they do not repre sent a novel military phenomenon. The military processes of operating in any city are drawn from fundamentals of urban warfare tried and tested by land forces since at least the middle of the twentieth century. Future technological developments notwithstanding, most fundamen tals of urban warfare are likely to remain relevant for general-purpose forces even in a conglomeration on the scale of a megacity. Third, the US Army needs to embed the study of megacities into a rigorous program of long-term urban war research that is both interdisciplinary in theory and interagency in practice. Such a program must systematically inte grate military concerns with relevant aspects of municipal management, urban geography, and city planning.Cities as Strategic Sites: The Growing Importance of the Middleweight CityIn terms of demographic disposition, the greatest revolutionary of people from countryside to city. In 2007, half the world passed the while urban demography now grows at some 65 million every year a breakneck rate of speed equivalent to the creation of seven new Chicagos annually.4 Not surprisingly, the urban revolution has spawned a debate on the meaning of this transition for the worlds future economic struc ture and geopolitical stability.5 For some analysts, mass urbanization is a prescription for growing anarchy, violent political breakdown, and ecological decline in the developing world. Pessimists foresee a coming coastal and occur in failed megalopolises from Karachi and Dhaka in Asia, to Kinshasa and Lagos in Africa.6 3 Ibid., 4-5, 8-9. 4 Shlomo Angel, Planet of Cities (Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2012) and McKinsey Global Institute, Urban World: Mapping the Economic Power of Cities March 2011, www. mckinsey/insights/urbaniztion/urban_world, and McKinsey Global Institute, Urban World: Cities and the Rise of the Consuming Class June 2012, www.iberglobal.com/Archivos/MGI-Urban-world. 5 See special report: Metropolis Now, with notable articles by Parag Khanna, Beyond City Limits: The Age of Nations Is Over: The New Urban Era Has Begun, Foreign Policy, no. 181 (September/October 2010): 122-28; Joel Kotkin, Urban Legends: Why Suburbs Not Cities are the Answer, Foreign Policy, no. 181 (September/October 2010): 128-131; and Joel Kotkin, et. al., The Problem with Megacities (Orange, CA: Chapman University Press, 2014), www.chapman.edu/wilkinThe Next World War: Tribes, Cities, Nations and Ecological Decline (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004), 78. 6 Richard J. Norton, Feral Cities, Naval War College Review 56, no. 4 (Autumn 2003): 97-106; Roy Woodbridge, The Next World War: Tribes, Cities, Nations and Ecological Decline (Toronto: University Press of Toronto, 2004), 78-80; David Kilcullen, Out of the Mountains: The Coming Age of the Urban Guerrilla
MEGACITIES: PROS AND CONS Evans 35While such a dystopian future is certainly a possibility for some nonWestern cities, much urban studies research tends to view the transition positive developments since it will drive economic growth and social mobility. Urbanization is seen by many scholars as a solution to allevi ating long-term poverty and political instability in regions from Asia through Latin America to some parts of the Middle East and Africa.7 It is important to note that over 40 percent of urbanization is occurring in Asia, particularly in China and India. As Richard Dobbs has noted, the new era of cities will actually be the era of Asian cities.8 By 2025, 1.6 billion Asians 50 percent of the global total will live in cities; nine and Beijing expected to outrank Los Angeles and Paris, while Delhi and Bangkok will come to surpass Detroit and Barcelona. By the late 2020s, some $30 trillion, or 65 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP), will be generated by some six hundred cities, over a third of which will be in the developing world.9 A crucial point for US military strategists to grasp is most projected urban growth in the developing world is not centered on a few megacity population bombs, but on a far more dispersed grouping of diverse middleweight cities whose populations range from between 150,000 to ten million.10 In 2011, the McKinsey Global Institute, a leading author ity on global urbanization, observed: Contrary to common perception, megacities have not been driving global growth for the past 15 years. In fact, many have not grown faster than their host economies and we expect this trend to continue. We estimate that todays 23 megacities will contribute just over 10 per cent of global growth to 2025, below their 14 percent share of global GDP today . Instead we see the 577 fast-growing middleweights in the City 600 contributing half of global growth to 2025, gaining share from todays megacities.11 grouping projected to generate 47 percent of global growth, or $17.7 tril categorized as megacities with the remainder being middleweight urban located in Latin America; while 39 are found in Africa and the Middle East. In many of these middleweight cities, growth is driven less by population density than by per capita GDP; the size of households actu ally tends to decline in many developing cities even while the number of households actually rises.12 7 See for example, Saskia J. Sassen, ed, Cities in a World Economy (Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 4th Ed., 2011); Joel Kotkin, Cities: A Global History (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2005), part six; Neil Brenner and Roger Keil, eds., The Global Cities Reader (New York: Routledge, 2006). 8 Richard Dobbs, quoted in Susan Glasser, Letter From the Editor, Foreign Policy, no. 181 (September/October 2010): 1, emphasis in original. 9 McKinsey Global Institute, Urban World: Mapping the Economic Power of Cities, 17-20; 27-28; 30; and McKinsey Global Institute, Urban World: Cities and the Rise of the Consuming Class, 1. 10 P. H. Liotta and James F. Miskel, The Real Population Bomb: Megacities, Global Security and the Map of the Future (Washington, DC: Potomac Books, 2012), 9. 11 McKinsey Global Institute, Urban World: Mapping the Economic Power of Cities 4. 12 McKinsey Global Institute, Urban World: Cities and the Rise of the Consuming Class 5-6; 19, and Mathew Burrows (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), 89-90.
36 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015 years, it is by no means inevitable that megacities will be the strategic key terrain in any future crisis that requires US military intervention.13 Instead, the real magnets for urbanization are a new breed of vigor ous middleweights. For example, over the next decade, the thriving Harcourt are likely to become more important than megacities such as Mumbai or Lagos.14 None of this means new megacities will not develop from fast-growing middleweights such as Chennai in India, Lahore in Pakistan, Tianjin and Shenzhen in China, or simply emerge from scratch in a blank slate high-technology or smart city approach.15 However, the point for military strategists to grasp is that, in terms of long-term demographic migration, household size and income dis tribution, it is the maze of middleweight cities that are poised to be the key urban sites for the next two decades. An alternative structure of urbanization is rapidly emerging, and as the leading social scientist, Saskia J. Sassen, has pointed out, what really matters when analyzing ence both regionally and globally.16 middleweight cities are likely to become as strategically important as megacities and may even eclipse the latter in terms of economic power GDP is expected to jump from 15 to 45 percent and their populations will grow from 430 million to 1.5 billion.17 Referring to West Africa, the McKinsey Global Institute notes, we expect large middleweights and some small middleweights to outperform the regions largest city of Lagos.18 While some writers, such as P. H. Liotta and James F. Miskel, view megacities as unprecedented phenomena, overwhelmed, dangerous, ungovernable . unlike anything the earth has ever seen, other ana lysts are more skeptical.19 As the urban specialist, Joel Kotkin, argues, the rise of the megacity is by no means inevitable and it might not even be happening. He points to the evolution of more dispersed urban migration in the developing world based on diversity rather than con centration.20 It is certainly true that recent patterns of city development are distinguished less by centralization than by decentralized clusters and networks such as those around the metropolis of Shanghai in the Yangtse River Delta in China.21 Sprawling megacities such as Mumbai, Lagos and Dhaka may well be shambolic, poverty stricken, and crimeridden, but these features do not necessarily make them centers for future military crises. As Jonathan Kalan points out, given the variations 13 Chief of Staff of the Army, Strategic Studies Group, Megacities and the United States Army, 5. 14 McKinsey Global Institute, Urban World: Cities and the Rise of the Consuming Class 48. 15 Burrows 89-90. 16 Saskia J. Sassen, The Urban Complex in a World Economy, International Social Science Journal 46, no. 1 (February 1994): 43-62; Kotkin, The Problem with Megacities 17. 17 McKinsey Global Institute, Urban World: Mapping the Economic Power of Cities 14-17; 28-31. 18 Ibid., 31. 19 Liotta and Miskel, The Real Population Bomb: Megacities, Global Security and the Map of the Future 7. 20 Kotkin, Urban Legends: Why Suburbs Not Cities are the Answer,131, and Kotkin, et al, The Problem with Megacities, 16-17. 21 McKinsey Global Institute, Urban World: Mapping the Economic Power of Cities 10-11; and McKinsey Global Institute, Urban World: Cities and the Rise of the Consuming Class 20-21.
MEGACITIES: PROS AND CONS Evans 37at play in global urbanization, we need to beware simplistic representa tions of megacities as the looming development crisis of this century.22 On closer examination, megacities such as Mumbai, which appear to Westerners to be fragile tinderboxes, may prove to be far more complex, resilient, and functional when judged in terms of their indigenous dynam ics. For example, despite its poverty and slum living, Mumbai, scene of a devastating seaborne-terrorist attack by Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) in 2008, has sought to focus on increasing social mobility by developing decentralized municipalities and promoting surburbanism. Moreover, Mumbai contributes six percent to Indias GDP despite having only 1.5 percent of the national population.23 Similarly, Dhaka in Bangladesh, reputedly the least livable city on the planet, has a per capita GDP three times that of the average Bangladeshi peasant and is, in national terms, relatively prosperous.24 Finally, we should remember a city in crisis in one era is not necessarily doomed to a dystopian future. A good example is Medellin in Colombia which, in the 1980s and 1990s approxi mated a failed city dominated by drug lords, vast criminal networks century, Medellin has transformed itself by reforming a civic leadership that overhauled policing and developed an innovative urban infrastruc ture program which increased the size of its middle class and reduced its murder rate by sixty percent.25 For the US Army, some cities may well become future operating environments. However, the idea that megacities will become a primary strategic environment for American land power is, to date, an unproven hypothesis. It may be an uncomfortable truth for the authors of Megacities and the United States Army, but in the years ahead megalopolises may be weight metropolises. The available evidence certainly points to the need for military researchers to avoid falling prey to any single form of urban determinism. Extending the Fundamentals of Urban WarfareContrary to the view expressed in Megacities and the United States Army, methods nor are they fundamentally a new operating environment that invalidates past research.26 Even a cursory examination of the history of industrialized urban warfare yields a set of enduring characteristics that must be studied by todays military professionals irrespective of the size of any urban conurbation.27 These enduring characteristics include a dynamic, non-linear environment defying easy military command and 22 Jonathan Kalan, Think Again: Megacities, Foreign Policy, no. 206 (May/June 2014): 70. 23 Ibid.; and Kotkin, Urban Legends: Why Suburbs Not Cities are the Answer, 128-131. 24 Kalan, Think Again: Megacities, 73-74. 25 Ibid. 26 Chief of Staff of the Army, Strategic Studies Group, Megacities and the United States Army, 8. 27 John Antal and Bradley Gericke, eds., City Fights: Selected Histories of Urban Combat from World War II to Vietnam (New York: Ballantine Books, 2003); William G. Robertson and Lawrence A. Yates, eds., Block by Block: The Challenges of Urban Operations (Fort Leavenworth, KA: US Command and General Staff College, 2003); Michael C. Desch, ed., Soldiers in Cities: Military Operations in Urban Terrain (Carlisle, PA: US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, 2000); Michael Dewar, War in the Streets: The Story of Urban Combat from Calais to Khafji (Devon: David & Charles, 1992); and G. J. Ashworth, War and the City (London: Routledge, 1991).
38 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015control; the frequent fragmentation of combat due to the density and in clearing streets and buildings; the problem of large civilian popula tions in cities; the rapid absorption of troops in built-up urban areas; the the need for a combined arms approach to operations.28 None of these features is likely to be rendered obsolete in future years. After all, if one accepts that a megacity is itself an extension of a smaller or middleweight city, then, it stands to reason that urban military operations are highly unlikely to be conjured from scratch but are them selves extensions and applications of known methods. Despite steady technological advances in precision munitions, robotics, and thermo baric weapons, little that is revolutionary appears to be occurring in urban warfare operational research.29 Potential operations in megacities remain likely to differ only in scale and density from those of the past. Megalopolises will, like all city types, continue to confront military professionals with the time-honored challenge of an endless variety of structures and facilities the seizure or control of which demands esoteric plans, programs, and procedures, since no two cities are quite alike.30 For these reasons, most military planners of modern urban operations have wisely focused on the role performed by troops rather than the environment inhabited by them. It is no accident the armies that have succeeded in modern urban warfare from the Russians in Stalingrad and Berlin through US forces in Manila, Hue and Fallujah to the Israelis in Gaza have been general purpose forces with a high degree of experi ence in small unit tactics and combined arms operations.31 If the past of urban warfare remains important to understand, then the interdisciplinary research completed in the years between 1991 and 2004 represents yet another important foundation for future study. It is worth noting that military analysts such as Paul van Riper, Roger Spiller, on the role of the city in future warfare.32 Much of this work occurred in the early years of globalization and the information revolution, but it is notable for its intellectual rigor and insight and it deserves to be consulted 28 Evans, City Without Joy: Urban Military Operations into the 21st Century, 6-12. 29 Ian Kemp, Urban Warfare: Complete Guide, Supplement in Armada International 32, no. 4 (August-September 2008): 1-24; and Paolo Valpolini, Urban Warfare: High Tech Take-Over, Compendium Urban Warfare Supplement, Armada International 34, no. 4 (June/July 2010): 1-24. 30 John Collins, Military Geography for Professionals and the Public (Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 1998), 195. 31 Daryl Press, Urban Warfare: Options, Problems, and the Future, Marine Corps Gazette 83, no. 4 (April 1999): 14; and Evans, Lethal Genes: The Urban Military Imperative and Western Strategy in the Early Twenty-First Century, 534-535. 32 Paul van Riper, A Concept for Future Military Operations on Urban Terrain, Marine Corps Gazette 81, no. 10 (October 1997), Special Insert, A-1-A-6; Roger J. Spiller, Sharp Corners: Urban Operations at Centurys End (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute, US Command and General Staff College 1999); Robert H. Scales, Jr., Future Warfare (Carlisle Barracks, PA: US Army War College, 1999); Robert H. Scales, Jr., Yellow Smoke: The Future of Land Warfare for Americas Military Soldiers View, Military Review 85, no. 1 (January/February 2005): 9-18.; Alice Hills, Hearts and Minds or Search and Destroy? Controlling Civilians in Urban Operations, Small Wars and Insurgencies 13, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 1-24; Alice Hills, Continuity and Discontinuity: The Grammar of Urban Military Operations, in War and Terrorism: Towards an Urban Geopolitics Stephen Graham ed. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 231-246; and Alice Hills, Future War in Cities: Rethinking a Liberal Dilemma (London: Frank Cass, 2004).
MEGACITIES: PROS AND CONS Evans 39Accordingly, some of the main ideas of the urban warfare scholars of the 1990s and early 2000s are worth re-emphasizing here. The British scholar, Alice Hills, whose 2004 book, Future War in Cities was a milestone in interdisciplinary urban warfare research, has highlighted the reality that military operations in cities remain highly diverse and heterogeneous. She argues that strategists have failed to provide an interdisciplinary, higher-level conceptual framework for policy makers and military practitioners: requires the reconciliation of contradictory and stressful relations, such as and destruction on the one hand, and humanitarian relief, globalisation and technological development on the other. And it needs the imagination to look beyond current scenarios and interests.33 For Hills, while a strategic grammar of urban warfare has emerged, a strategic logic determined by politics to guide future military operations in cities remains elusive.34 Other analysts in the years between the fall of the Soviet Union and the post-9/11 wars became concerned that popu list notions of urban warfare would distort realistic research. Robert C. Owen warned Western military establishments against falling prey to a fascination with Blade Runner -style visions of barbarian megalopolises, which he believed owed more to Hollywood visions of dystopia than to hard-headed strategic analysis.35 Writing in 2001, Owen argued the real problem facing advanced militaries confronted by urban operations cities will have the least capabilities to do so, while the ones most able 36 Owen drew an interesting parallel between urban operations and maritime lit toral warfare which has continuing resonance. He suggested a strategic these conurbations as urban archipelagos requiring skilled maneuver, containment, or isolation by joint forces.37 Themes of containment and maneuver were also evident in the work of Robert H. Scales and Paul van Riper and are still useful to consider today. As former senior military practitioners, both writers sought to synthesize operational and strategic concerns in urban operations. Scales advocated a highly discriminate strategy of urban warfare embracing containment of cities and the exploitation of high-technology assets for selective strikes and the seizure of decisive points and nodes using joint forces.38 He suggested high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles and preci sion munitions used against point targets might deplete a surrounded citys resources and wear down an enemy forces will.39 Scales recom 33 Hills, Continuity and Discontinuity: The Grammar of Urban Military Operations, 246. 34 Ibid., 244-246 and Hills, Future War in Cities: Rethinking a Liberal Dilemma 26, 225. 35 Robert C. Owen, Urban Warfare in the Future: Balancing Our Approach, British Army Review 128 (Winter 2001-2002): 25-32. 36 Ibid., 29-30 37 Ibid. 38 Robert H. Scales, The Indirect Approach: How US Military Forces Can Avoid the Pitfalls of Future Urban Warfare,; and Scales, Future Warfare 177-178. 39 Scales, Yellow Smoke: The Future of Land Warfare for Americas Military, 118-120; and Scales, Urban Warfare: A Soldiers View, 9-18.
40 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015mended an economy of force approach remarking that, in future urban military operations, strategic planners needed to be constantly aware of one central truth: Americas treasure house of close-combat soldiers is only marginally larger than the New York City Police Department.40 warning is arguably more relevant than ever. Similarly, van Riper, an experienced Marine general, was wary of grinding frontal assaults in urban warfare. He argued in favor of applying a chameleon style environment) using concepts such as multi-spectral mobility (the capability to move combat power rapidly through three-dimensional ment within given rules of engagement).41 By the mid-2000s, as America and its allies became engulfed by research agenda after 2004 was subsumed by the avalanche of material on counterinsurgency, the stabilization of fragile states, and hybrid warfare at the operational level of war.42 As a result, in 2015, the major problem facing military thinkers when considering urban military contingencies, namely synthesizing the variance and divergence of urban environments into a usable strategic framework for policy makers, continues to remain unresolved. An Inter-Disciplinary Urban LensWhile an urban strategic lens remains underdeveloped in American megacity into a single unit of analysis, but rather to study the etiology of city development.43 Such an endeavor requires a multi-disciplinary research program in which to situate analysis of varied cityscapes with their interactive spatial dynamics and heterogeneous populations. lies less in new military methodologies for megacities than in the essen tial task of integrating and adapting established doctrine and concepts into a systematic interdisciplinary strategic-level engagement with the As one major international study notes, no single disciplinary perspective can capture the inherent complexities of using military force in urban areas.44 The effort to develop an urban strategic lens needs to embrace military history, human geography and sociology; city planning and architectural design; municipal management proce dures; criminology, policing and the employment of emergency services. Systems-theory as outlined by analysts such as David Kilcullen and favored in Megacities and the United States Army may have its uses. However, such an approach represents only one avenue of inquiry for researchers seeking to understand the military implications of the modern urban 40 Scales, Urban Warfare: A Soldiers View, 10. 41 Van Riper, A Concept for Future Military Operations on Urban Terrain, A-1-A-6. 42 See essays in Paul B. Rich and Isabelle Duyvesteyn, eds., The Routledge Handbook of Insurgency and Counterinsurgency (New York: Routledge, 2012). 43 Chief of Staff of the Army, Strategic Studies Group, Megacities and the United States Army, 9. 44 Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, Small Arms Survey: Guns and the City (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 188.
MEGACITIES: PROS AND CONS Evans 41environments mixture of demographic and topographical features. 45 It is this unique combination which makes any city environment multidi mensional at once a social organism, a human-made physical form and an economic system.46 The integration of urban studies into strategy needs to be conducted with intellectual care and discrimination. Analysts need to distinguish between high-intensity crime by urban gangs and syndicates concerned ists driven by politics; and between mass-casualty urban terrorist acts on the Mumbai, Nairobi, and Paris models and well-organized and prolonged campaigns of urban warfare on the Hamas or Hizbollah models. Military strategists also need to treat current postmodernist ideas of a new military urbanism based on an ideology of Western orientalism that pits their sons against our silicon with skepticism.47 Judge Dredd in which megacities replace nations as the worlds dominant political units, and high-technology Street Judges battle low-technology urban hordes for supremacy than it does to mainstream military art.48 Integrating aspects of urban studies into strategic considerations has the potential to improve our knowledge in at least three areas relevant to future warfare: examining cities as strategic sites, understanding global and regional city variations, and deriving procedures for city operations from municipal principles of security control. In examining cities as strategic sites, military practitioners and policy makers need to begin to of large-scale urban planning. In effect, to master cities, the military strategist must assume much of the mindset of an urban planning executive. In city operations, control of civil infrastructure from water infrastructure and public transport are all invested with strategic sig 49 If city operations are to be a common future environment for American and allied forces, then an urban strategic lens must be developed, which can help determine policy choices on the practicality and size of interventions in cities, formulate rules of engagement, and provide advice on the roles military forces might play in those urban contingencies. The second area of relevant research, namely, assessing the global and regional variation between cities, has the potential to put megaci ties into a balanced strategic context. As already noted earlier, a diverse web of middleweight cities is likely to develop in regions such as Asia, Latin America, and Africa as a counterpoint to sprawling, ill-governed megalopolises. Such a process represents a complex pattern of urbaniza tion and requires the closest strategic analysis by defense specialists. In 45 Chief of Staff of the Army, Strategic Studies Group, Megacities and the United States Army, The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs 36, no. 2 (Summer 2012): 19-39. 46 Max Neiman, Urban Operations: Social Meaning, the Urban Built Form and Economic Function, in Desch, Soldiers in Cities: Military Operations on Urban Terrain 139-147. 47 Stephen Graham, Cities Under Siege: The New Military Urbanism (London: Verso, 2010), passim.. 48 Mike Butcher, The A-Z of Judge Dredd: The Complete Encyclopedia from Aaron Aardvark to Zachary Zziiz (London: St Martins Press, 1995). 49 Evans, City Without Joy: Urban Military Operations into the 21st Century, 28-30. Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, Small Arms Survey 2007: Guns and the City 196-197.
42 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015 of urban theorists. The latter include Robert Neuwirth and Thomas Sieverts whose work on shadow cities and the Zwischenstadt or cities without cities respectively highlights the replacement of many central ised urban conglomerations by clustered city webs in a checkerboard of dense enclaves and social networks.50 If the city is to be understood accurately as a future strategic environment, then the US Army must the megacity of sprawl, and the emerging middleweight city and between peri-urban, semi-urban, and inner-urban forms of human habitation. A third area requiring military attention is a study of municipal prin ciples of security control. Evidence suggests in decentralized conditions or in urban areas lacking governance, military efforts to control violence are best concentrated on creating municipal or community-level forms of security.51 For command and control purposes, military professionals can gain insights into cities by studying a law-enforcement typology of coercion, compliance, and voluntarism at local community level. Such a typology reveals control methods ranging from coercive gated com munities and forcible disarmament; through compliance measures that involve community policing; to voluntarism involving amnesties and citizen neighborhood watch schemes.52Conclusion environments, and strategic theory clearly lags behind military practice. However, classifying one form of urbanization in the form of megacities as primary strategic sites for future American military intervention is not viable. Indeed, such an approach may turn out to be misleading because global urbanization is highly diverse and is, in fact, producing far more middleweight cities than megalopolises. In the developing world, some of these vibrant middleweight cities with their migration clusters and economic hubs may come to assume more strategic importance than stagnant megacities with declining populations. Moreover, having just experienced over a decade of war, the US Army is now entering a period of downsizing and reorganization driven by the demands of domestic wary of replacing the controversial experiment of population-centric counterinsurgency with the equally untested hypothesis of populationcentric megacity warfare. The quickest way to degrade American combat power will be to deploy large numbers of troops into a megacity without a thorough examination of how the complex dynamics of global urbanization are likely to unfold. When it comes to cities, large and small, security analysts need to understand there will always be a natural set of tensions between the general purpose role of modern landpower and the unique features of 50 Robert Neuwirth, Shadow Cities: A Billion Squatters, A New Urban World (London: Routledge, 2005), passim; and Thomas Sieverts, Cities Without Cities: An Interpretation of the Zwischenstadt (London: Spot Press, 2003), passim. 51 Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, Small Arms Survey 2007: Guns and the City, 178-188. 52 Ibid.
MEGACITIES: PROS AND CONS Evans 43urban environments stemming from the combination of demography and topography. There are many diverse kinds of urban contingencies to consider in a wide-range of urban localities: from all-out combat operations through humanitarian relief and the creation of protected enclaves and evacuation corridors to littoral operations. Given such diversity, military professionals need to be careful they do not pursue any single avenue of research that might prove to be a policy cul-de-sac. A close study of environment for US forces has yet to be made.
ABSTRA CT : The urban environment is a known vulnerability for US forces, and it grows more acute as megacities increase around the world. This article describes past research and joint experimentation for further research and experimentation. A more committed Joint Force constituency, led by the US Army, can lead to better readiness in this area.The US Army is currently examining the topic of megacities and how to train, organize, and equip itself for successful operations in them. As a recent report from the Army Chief of Staffs Strategic Studies Group stressed, it is inevitable that at some point the United States Army will be asked to operate in a megacity and currently the Army is ill-prepared to do so.1 As other authors have noted, Army researchers have determined megacities, urban concentrations exceeding 10 million people, will be the most complex environments for future land operations. Global growth trends also suggest the importance of such complex environments is increasing, since the places where people live are getting increasingly crowded, urban, coastal and networked, the 2 future national security objectives. Numerous studies related to urban operations exist, all with different focus areas and outcomes, some of which are inconsistent or incomplete. In fact, as this article maintains, the current Department of Defense (DoD) urban strategy is on an uncertain trajectory and is in need of new leadership. Until its closure in 2011, Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) supported other geographic combatant commands advocating for, and developing, and its inability to obtain approval of a Joint Capabilities Document stalled urban concept development. Perhaps JFCOM was never the best choice for this endeavor but merely a pragmatic one, given the Armys preoccupation with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nevertheless, DoD needs another organization to refresh its dated urban strategy and capitalize on JFCOMs prior work. 1 Chief of Staff of the Army, Strategic Studies Group, Megacities and the United States Army: Preparing for a Complex and Uncertain Future (Arlington, VA: Chief of Staff of the Army, Strategic Studies Group, Megacities Concept Team, June 2014), 3. 2 David Kilcullen, Out of the Mountains: The Coming Age of the Urban Guerilla (New York: Oxford Press, 2013), 27-28. MEGACITIES: PROS AND CONS William G. Adamson 2015 William G. Adamson COL William (Bill) Adamson, USA (ret), is currently Director, Joint Planning and Strategic Land Power Programs, at Systems Planning and Analysis (SPA), Inc. in Alexandria, Virginia. His previous military assignments include multiple combat deployments, joint tours, and Pentagon assignments on the Army and OSD staff.
46 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015What organization is best suited for addressing this projected chal lenge? Establishing yet another ad hoc joint task force is neither optimal or desirable. Giving responsibility to the Joint Staff seems misplaced because it is not charged with organizing, training, and equipping the if one of the military services is willing to lead as the Joint Executive Agent. The Title X statute prescribes that the three services organize, train, and equip their respective forces. It is unlikely the Air Force or Navy would give priority to this effort. The Marine Corps contributes greatly to urban concept development; however, the Marine Corps as an amphibious force does not view urban operations as a core competency. Among the services, the Army provides the largest share of the capabil ity and capacity for operating in urban environments. As the nations predominant land force, the task of reviving DoDs dormant urban strategy logically falls to the Army. Originating DirectivesThe 2014 Army Operating Concept (AOC) builds a narrative of future warfare describing urban operating environments as likely to 3 Clearly, land forces must prepare for all future operating environments and cannot orga nize, train, and equip exclusively for urban battle-spaces. Forces should must transform current forces with new capabilities for urban operating environments. In short, the central problem for the Army is: how to balance envisioned requirements for urban operations with other future demands. a growing unease that the urban environment is a known vulnerability of US forces, DoD has not made a major commitment to dramatically improve urban capabilities. It thus recommended, the Secretary of Defense designate a focal point for developing strategy for improving US urban operations capability; identifying doctrine, training, and equipment shortcomings; proposing and prioritizing investments; and coordinating service and Joint efforts in this regard.4 In the wake of this recommendation and directives issued in the 2001 Defense Planning Guidance, US Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) commissioned the Institute for Defense Analyses to develop a roadmap. This roadmap provides directions to pursue in order to improve sig military operations involving urban terrain.5 The 370-page document took eight people, eighteen months to draft.6 The Joint Urban Operations 3 US Army Training and Doctrine Command, The US Army Operating Concept: Win in a Complex World 2020-2040 TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1 (Washington, DC: US Army Training and Doctrine Command, 2014), 12. Military Capabilities: Focused Attention Needed to Prepare US Forces for Combat in Urban Areas February 25, 2000) 5 US Joint Forces Command, Joint Urban Operations (JUO) Master Plan 2012-2017 (Washington, DC: US Joint Forces Command, February 2006) 6 Dr. Bill Hurley (Institute for Defense Analysis), interview with author, January 8, 2015.
MEGACITIES: PROS AND CONS (JUO) Master Plan 2012-2017 followed.7 The Master Plan is a DoD-wide strategy from the Secretary of Defense to all DoD components. JFCOM lead DoD concept development and experimentation. Executive agency gave JFCOM technology-transfer authority allowing it to structure partnerships with industry, exchange technical data, make technology assessments, and collaborate on research and development efforts. Any from this type of arrangement.JFCOMs Urban RoadmapJFCOM held a human-in-the-loop, concept-based experiment to explore new concepts in urban operations.8 This joint experiment, Urban Resolve, ran from 2004 to 2006. The Army Dismounted Battle Lab examined key elements of the Army Concept and Capability Development Plan using Urban Resolve as its capstone event for US Army Training and Doctrine Commands (TRADOC) 2006 Experimentation Program. The exercise asked two questions: well-equipped adversary and win quickly without unacceptable casualties to ourselves or our allies, unacceptable civilian casualties, or unacceptable destruction of infrastructure? and; 2. How can we determine which concepts, materiel, tactics, techniques, and 9Both questions remain relevant today the latter particularly for the Army. Following the exercise, conceptualizing an intellectual framework for further analytical and planning activities became a key task. The central problem became: How to operate in an urban environment to defeat adversaries embedded and diffused within populated urban areas without causing catastrophic damage to the functioning of the society there.10 The moral imperative to protect noncombatants anticipates two additional doctrinal limitations for military forces: (1) minimize collateral damage to noncombatants; (2) preserve the urban network as much as possible so the human inhabitants not suffer needlessly. JFCOMs experimentation led to a Joint Integrating Concept which human density, and supporting infrastructure tend to negate Joint any other context of warfare conditioned by the battle of narratives among combatants to secure legitimacy and authority in the eyes of a target population.11 Subsequently, Joint Publication 3.06, Joint Urban 7 US Joint Forces Command, Joint Urban Operations (JUO) Master Plan 2012-2017. 8 Mike Postma (COL US Army), Urban Resolve 2015, Senior Executive After Action Review October 27, 2006, presented as part of After Action Review to Phase 2 of Urban Resolve 2015. 9 Ibid. 10 US Department of Defense, Joint Urban Operations: Joint Integrating Concept, Version 1.0 (Suffolk, VA: US Department of Defense, US Joint Forces Command, 2007), 5. 11 Ibid.
48 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015Operations (2013) grew from to the Joint Integrating Concept completed six years earlier. Additionally, in 2008, the Joint Readiness Oversight Council reviewed a Joint Capabilities Document for Battlespace Awareness in Joint Urban Operations. This document mapped 212 tasks to achieve 12 capabilities; 141 of the tasks had one or more gaps. To identify possible solutions for closing these gaps, several analytic projects were proposed each with recommended sponsors. The council did not approve the document because proposed project sponsors, including the Army, were unwilling to participate.12 Shortly after the councils decision, further urban experimentation stalled due to a shift in priority. The JFCOM Commander established a JFCOM was deactivated, its documentation was archived, and staff reas signments diluted its expertise and intuitional knowledge. Consequently, regard to urban operations. Army Megacity ExperimentationBesides JFCOMs efforts, the Chief of Staff of the Army sponsored operations in megacities as part of its future study program in 2003. by conventional, state-sponsored forces and popular forces.13 Notable insights included: The need for strong information operations; Special Operations Forces and indigenous allies are invaluable; Joint and Army sensors and precision strike weapons optimized for open warfare in uncluttered terrain are of limited value in cities; Stability and support activities will be inseparable from combat operations. Manual 3-06, Urban Operations was revised. The new edition, published in October 2006, appears to need further review and updating. In 2014, Army research fellows from the Chief of Staff of the Armys Strategic Studies Group developed an appreciation for large urban populations by using case-study vignettes of megacities from around the world. Their white paper claimed megacities occupy strategic key terrain making their stability necessary for global connectedness and order.14 The paper continues, The Army is currently unpreparedthe Army must lead.15 12 US Department of Defense, Initial Capabilities Document for Joint Urban Operations, Draft (Washington, DC: US Department of Defense, September 25, 2009), 4. 13 Don Holder (LTG US Army, Ret.), Operations in a Megacity: Blue Commanders 14 Chief of Staff of the Army, Strategic Studies Group, Megacities and the United States Army: Preparing for a Complex and Uncertain Future 5. 15 Ibid, 22.
MEGACITIES: PROS AND CONS ability to conduct operations in megacities. This theme continues into 2015. Most of the observations made in 2014 focus on understanding the population, getting higher quality situational awareness informa tion before and during operations, as well as a requirement to consider all aspects and methods of transportation. Concept development has focused on the operational environments: physical, social, and informational.16 Other Experimentation and ResearchAlong with the Army Strategic Studies Group white paper, other joint and interagency work began in 2014. The Strategic Multi-Layer Assessment Program, an ad hoc group accepted by the Joint Staff, provides planning support to commands with complex operational imperatives requiring multi-agency, multi-disciplinary solutions that are not within core service / agency competency. Solutions are being sought from across the US Government and academia. Command.17 The objective was to prototype a relevant, low-cost and effective method of producing early indication and tracking of the social, political, environmental, and economic sources of state and population fragility and failure in large urban environments. The intention was to provide a prototype assessment methodology broadly applicable to other commands and agencies. The Army now sponsors an off-shoot of the 2014 program through the Corps of Engineers. The Urban Security Project is a methodology to develop geo-temporal map layers representing socio-cultural analysis indicators necessary for planning, assessment, and situational awareness. It uses spatio-temporal representation of populations and offers long-term monitoring of urban conditions.18 execution of urban operations. One valuable resource for obtaining local information comes from indigenous law enforcement. The nexus of military ground forces and indigenous law enforcement further sup ports the Army as the pragmatic choice to implement urban strategy at the tactical level and test concepts in cities. Recent experience provides additional supporting evidence for designating the Army as executive agent. The Armys tactical familiarity with local law enforcement in Iraq provides another tangible and practical example of why the Army is best suited to lead urban operations. In most military operations, perhaps other than full-scale combat, land forces gain local knowledge and the idea of US ground forces teaming with police forces. Corruption, 17 Charles Ehlschlaeger, ed., Understanding Megacities with the Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Intelligence Paradigm, Topical Strategic Multi-Layer Assessment (SMA) and US Army Engineer Research Development Center (ERDC) Multi-Agency/Multi-Disciplinary White Papers in Support of National Security Challenges (Champaign, IL: US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, April 2014). 18 Charles R. Ehlschlaeger (US Army Engineer Research Development Center), interview with the author, December 3, 2014.
50 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015jurisdictional restrictions, and interference with military operations are some of the concerns. However, this reluctance must be overcome. Police forces provide ground-truth through their local knowledge and human intelligence through their informants. Just as a beat cop gains better situational understanding of neighborhoods, intelligence Indeed, indigenous police forces can become force multipliers when the US commits boots-on-the-ground. Army Strategic Study Group researchers did not reference previous joint experimentation or joint concepts in their 2014 white paper on megacities; nor were Army researchers familiar with past joint work. The main reason for this omission was the demise of JFCOM, resulting in an incomplete integrative approach and inconsistent staff expertise. JFCOMs documents now reside in the National Archives. Knowledge from the results of past joint experimentation could prevent concept development. Fortunately, lack of contextual, joint background is not slowing Army efforts. how the Army organizes, equips, and operates its formations and how it trains and educates its leaders. The Army is considering establishing an urban studies program, possibly at West Point, to educate leaders on societal and cultural nuances of the urban-based human domain.19 New Army leaders will enhance their cultural knowledge and language skills and refer to joint concepts that emphasize hybrid warfare, peace opera tions, and counterinsurgency as primary Army missions. The evolving paradigm is a big departure from the combined arms maneuver mantra mentioned earlier, close with and destroy the enemy. Rather than a maneuver brigade combat team as the foundational organizing structure, concepts for conventional force formations in urban spaces could experiment with using tailored, smaller units pos sibly company-team size with embedded interagency and indigenous enablers. The full range of military operations into tactical urban operat ing environments could employ scalable, capabilities-based formations. The small unit organizing concept works well for Special Forces and is faster and easier to deploy to a theater, less cumbersome to maneu leaders all current Army hallmarks. How willing are current senior Army leaders, raised on combined arms maneuver, to invest in this new paradigm? The dialogue is intensifying now. The Army as DoDs Executive Agent The 2014 Strategic Study Group white paper convinced Army leadership that megacities (a term no longer in vogue with many in the Armydense urban population centers appears to be the preferred term now) are a challenge uniquely relevant to land forces. The 2014 Army Operating Concept envisions urban areas as central to the Armys future 19 Patrick Mahaney (COL, US Army, Chief of Staff for CSAs Strategic Studies Group, AY 2014/15), interview with the author, January 15, 2015.
MEGACITIES: PROS AND CONS operational environment.20 However, after 15 years of urban study, it appears US land forces are still vulnerable in those environments. Given this premise, seeking DoD executive agency and the requisite authorities it provides is warranted. By pursuing executive agency Army leadership signals commitment to joint urban concept development and permits the Army to provide an integrative, functional leader for the Joint Force. The Joint Chiefs should promote the restoration of DoD executive agency for Joint Urban Operations and recommend shifting JFCOMs former role to the Army. As Joint Executive Agent the Army should regain DoD authority, responsibility, and funding curtailed after JFCOMs disestablishment. Updating DoDs Joint Urban Operations Master Plan will result in better collective joint readiness under Army leadership. Developing a narrative for a renewed urban strategy that resonates with senior DoD executives is a critical next hurdle. Army options for encounter. Army leadership should advocate for a Secretary of Defense approved urban campaign as part of a defense planning scenario to establish a valid program requirement in a future Army program objec tive memorandum. The Army must evaluate urban force capability needs across the full range of military operations, determine how that capability differs from traditional conventional force needs for other operating environments, and make force development investment decisions to organize, train, and equip the force. However, there is a shortfall in solid analysis sup requirements. Preparing for urban operations will become vital for land forces and should be the purview of the Army. Concept develop ment within the Army transitions to Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), and will become the responsibility of Army Capabilities Integration Center by June 2015.21 Comparing JFCOMs and the Armys ApproachesOnce the Army succeeds in establishing joint executive agency, it must resolve discrepancies between Army and joint concepts. Strategic Studies Group thinking aligns well with joint concepts. One example of a critical disparity between joint and Army concepts stems from an Army doctrinal requirement to isolate an urban area and to approach it incrementally from the periphery of the city. In contrast, the Strategic Studies Group white paper stated, For physically or virtually isolated.22 However, JFCOMs experimentation validated the guiding principlesisolation and control A clear disparity 20 US Army Training and Doctrine Command, The US Army Operating Concept: Win in a Complex World 2020-2040 12. 21 Patrick Mahaney, interview with author. 22 Chief of Staff of the Army, Strategic Studies Group, Megacities and the United States Army: Preparing for a Complex and Uncertain Future 8.
52 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015thus exists between Joint and current Army concepts. This conceptual difference must be overcome. This conceptual disconnect may be situational. Service doctrines must be broad enough to cover the full range of potential operations, yet ronments come in many forms so there is no single, scalable solution. Control of the entire city may not be a realistic objective and need not be an essential task. Stopping adversaries from damaging sociodetermine if, or how, Joint Forces could virtually or selectively isolate adversaries when physical isolation of an entire city is not achievable. urban system. Though an important metric for scale and determining force-size, population size does not drive force capability or technology requirements. Decision-makers should not restrict analysis to megacities determining analytic priority should be threat-based. The determining factors for force capability this research recommends follow: Missionhumanitarian assistance, noncombatant evacuation, coun terinsurgency, combat, etc Threatterrorism, paramilitary, insurgency, state-sponsored conven tional force Urban typologyhighly, moderately, or loosely integrated, or some combination thereof Population density and fragility Physical built environmentsubterranean, above ground (high-rise), infrastructure, etc Understanding how to manage the behavior of city inhabitants Urban concept development needs analytic tools that support the development and visualization of these complex environments as and academia can contribute much. Modeling urban systems relies on data analysis. With Combatant Command sponsorship research could commence now. The Strategic Multi-layer Assessment Program offers social science research and analysis techniques suited for urban shaping operations. One promising area is data collection. Techniques employing indigenous surveyors offer the most accurate information and should be expanded. Urban Metrics Needed As mentioned earlier, strategic landpower leadership promotes a security strategy focusing on the human domain to prevent war and shape security environments.23 It follows, then, that a security strategy 23 Raymond Odierno, James Amos, and William McRaven, Strategic Landpower: Winning the Clash of Wills (Washington, DC: US Army, US Marine Corps, and US Special Operations Command, May 2013).
MEGACITIES: PROS AND CONS gauge the effectiveness of shaping and engagement activities. Ultimately metrics must reveal the will of populations. Make the important mea surable, as former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara reportedly urged, instead of making the measurable important.24 one prove or measure whether something was prevented from occur ring? Metrics tend to focus on inputs.25 Measures of effectiveness for shaping and engagement activities are unclear and determined by indi vidual geographic commands. Given the complexity and interconnectedness of urban environ ments, assessing the effectiveness of shaping and engagement activities end state. This requires formulating likely objectives under a variety of missions and then empirically determining factors most likely to be associated with those objectives. In order for land forces operating in populated urban spaces to achieve strategic effect, they ultimately must rely on direct connections between real people friendly, hostile, through forward stationing and the Regionally Aligned Force initiative. Neither focuses on cities, but both rely on the presence of land forces for their deterrence value. Land forces cannot adequately prepare for what they do not under stand, so some priority cities should become units of analysis. Now is human domain metrics. Each is unique. There is no better place to start than in Korea. Seoul, South Korea is a megacity which by Mutual Defense Treaty selecting Seoul is multifaceted. The Army presence in Seoul spans over 60 years. The Republic of Korea (ROK) and the US are in the process of a historic transfer of operational control from US-led military readi ness and preparedness to ROK control. The ROK-US Alliance permits superb cooperation for collaboration and study of urban environments. The defense of the ROK requires a large commitment of land forces. The 23 million people living in the Greater Seoul Metropolitan Area constitute the economic, political, and cultural center of gravity of a staunch US partner. Actions needed to defend Seoul could span the full range of military operations. With approximately 200,000 US citi zens residing in South Korea, the vast majority in Seoul, noncombatant evacuation of US citizens and humanitarian assistance for ROK civil ians under threat of attack by North Korean sleeper agents and Special Forces would stress early contingency response. United States Institute of Peace, November 1, 2007, http://www.usip.org/publications/behind 25 Janine Davidson (Former OSD Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Plans, currently Senior Defense Fellow for Policy with the Council on Foreign Relations), e-mail to author, January 22, 2015.
54 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015Contingency scenarios involving the North Korean regime link to Pyongyang, another excellent choice for assessment, although a far more disciples, tens of thousands belong to the Pyongyangs Supreme Guard Command and Kim Jong-uns Bodyguard Corps. Clearly there are a plethora of candidate cities, but Seoul and Pyongyang, a priority for contingency planning, offer several practical advantages for initiating city analyses. A Way Forward A thorough qualitative understanding of urban operating environ ments should precede anticipated quantitative analysis. Charting a path actionable tasks from the insights and lessons from the past 13 years of conducting urban operations, counter-irregular warfare, and a decade of joint urban concept development would be a worthy early deliverable for Army concept developers. To gain a better sense of how new research might treat capability gaps with objective analysis the effort needs a new roadmap. The following actions are thus recommended: Restore JFCOMs Executive Agent responsibility with the Army Support programming requirements by approving an urban campaign as part of a Defense Planning Scenario Designate cities as units of analysis Gain Joint Readiness Oversight Council approval for a Joint Capabilities Document Formulate likely Army objectives under a variety of urban missions Determine priority cities for analysis In sum, JFCOMs prior Joint Urban Operations mission is similar to the Armys current challenge, the Army should become DoDs Joint Executive Agent for urban operations. Ultimately, the Army must evaluate urban force capability needs across the full range of military operations, determine how that capability differs from traditional conventional force needs for other operating environments, and make force development investment decisions to organize, train, and equip the force.
ABSTRA CT : This article offers a framework to aid uniformed strategic takes into account emerging historiography, time-tested military the ory, and a holistic understanding of military history to help prepare A what has and has not been accomplished, and what is and is not possible through the force of arms. Conclusions about the recent era of the best military advice they can to the nations civilian leadership. These future senior leaders should not allow emotion to affect their introspection.1 Future senior leaders must place their past service in a context that takes into account emerging historiography, time-tested military theory, and a holistic understanding of military history, as this foundation will allow them to provide better strategic advice. This article explores emerging historiography before revisiting just a few of the military theorists who continue to transcend time. It will then offer a brief overview of American military history by examining the popular outliers in the conscience of military professionals before turning to what the US military has done more often. Penultimately, it offers recommendations for how senior military leaders should approach historiography as they consider the future, and how a grounding in this article suggests how to use historical context when providing advice and speaking truth to power, even when the message is not popular. As it has in the past, the US military will have to execute campaigns that lack strategic clarity or coherent policy objectives. Some campaigns will be, in the words of Andrew Bacevich, fools errands.2 However, armed with an inclusive view of the past, not just the highlight reel, future HistoriographyHistoriography matters because it shapes approaches used at profes sional military education (PME) institutions. Iconography and personal with civility even when dealing with interpretations of the increasingly 1 The author uses the terms senior leader, general, and strategist interchangeably throughout. 2 Andrew Bacevich has used this term in many of his pieces, most recently in Andrew Bacevich, Even If We Defeat the Islamic State, Well Still Lose the Bigger War, Washington Post October 3, 2014. CULTURE AND THE US ARMY Learning from the Past, Looking to the FutureMatthew MortonColonel Morton is a and author of Men on Iron Ponies: The Death and Rebirth of the Modern US Cavalry.
56 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015distant American Civil War. At one time, a walk through the halls of the US Army War College could have caused one to wonder who won the war, or how the profession has chosen to remember its past. Military professionals might have to work harder to distill the lessons of emerg ing narratives seeking to explain the less than decisive outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan, events in which many of them participated.3 Easily digested Manichean explanations for enormously complicated issues 4 How the profession remembers the last decade of con future.5 Remembering the past can be painful and complicated, as the Civil War illustrates, thus reminding the profession of the care it should take in capturing and interpreting various perspectives of recent events.Anti-COINGian Gentile and Douglas Porch each used historical analysis of a variety of campaigns to reach the same conclusion: counter-insurgency (COIN) doctrine rarely works, especially in the context of carrying out tasks related to nation-building for a third party. To their credit, both authors offered these perspectives before the recent emergence of ISIL. Although there seems to be little stomach for another COIN campaign, Gentile, to be certain, offers his critique for the good of the profession. His overarching fear stems from the belief the nation might try a similar venture again should it follow Field Marshal Montgomerys dictum that armed with a good plan (as prescribed by doctrine) and the right general, anything is possible.6 constraints have senior Army leaders more worried about the institu tions ability to carry out the full scope of its Title 10 responsibilities, at least about taking on another open-ended task in Iraq or Afghanistan.7In a recent article intended to generate dialogue and discussion, Lieutenant General Bolger (retired), takes his share of the credit for what he saw as the failure of American generalship during the last decade poignant recollection of his conversation with a North Vietnamese 3 In few instances do the Air Force and the Navy have such a distinct advantage over the Army with respect to their corporate memory as when it comes to Civil War iconography and historiography. 4 For a chapter-length address of historiography on the broader topic of the American way of war, or lack thereof, see Antulio J. Echevarria, II, Reconsidering the American Way of War, US Military Practice from the Revolution to Afghanistan (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2014). 5 Ibid., 5. Echevarria is referencing the belief held by historian Russell Weigley when he prepared his seminal work, The American Way of War, the thesis of which Echevarria sets out to disprove, but on this particular issue agrees with Weigley. 6 Gian Gentile, Wrong Turn, Americas Deadly Embrace of Counter-Insurgency (New York: The New Press, 2013), 6; Douglass Porch, Counterinsurgency, Exposing the Myths of the New Way of War (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), xi-xii. Porch states clearly his intent to attack the emerging hagiography of David Petraeus while at the same time trying to head off efforts in the vein of Lewis Sorelys better war thesis about Vietnam before they manifest themselves into a stab-in-the-back explanation for US failure in Iraq and Afghanistan. For the Field Marshal Montgomery quip, Greg Daddis, Westmorelands War: Reassessing American Strategy in Vietnam (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 7. 7 Cheryl Pellerin, Service Chiefs Detail 2014 Sequestration Effects, DoD News, US Department of Defense http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=120825.
CULTURE AND THE US ARMY Morton 57Army. Ultimately, this did not matter because of a failure at the opera tional and strategic levels of war. His Army was one built and trained for short, sharp, decisive wars, and not well suited for being backed into generational exercises in nation building.8 Bolger is disappointed in his and his peers willingness to accept a strategy of attrition rather than tell the truth as he sees it now. When the tools (means) did not match the task at hand (ends), they pursued a victory that always seemed to be just around the corner and, but for an additional bit of time, would be theirs. The objectives given the Army were beyond the resources allocated to the task and military leaders met the nations strategic overreach with with limited forces. Not unlike Gentile and Porch, Bolger concludes there is little hope COIN will work unless the host nation wants it to worka condition beyond the control of the United States and its gen erals. Bolgers prescription, that the Army should return to what it does own challenges.9 The Army does not pick its wars, the nations civilian leaders do.Pro-COINPeter Mansoors memoir of his service with David Petraeus pro vides readers chapter titles such as A War Almost Lost, as if the United States, because of the Surge, had attained its stated objectives using COIN doctrine. Petraeus surge of ideas thesis hardly acknowledges the foundational work underpinning his campaign, not to mention the decidedly different political context in which he waged it.10 Within Bolgers construct, Petraeus is no hero since his successful surge of ideas did not deliver victory.11 Petraeus was the ultimate just a little more time general, but even a little more time was not enough for the Iraqis to establish a representative government capable of standing on its own beyond the redeployment of US forces. By attempting to set the record straight when the easy to digest surge-narrative was beginning to come under attack, the author illustrated the challenge of writing about events even as they continue to unfold in the media.12 In 2014, it became clear even Petraeus, armed with the COIN manual, could not save Iraq from itself. To wit, Colin Gray has con cluded the conduct of COIN, in the modern era, reveals a history of 8 Daniel Bolger, How We Lost In Iraq and Afghanistan, Harpers (September 2014): 63-65; Daniel Bolger, The Truth About the Wars, New York Times November 10, 2014, http://www. nytimes.com/2014/11/11/opinion/the-truth-about-the-wars-in-iraq-and-afghanistan.html. 9 Daniel Bolger, A 3-Star General Explains Why We Lost in Iraq, Afghanistan, National Public Radio, November 9, 2014, transcript, http://www.npr.org/2014/11/09/361746282/a-3-star-generalexplains-why-we-lost-in-iraq-afghanistan. 10 Peter Mansoor, Surge, My Journey with General David Petraeus and the Remaking of the Iraq War (New Haven, CT: Yale, 2013), x. For example, Petraeus suggests it was his team that solved issues related to detainees as if none of his predecessors had addressed critical issues related to this topic. See Lieutenant General John D. Gardner (Ret) interviewed by Colonel Matthew D. Morton, Operation Iraqi Freedom Study Group, Carlisle Barracks, PA, January 2, 2014, held at the Military History Institute, Carlisle Barracks, PA, for a detailed explanation of the reforms that took place throughout 2005 and 2006, two years in advance of Petraeus arrival as the Multi-National Force Iraq commander. 11 David Petraeus, foreword to Surge x; Bolger, The Truth About the Wars, New York Times, November 10, 2014. Bolger is even more critical of Petraeus in his book, comparing him to General Douglas MacArthur and his overweening ambition. 12 Mansoor, Surge xxvi.
58 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015persistent, or at least repeated political unwillingness to respect empiri cal knowledge of the past.13 Simply put, COIN just does not work when the real tool or mechanism to achieve Americas ends depends largely on indigenous forces.14 With regard to historiography, Surge is an excellent example of assigning agency for ephemeral success too soon. Although there is much for readers to learn from Mansoors account, it does not offer an example of a path to victory. It does provide valuable insight to one phase of a war that has yet to achieve its intended objectives.The Limits of American Power the limits of American power.15 With the of a soldier and a scholar, his work merits the attention of military professionals lest they too see all the worlds problems as ones military power alone can solve. In his review of Bolgers book, Bacevich generally agrees with the author. Nevertheless, Bacevich notes Bolgers failure to address more compre leaders their military advice.16 In his mind, those senior leaders should heed the warning in the most recent edition of Reinhold Niebuhrs classic, The Irony of American History Bacevich introduces the work with four truths worth considering: (a) the sin of American exceptionalism, (b) indecipherability of history, (c) false allure of simple solutions, and (d) the imperative of appreciating the limits of power.17 The nation has stumbled over these issues during the last ten years, and Bacevich reminds readers that stability, rather than remaking the world in the image of the United States, best serves the nation.18 Neibuhr, speak ing enduring truth from the past, reminds all Americans, the paradise of our domestic security is suspended in a hell of global insecurity.19 Therein lies the rub for generals who must maintain paradise at home while acting abroad. Fortunately, for them, a dead Prussian soldier, who happened to be a bit of an intellectual, still offers sage advice on how to connect domestic and foreign interests. 13 Colin Gray, Defense Planning for National Defense: Navigation Aids for the Mystery Tour (Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute and US Army War College Press, 2014), 44. For another criticism of a recent offering by one of COINs biggest proponents, John A. Nagl, see Dexter Filkins review of his latest offering, John A. Nagl, Knife Fights, A Memoir of Modern War in Theory and Practice (New York: Penguin, 2014), in which Filkins also concludes COIN, at least as practiced by Americans, does not work. Dexter Filkins, review of Knife Fights, A Memoir of Modern War in Theory and Practice, John Nagl, New York Times, November 13, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/books/ 14 Lewis Sorelys, Better War (New York: Harcourt Brace & Co., 1999) suggests that General Abrams could have achieved victory in Vietnam if given more time to develop the South Vietnamese security forces. 15 Recent books by Andrew Bacevich include: The New American Militarism How Americans Are Seduced by War (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005); The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism (New York: Metropolitan, 2008); Washington Rules: Americas Path to Permanent War (New York: Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt, 2010). 16 Andrew Bacevich, review of Why We Lost, A Generals Inside Account of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, by Daniel Bolger, New York Times November 14, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/ books/review/daniel-bolgers-why-we-lost.html. 17 Andrew Bacevich, introduction to Reinhold Niebuhr, The Irony of American History (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2008), x. 18 Ibid., xvii. 19 Niebuhr, The Irony of American History, 7.
CULTURE AND THE US ARMY Morton 59Enduring Theorists through a Contemporary LensThe stalwart military theorists of professional military education Clausewitz and Sun Tzucontinue to be relevant even when examined through the lens of recent events. Future strategists should not discount them in the mistaken belief the true nature of war has changed. Just as historiography offers a lens to review historic events, some theorists his recent work, Reconsidering the American Way of War: US Military Practice from the Revolution to Afghanistan author Antulio Echevarria argues there is no single American way of war. Unsurprisingly given his reputation as a scholar of Carl von Clausewitz, he concludes, the American way of war was, and still is, thoroughly political.20 He reaches this conclusion in the same manner Clausewitz used to draw his own conclusions about the nature of war, through the lens of historical analysis. Clausewitz offers the familiar:No one starts a waror rather, no one in his senses ought to do so and how he intends to conduct it. The former is its political purpose; the latter its operational objective. This is the governing principle which will set its course, prescribe the scale of means and effort which is required, and 21 Echevarrias conclusion applies to all wars, not just the big ones bear the responsibility for helping civilian decision makers understand what will be required to achieve their ends through war. They should remember civilians take the decision to go to war in a unique domestic political condition ever subject to change. As Clausewitz cautions, cer tainly the exhaustion or, to be accurate, the fatigue of the stronger has often brought about peace. The reason can be found in the half-hearted manner in which wars are usually waged.22 This is particularly important in the context of Echevarrias other conclusion that the United States, in the past, sought minimalist solutions and resisted the expenditure of too many resources.23 Future generals should try to avoid the risk of imbalance between ends and means no matter how good they think they are at designing ways to balance the equation.Sun Tzu through the Lens of Bolger and TuchmanBolger suggests the military has struggled to identify the real enemy of the nations stated objectives. Renowned author and historian Barbara Tuchman observed the US Armys predilections contribute to its inabil ity to know its enemy. In doing so, both authors allude to Sun Tzus dictum to know oneself and know the enemy to avoid defeat. At the Tuchman spoke to the US Army War College in 1972. She addressed a blind spot in the American approach to war; it was the same one Bolger 20 Echevarria, Reconsidering the American Way of War, 2. 21 Carl von Clausewitz, On War, trans. by Peter Paret (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989), 579. 22 Ibid., 613. 23 Echevarria, Reconsidering the American Way of War, 135.
60 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015addressed forty years later. One passage bears full citation given its time less advice and recognition of American military habits.In the arrogance of our size, wealth and superior technology, we tend to overlook the need to examine what may be different sources of strength in others.we now need another voice of wisdom to tell us, Technology is not enough. War is not one big engineering project. There are people on the other sidewith strengths and will that we never bother to measure we have been drawn into a greater, and certainly more ruinous, belliger opponent ultimately serves neither the repute of the military nor the repute of the nation.24Bolger seized on the fact that recently the military has struggled to identify the real enemy of the nations stated objectives. Simply, those who shoot at American soldiersthe Taliban, Sunni insurgents in Iraq, or the Mahdi Armydo not necessarily represent the enemy the United along the way.25 A technological overmatch of opponents has not always allowed the United States to discern its enemy well, especially when of the US military. Echevarria also points out that the United States historic reliance on technology allowed it to offset numeric advantages as policy makers pursued strategies underwritten by just enough, but not too much, means. While this worked historically, the proliferation of modern small arms has changed the equation particularly at the tactical 26 A Holistic Approach to HistoryThe study of history provides future generals means to learn vicari ously from the mistakes of others. Because history is replete with wars fought with remarkable tactical and operational acumen, but which did not achieve strategic victory, future generals should open their apertures. The sweep of American military history is much broader than its most well know warsthe American Civil War and World War IIwhich dominate the canon of professional military education for good reasons. Future strategic leaders ought not to forget history records victory in the strategic column and does not award style points for tactical and operational acumen. Were one to score Nazi performance during each discrete year of WWII, most would accord Hitlers generals victories in 1939, 1940, and probably a draw in 1941. Nevertheless, for all their bat and achieving national objectives. One could say the same thing about the United States in Vietnam.27 To be certain, the ultimate outcome 24 Barbara W. Tuchman, Generalship, Parameters 11, no. 2 (1972): 2-11. 25 Bolger, A 3-Star General Explains Why We Lost in Iraq, Afghanistan. 26 Echevarria, Reconsidering the American Way of War, 167-168, 170, and conversation with LTC Matt Hardman (Hardman served as an airborne-infantry company commander in Afghanistan in 2003 and Iraq in 2004 and again in Afghanistan as a BDE Chief-of Current Operations in 2010-2011 and BDE XO in 2013. He currently commands an Airborne-Infantry Battalion). Hardman contends the US force can employ its enablers. Gone are the days that a single Marine battalion was adequate to maintain control or defend US interests in a Latin American country. 27 Gray, Defense Planning for National Defense, 14; Robert Citino, Blitzkrieg to Desert Storm: The Evolution of Operational Warfare (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 2004), 226, 246, 254, 264.
CULTURE AND THE US ARMY Morton 61may only consider it a transitory evil until it can remedy the outcome at a later date; however Americans expect their generals to provide the nation more than ephemeral ends.28 Fortunately, the United States has a rich and varied military history, including many dark chapters that hardly qualify as the stuff of American exceptionalism, upon which to Big and ExceptionalOutliersThe American Civil War and World War II are the outliers in American military history with respect to the objectives sought and the resources the nation was willing to expend to achieve them. The sweep of American military history is much broader than these arguably best known and often studied wars. Between 1861 and 1865, the United States fought its bloodiest war. The existential threat of Confederate rebellion resulted in the deaths of 360,000 Union soldiers. In defense of the institution of chattel slavery, the Confederacy was willing to sac million African-Americans cost the nation 620,000 soldiers drawn from a population of 30 million.29 A proportional cost today would amount to no less than seven million dead Americans.30 Full mobilization of the Union effort took years. Once mobilized, generals such as Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman translated the might of the of the nations guiding strategic documents today. The Second World War continues to provide a nearly bottomless pit of issues for study ranging from tactical to strategic in nature, hence its utility in the canon of professional military education. In the modern era, it represents the closest approximation of Clausewitzs concept of G tterd mmerung Fatman meant it would be the last global war on such a scale short of Armageddon.31 Nazi Germany had more than territorial ambitions as it sought to remove entire races of people from the face of the earth while losing four million of its own citizens. Its ally, Imperial Japan, lost two million people subjugating and defending the Co-prosperity Sphere and civilians resisting Hitlers quest for Lebensraum While the world col lectively suffered an estimated 60 million deaths directly attributable and suffered almost no losses at home.32 Nevertheless, the United States placed millions of citizens in uniform, fed and equipped its allies, and willingly suffered a degree of disruption in the lives of its 132.2 million citizens. A similar military effort today would require 18.5 million 28 Clausewitz, On War, 80. 29 Bureau of the Census Library, 1860 Compiled for the Original Returns of the Eighth Census, Under the Direction of the Secretary of the Interior www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html. 30 The Civil War By the Numbers, PBS, American Experience http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/ americanexperience/features/general-article/death-numbers/. 31 Gerhard Weinberg, A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 920. 32 Ibid., 44, 894, 898-899 for war aims, Lebensraum, and total casualties; John W. Dower, War (New York: Pantheon Books, 1986), 7-8.
62 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015 to the paychecks of the wealthiest Americans should they be asked make 33 Again, todays guiding strategy documents do not allude to anything similar Since gaining independence, the United States used force 280 times between 1789 and 2009.34 In these instances, the nation only fought two wars to decisive outcomes, the two already mentioned, in which entire systems of government ceased to exist and unconditional surrender was but they have only gotten the satisfaction of decisive victory two times.35 Beyond the OutliersIn contrast to the big ones, where everything was at stake and the nation responded accordingly, the American Army played a variety of roles in a wide range of military dramas. The Army, cast as an unrelent ing underdog, against all reason defeated a global hegemon not once, by defeating Mexico and taking large swaths of territory by force and of arms already accomplished. The Army in support of the Navy, served as a tool in the hands of American imperialists determined to seize colo niesbetter the United States grab the Philippines from Spain lest the nothing like short, or sharp, or even decisive. As always, the military without so much as a declaration of war.36VietnamIt is easy to forget the war in Vietnam was a limited wardespite the commitment of more than 500,000 troops and enough jet-era bombing to make the war in the air over Europe and Japan look amateurish in comparison. The main theater was in fact Western Europe where the threat of Soviet invasion remained constant. Recently, some pundits used the American experience in Vietnam as an analogy to the long slog in Iraq and morass that the United States once again found itself Using Average Annual CPI During Tax Year, Income Years 1913-2013, Tax Foundation http:// United States Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/ The Organization of Ground Combat Troops (Washington: Historical Division, Department of the Army, 1947). The US population was approximately 132 million in 1940 and by 1945, more than 8 million citizens wore the uniform of the Army. Including all services, the nation put 12 million citizens in uniform. Americans paid for roughly half of World The Oxford Companion to World War II (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 923. 34 Richard F. Grimmett, Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2010 (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, March 10, 2011). 35 Martin Blumenson, ed., The Patton Papers, 1940-1945 1974), 429, 457. 36 Barbara S. Torreon, Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2010 (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, September 15, 2014).
CULTURE AND THE US ARMY Morton 63unable to escape. Others did their utmost to disassociate the recent era 37 However, in other respects, Vietnam provides an excellent example for considering the American approach to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It continues to offer something for students inclined to study what is its history. Every tactical movement was in effect a movement without a rear area during which the enemy might attack from any direction. Urban battles in Hue and Saigon afforded the rare opportunity to con centrate military efforts against what was normally an elusive foe who sought to avoid such battles since they led to disproportionate casualties. Despite the ability to mass effects in time and space, strategic victory remained as elusive in Vietnam as it did in Iraq. Despite the narrative suggesting the Army turned its back on Vietnam and never looked back, the reality was it learned quite a bit, just not the answer the Army was in support of questionable governments.38 Vietnam as a BridgeHistorical research always bears the imprint of current events even if historians and uniformed strategists attempt not to look backward to events, but rather to see them from the perspective of the partici pants marching forward in time. To that end, Greg Daddis asked and answered an important question: is it possible to have a comprehensive strategy and still lose a war? In his largely successful effort to rehabilitate General William Westmoreland, he concludes, yes, it is.39 In arriving at this explanation, Daddis offers a number of observations relevant today, communicate the complexity of the situation in Vietnam. He realized military power and its application was but one facet of a problem requir ing equal, if not more, attention on social and political ills in South Vietnam.40 There were no shortages of can do generals in Vietnam. General Paul Harkins promised in 1963 Saigon could lead its own war effort and that the United States would be starting to depart by 1965.41 Perhaps most importantly, the United States did a lot in Vietnam: it created an army, it did nation-building, and it fought homegrown insur gents from South Vietnam and conventional units from the north. Even so, the Army was unable to do all three tasks simultaneously to the levels demanded to achieve the nations overall objectives.42 Perhaps Bolgers current frustration stems from the fact he knew all of this having taught history at West Point, but failed to see the parallels until the United 37 Robert Dallek, Iraq Isnt Like VietnamExcept When It Is, Washington Post May 20, 2007; Ronald Bruce St. John, Parallels Between Iraq War and Vietnam War Are Piling Up The Progress Report, April 28, 2004, http://www.progress.org/tpr/parallels-between-iraq-war-and-vietnam-war-are-pil ing-up/; Heather Marie Stur, Stop Comparing Iraq to the Vietnam War The National Interest July 1, 2014, http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/stop-comparing-iraq-the-vietnam-war-10788. 38 Citino, Operational Warfare, 226, 237, 246, 254, 264. 39 Daddis, Westmorelands War, xx, 14. 40 Ibid., 90-91. 41 Ibid., 163. 42 Ibid., 169.
64 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015States was already backed in to objectives beyond the grasp of the Army.Conclusions on the Use of History If there is but one lesson for future strategists to take away from their study of military history it is this: there are almost no instances of the United States successfully waging a war, signing a peace treaty, and immediately redeploying. There has usually been a gap between the attainment of an end by military means and the ultimate political outcome in the form of a peace treaty. An American way of battle depen dent on technology and shock and awe cannot bridge the intervening gap.43 Soldiers conduct occupations. Even the American Civil War and World War II, with their decisive conclusions, demanded occupations to translate military victory into enduring end states.RecommendationsSenior leaders and future strategists are entitled to their opinions and interpretations of the past, but their professional obligations demand they form them in a critical context. Rather than drinking their own intellectual bathwaterdoctrine, white papers, professional military education curriculum, and professional journal articlesfuture senior has occurred, how it is likely to be remembered, and how it might affect their approach to war. A narrow interpretation runs the risk of acting like self-imposed blinders in the search for the best advice in situations that do not lend themselves to a narrow base of understanding. In addi tion, as Daddis has shown with his recent work on Westmoreland and Vietnam, soldiers can continue to learn new things when considering a war gone awry. The glancing overview of emerging historiography is but the bow-wave of a larger body of evidence and interpretation to follow. Enduring theory should help underpin much of it as it travels its path into the American military conscience as part of a larger tapestry of corporate memory.The Recent and Not So Recent PastIn Desert Storm, Colin Powell and his generation got the war they wanted, but the next generation of strategic leaders stung by the outcome of recent events may not be so lucky. Future strategists may in their best interests to think hard about current scholarship emerging be tempted to wage another counterinsurgency beyond the borders of the United States seems unlikely now. However, even Powell could not situdes of political priorities, which speak to enduring nature of war and the utility of those who well captured it in theory. 43 Echevarria, Reconsidering the American Way of War, 175.
CULTURE AND THE US ARMY Morton 65Political ContextGenerals should never forget strategy will always be a slave to what is politically possible.44 War or World War II? Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt standout as great American strategists and more importantly, great political leaders who were able to convince the American people to go all in. As Bolger and Bacevich both describe in their own ways, American generals cannot expect their civilian leaders to be good strategists.45 Modern generals dering professional military advicein all circumstances. Doing so will at times require them to assume the role of mentor, even within the context of their subordinated role as prescribed by the American construct of civil-military relations, but ever cognizant of the political conditions that directly affect their masters.Moral CourageStrategic thought demands the long view, not the best immediate work-around for the challenge at hand. Few generals became gener als because they told their senior raters on a recurring basis that what their boss asked them to do was a bad idea. Generals get to be generals because they consistently demonstrated superior tactical competence, regardless of their discipline. In essence, they achieved missions in a fashion deemed superior to their peers. Getting the job done now, poral horizon. Clausewitz was not writing about tactics, he was writing about war with a big W. Understanding a broader sweep of history will help strategists adjust their temporal horizons. Armed with a longer view, they should also be willing to share that experience in the role of a teacher. It surprised a senior general with years of experience in the Middle East that he had to spend so much time educating leaders, about what was going on in one of the most complex battle spaces on earth.46 Domestic political acumen does not necessarily equip senior civilian leaders with an adequate foundation for making strategic choices that rely heavily on military resources. As senior strategists, generals should embrace their role in the education process. their political masters are treading on the thin ice of exceedingly poor historical analogy as it relates to war. In some cases, they may have to help guide the conversation and process back to the path of strategy. It their own profession, in a national context, if for no other reason than a little history can be a dangerous thing. Bush policy makers had it in their mind that invading Iraq was going to be like liberating France in 44 Gray, Defense Planning for National Defense 49-50. 45 Although Bolger and Bacevich each say this in their own way, a conversation about the recent war in Iraq with Dr. Lance Betros, Provost, US Army War College, on the same topic inspired this part of the paper. PA, 20-21.
66 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015World War II.47 It was lost on them that unlike France, Iraq had no Free Iraqi Army in being, battle hardened and ready, or a legitimate govern than a collection of expatriates and little else. Civilian policy makers study shapes their outlook and understanding of war. Unfortunately, the assumption based on a wrongheaded interpretation of historical events.48 Speaking Truth to PowerSenior leaders should draw on what they have learned through experience, professional military education, and the self-directed study senior leaders examples of their peers having the moral courage to speak truth to power. As Barbara Tuchman pointed out after Vietnam, the West Point motto of Duty, Honor, Country, that is, to follow orders Japanese went to the gallows using the same excuse.49 Recent history offers the example of General Eric Shinseki. Looking back a little further provides the example of General Matthew Ridgway. Shinseki gave Congress his best military advice. It just so happened that his best advice was not consistent with the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfelds view of the world and the coming war with Iraq.50 Rumsfelds efforts to rendering his duty regardless of the consequences. As Army Chief of Staff, General Ridgway paid an even stiffer price when he did the same thing. Ridgways sin was to speak out against the belief air power alone could play a decisive role in Vietnam in 1954, based on his interpretation of what it had accomplished in Korea. This advice put him at odds with the Eisenhower administrations desire to test its New Look policy in a proposed attempt to save the French at Dien Bien Phu. Ridgway kept the United States out of Vietnam as the French lost, but he lost his job in 1955 in a forced early retirement.51 History suggests the advice rendered by both generals was probably correct. The occupation of Iraq required of Defense. The introduction of air power in South Vietnam led to the commitment of ground forces.ConclusionModern strategists would be wise to remember the observation of Colin Gray when he wrote, It is no disgrace to fail in an attempt to 47 Ibid.; Similar accounts can be found in Gordon Rudd, Reconstructing Iraq: Regime Change, Jay Garner and the ORHA Story (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, Press, 2011), 28, 382-383. 48 Ibid. 49 Tuchman, Generalship. 50 Rudd, Reconstructing Iraq: Regime Change, Jay Garner and the ORHA Story, 140-141. 51 Conrad Crane, Killing the Vulture: The Impact of the Korean Airpower Experience on American Involvement in Indochina in 1954 unpublished manuscript, copy in possession of author used with Dr. Cranes permission.
CULTURE AND THE US ARMY Morton 67 the impossible is an affront to the Gods of strategy.52 Doing more of the same in the same places, after a decade and billions of dollars, is unlikely to bring about a different result, nor will doing the same in new places with the same characteristics have much hope of achieving national objectives. High-minded notions of American exceptionalism should come with the same warning as hope; neither is a method.53 There was nothing exceptional about imposing dictatorships in South and Central America in the service of domestic political agendas any more than the hubris of toppling the regime in Iraq with an underlying assumption that it could made right quickly and on the cheap. How then to do it better? Emerging historiography, and to a lesser extent hagiography, will shape the way the Army as an institution strategists who have never been to Iraq or Afghanistan although their surge narratives have proven too good to be true, but at least some senior leaders have started the process of deep introspection, such as Bolger, and doing so have reminded the profession of the relevance of theorists such as Clausewitz and Sun Tzu as enduring touchstones for the profession of arms, particularly at the highest levels of service. The use of military forces in operations short of war will continue to 54 Fortunately, American military history provides a rich tapestry of of American martial pride are outliers. It seems unlikely that the United States will unleash the powers to terrorize entire civilian populations, conduct ethnic cleansing, or make the heavy hand of war touch the lives of men, women, and children in the nations that are the object of its military attention. Therefore, as ever, it will remain the burden of the senior uni formed strategist to convey the art of the possible and the associated risk inherent in every variation of the use of force to achieve national policy objectives. This will never be easy, but studying the recent past as institutional memories form in the manner prescribed in this paper is far less expensive than the cost of blood and treasure already expended. The avoidance of a single fools errand would be something indeed. 52 Gray, Defense Planning for National Defense 44. 53 Taken from the eponymous title of Gordon Sullivans, Hope is Not a Method (New York: Broadway Books, 1996). 54 Louis Caldera and Antulio J. Echevarria, The US Army is the Nations Premier Global Engagement and Operation-Other-Than-War Force, Armed Forces Journal International (March 2001): 32-34.
ABSTRA CT : As US news and media reports continue to expose uneth ical behavior within the American profession of arms, it is impor tant to explore how Army leadersand their organizationshave lapsed into questionable ethical conduct. This article addresses the tension between competence and character within the Armys cul ture, offers lessons from the business world on ethical behavior and leadership, and critiques current Department of Defense (DoD) and Army approaches to assessing ethical climates.1US news and media reports continue to expose unethical behavior within the American profession of arms.1 Some observers may claim this exposure is nothing new. Recently, however, the Army revealed 129 commanders of brigades and battalions have been relieved since 2003.2 Of that number, 25 were relieved in combat zones. More troubling (and paradoxically reassuring) is the Armys disclosure 2005, for instance, the four-star commander of US Army Training and Doctrine Command, General Kevin Byrnes, was relieved for disobeying a lawful order from the Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker. In addition, since 2001, the Army vice chief of staff has issued 100 memoranda of reprimand, 147 memoranda of concern and conducted to good order and discipline in the Army.3 This article explores how Army leaders and their organizations have lapsed into questionable ethical conduct. Among other things, such an examination enables one to discern lessons for senior leaders and stew ards of the Army profession. Rather than offering tabloid exposs (there are plenty), the following analysis focuses on systemic organizational assessments and solutions to ethical situations, not on the details of any for Army leadership: 1) develop evidence-based developmental pro grams on individual character and moral development, and 2) develop empirically validated research instruments to assess ethical climates as part of the DoD or separate Army organizational climate survey. Strong ethical foundations are essential for the Army profession and the nation it serves. While the number of reported occurrences of unethical behavior is relatively small compared to a large DoD population of nearly 3 million 1 This manuscript was initially prepared for and presented at a conference for the International Society for Military Ethics (ISME), October 12-15, 2014, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, Indiana. USA Today August 8, 2013; and Michelle Tan, Army Battalion, Brigade Commanders Fired Since 2003, Army Times, February 2, 2015. 3 Ibid. CULTURE AND THE US ARMY Charles D. AllenCharles D. Allen is the Professor of Leadership and Cultural Studies in the Department of Command, Leadership, and Management at the United States Army War College. He was the Army War College and member of the community of practice for the 2011 Army Profession Campaign.
70 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015active, reserve, and civilian members, even isolated cases receive a high degree of media attention and undermine public trust in the profession. As one reads the reports of investigations and courts martial, the root causes of such behavior are invariably attributed to individual failings the senior leaders lack of character and the lack of moral courage of those around the leader to challenge questionable behavior. However, these assessments rarely consider differing levels of analysis: individual, organizational, and institutional. Concerns about the Profession civil-military relations exchange, which often requires a delicate bal examples during the Global War on Terror are the cases of Commander of US Central Command Admiral William Fox Fallon, Air Force Chief of Staff General T. Michael Moseley, and Commander of US Forces and International Security Forces Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, in their clashes with senior civilian leadersthe president and defense secretary.4 Of greater concern are those cases in which behavior contrary Regulations like US Africa Commands General William Kip Ward (substantiated), and US European Commands Admiral James Stavridis (unsubstantiated). The media also took particular interest in the extra marital affair of retired General David Petraeus, the former commander of US Central Command and later of International Security Forces Afghanistan, as well as the court-martial charges for sexual assault by Army Brigadier General Jeffrey Sinclair. Accordingly, at the end of 2012, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta ance with standards put forth in several Department of Defense policies such as the Joint Federal Travel Regulation, Joint Ethics Regulation, Financial Management Regulation, other DoD Instructions, and cer tainly the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. In December 2013, his successor, Chuck Hagel, ordered a second review to be completed and briefed within sixty days. These perfunctory assessments of nondid not reveal the deeper causes of these problems; thus, further actions were needed. To underscore the importance of understanding and resolving such problems, in March 2014, Hagel appointed Rear Admiral Margaret Peg Klein as his Special Advisor for Military Professionalism to report directly to him on issues related to military ethics, character, and leadership.5 Hagel charged Klein to coordinate the actions of the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, and each of the military serviceson Leaders Fail: And What We Can Learn from Their Mistakes, Armed Forces Journal (July/August 2009): 34-37, 44-45; Marybeth P. Ulrich, The General McChrystal Affair: A Case Study in CivilMilitary Relations, Parameters 41, no. 1 (Spring 2011): 86-100; and Charles D. Allen, Lessons not Learned: Civil-Military Disconnect in Afghanistan, Armed Forces Journal (September 2011): 30-33. 5 Statement by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel Announcing His Senior Advisor for Military Professionalism, US Department of Defense, March 25, 2014, http://www.defense.gov/Releases/ Release.aspx?ReleaseID=16599
CULTURE AND THE US ARMY DoDs focus on ethics, character, and competence in all activities at all 6Professional Competency or Character?After more than a dozen years in Afghanistan and Iraq, DoD senior leaders are concerned with the perception the competence of our senior leaders is valued over their characterespecially with the ongoing series reported misbehavior ranges from a combination of illegal, immoral, and unethical actions across services and components.7 In alignment with Hagel, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey stressed the military must pay as much attention to character as it does to competence.8 In his June 2013 graduation address to the National War College, Dempsey cautioned, As with Vietnam, nega served honorably.9 To document the nature and scope of the problem throughout the uniformed and civilian ranks, the Department of Defense published its Encyclopedia of Ethical Failures .10 One would expect the Army has its own compendium of ethical misconduct cases span ning the operating and generating forces in deployed and home-station environments. Donald M. Snider, an expert on the nature and role of the Army profession, argues military leaders improperly focus on developing individual and unit military competence, when it should have been all along more equally divided between developing their moral character and their military competence.11 Journalists and government civilians alike have speculated the military valued competence over character during wartime, and that it needs to place a higher priority on personal rectitude.12 Three criteria competence and character combined with commitment emerged from the Army Profession of Arms campaign essential for its members to be professional. Initial Assessment and RemedyIn response to a 2012 Secretary of Defense directive, the Army con ducted a review of senior-leader training with two objectives: 1) Review the current state of senior leadership training, particularly ethics train ing and character development, and 2) Consider the impact(s) of power and the dilemmas that arise from increasing levels of responsibility, 6 Ibid. Naval War College Review 65, no. 3 (Summer 2012): 136-152; Craig Whitlock, Military Brass, Behaving Badly: Files Detail a Spate of Misconduct Dogging Armed Forces, Washington Post January 26, 2014, 8 Jim Garamone, Hagel, Dempsey Stress Leaders Role in Ethical Issues, DoD News March 26, 2014, www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=121905. 9 Amaani Lyle, Chairman Champions Character in Graduation Address, DoD News June 13, 2013, http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=120281. Encyclopedia of Ethical Failures (Washington, DC: US Department of Defense, 2012). 11 Don M. Snider, The Moral Corrosion Within Our Military Professions. Strategic Studies Institute November 27, 2012, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/index.cfm/articles// The-Moral-Corrosion-within-Our-Military-Professions/2012/11/27. 12 Amaani Lyle, Chairman Champions Character in Graduation Address.
72 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015authority, and control.13 14 ers.15 Assumptions Regarding Individual Character Development 16 Army soldiers and leaders inherently 17 Military Review
CULTURE AND THE US ARMY Allen 73 The Call for an Army Ethic 19 Ethical Leadership: Learning from Business Finding The Right Way Toward an Army Ethic Capitalizing on Parameters The Army Profession The Army Ethic White Paper
74 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015 Strengthening our Profession of Arms.23Thus, both the Army Chief of Staff and the Chairman have included leader development among their top priorities. Appropriately, leaders lentsare designated the senior stewards of the profession. They have special responsibilities: command of units, staff headquarters, and running the institution. They are also susceptible to what has been well-documented in organizational research: Older and longer tenured managers had lower moral judgment than did younger and less experi enced employees.24 Although current professional military education philosophies of ethics (teleology, deontology, and consequentialism) and moral reasoning, business and behavioral ethics scholars have intro duced concepts such as ethical fading and moral blindspots into the militarys awareness.25 Ethical fading occurs when lawyers become inured to problems such as corruption in the justice system, and their ethical enthusiasm slowly dies.26 organizations by citing stress and cultural value placed on mission accom plishment, they should attentively consider why moral reasoning has also been found to be lower when individuals respond to work-related dilemmas compared to non-work dilemmas.27 Equally applicable to the military profession, a 2005 Business Ethics Survey cited the following 1. Pressure to meet unrealistic business objectives/deadlines 2. Desire to further ones career 3. Desire to protect ones livelihood 4. Working in an environment with cynicism or diminished morale 5. Ignores that the act was unethical28Each of these factors could plausibly affect Army leaders ethical obligations to their organizations: Protection of brand and reputation; and Public acceptance/recognition.29 In 2013, Military Review published a special issue exploring threats to the Army Profession that would betray the trust of its constituents, clients, and stakeholders. In one of the review: Credibility of competence, benevolence of motives, integrity with a 23 Martin E. Dempsey, Americas Military-A Profession of Arms White Paper (Washington, DC: US Joint Chiefs of Staff, February 12, 2012), 4. 24 Linda K. Trevino, Gary R. Weaver, and Scott J. Reynolds, Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review, Journal of Management 32, no. 6 (2006): 956. 25 Max H. Bazerman, and Anne E. Tenbrunsel, Blind Spots: Why We Fail To Do Whats Right (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011), 61-76. 26 Ping Jiang cited in Roderick OBrien, Ethical Numbness: Glimpses of Some Lawyer Across Journal of International Business Ethics 5, no. 1 (2012): 41. 27 Ibid., 956. 28 Jay J. Hamrog and James W. Forcade, The Ethical Enterprise: Doing the Right Things in the Right Ways, Today and Tomorrow: A Global Study of Business Ethics (New York, NY: American Management Association, 2006). 29 Ibid.
CULTURE AND THE US ARMY predictability of behavior.30 These components are inextricably linked to the character, competence, and commitment the Army expects of its leaders. While the senior stewards of the profession, Generals Dempsey and Odierno, recognize the value and need for ethics as an integral part of the culture of the profession of arms, it is imperative leaders also consider the lessons from busi domain are wholly applicable to our militarys obligation to sustain the trust vested in its profession.Institutional Culture of the ArmyAs senior leaders seek to develop effective approaches to redress on the Army profession.31 At the conclusion of Solarium 7 a gathering contributed to a change in the recently published Army Ethic White Paper. Rather than being Trustworthy, they aspire to be Trusted of the force. of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its prob lemsthat has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. 32 While the Army culture espouses Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage) the perception within the force is that not all members are faithful adherents. The Center for Army Leadership recently reported integrity was the most frequently is consistent with the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) results which found integrity and inspirational eight countries.33 Many of the organizational values in the business world apply across industries and national cultures. In this case, the leadership.Expectations for Ethical LeadershipClearly, as found in the GLOBE and IBM CEO studies, leaders of integrity are consistently sought and valued.34 30 Charles D. Allen and William G. Braun, Trust: Implications for the Army Profession, Military Review 93, no. 5 (September/October 2013): 73-85; see also Roger C. Mayer, James. H. Davis, and F. David Shoorman, An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust, Academy of Management Review 20, no. 3 (1995): 709-734. 31 Kevin Lilley, The Solarium: Proposals from Young Army Leaders, Army Times August 3, 2014, http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140803/CAREERS/307280052/. 32 Edgar Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992), 373-374. 33 Michael H. Hoppe and Regina Eckert, Leader Effectiveness and Culture: The GLOBE Study (Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership, 2012). 34 IBM Institute for Business Value, Capitalizing on Complexity: Insights from the Global Chief 24.
76 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through per sonal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making.35 Organizational scholars have found employ ees perceptions of their supervisors ethical leadership were associated with followers willingness to report problems to management.36 For self-monitoring and self-regulation of the Army profession. Thus, Army leaders should be models of ethical conduct, and service members should hold each other accountable. The Center for Army Leadership Annual Survey of Army Leadership (2013) provides data about the willingness to report problems within the leaders as effective in leading by example and building trust, while 8 percent disagreed. Of note, civilians rated 72 percent of their immedi ate civilian leaders as effective in setting standards for integrity and character.37 Center for Army Leadership researchers found this factor was positively related to competency, leads by example, and demon strating Army Values.38 Some readers may be encouraged to learn that 78 percent rated civilian supervisors as effective in upholding ethical standards, while only 8 percent disagreed. Likewise, active duty uni formed members rated 85 percent of supervisors as effective with 5 percent disagreeing.39The cultural gap between civilian and uniformed members percep tions of leadership is revealed in the Center for Army Leadership Annual agreed if they reported an ethical violation their senior would act to address it, while 12 percent disagreed. For uniformed members, 85 and 81 percent of active and reserve components responded positively, with 6 and 9 percent responding negatively.40 While any negative response is problematic, around 10 percent seems reasonable, if not acceptable. In aggregate, the Center for Army Leadership Annual Survey of current culture. Further, it shows organizational culture is one of the antecedents to organizational climate, along with environmental factors and individual values.41 The data from uniformed and civilian members capture their perceptions of the ethical behavior of Army leaders. If leaders are seen as ineffectual in setting and upholding ethical stan dards, it is easy to understand why members of the profession would 35 M. Brown, L. K. Trevino, and D. Harrison, Ethical Leadership: A Social Learning Perspective for Construct Development and Testing, cited in Trevino, Weaver, and Reynolds, Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review, Journal of Business Ethics 32, no. 6 (December 2006): 967. 36 Ibid. 37 Center for Army Leadership, 2013 Center for Army Leadership Annual Survey of Army Leadership ( CASAL) Army Civilian Leaders Technical Report 2014-02 (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Center for Army Leadership, 2014), 14. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid., 22. 40 Center for Army Leadership, 2013 Center for Army Leadership Annual Survey of Army Leadership (CASAL): Main Findings, Technical Report 2014-01 (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Center for Army Leadership, 2014), 31. 41 Steven M. Jones, Improving Accountability for Effective Command Climate: A Strategic Imperative (Carlisle PA: US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, 2003).
CULTURE AND THE US ARMY be reluctant to report ethical violations. Such a culture would have an Organizational Climates within the ArmyOne consistent Army commentator on organizational climate has been LTG (retired) Walt Ulmer. In a 1987 article, he surmised the most probable source of unhealthy command climates to be simply the ing, and maintaining the necessary climate for sustained excellence.42 prepared to support high ethical standards but are sometimes confused, frustrated, and disappointed by what they see as unethical behavior on the part of some of their seniors.43Given the emphasis the Army places on being a values-based insti tution, its leaders must remain aware of how those values are manifest in the day-to-day experiences of junior professionals. Rather than focusing primarily on individual senior leaders, assessing the collective view of ethics within Army units and activities is instructive. More appropriate is the focus on an ethical climate as a shared perception among orga nizational members regarding the criteriaof ethical reasoning within an organization.44 climate was limited to actions of Army company-level commanders As the Army sought to resolve challenges of leadership and unit morale during the drawdown of the 1990s, it introduced the Ethical Climate Assessment Survey (ECAS) in 1997, and then included it as an appendix to Field Manual 22-100 Army Leadership Developed by the Army, it has four components with associated questions: Individual Character Who are we?; Unit/Workplace Policies & Practices What do we do? ; Unit Leader Actions What do I do? ; and Environmental/Mission Factors What surrounds us?45 Clearly, this survey focused on the company commander as the standard setter within the unit. Its questions are pertinent. Unfortunately, the ECAS is not valid as a research instrument: it was not rigorous in measuring what it was intended to measure.46 Rather, it Army of a given units ethical climate. Not surprisingly, as General Walter Ulmer noted in 1998, the Army was behind in measuring organizational climate. He suggested its senior been routinely administered, many of the derogatory headlines of 1997 might have been avoided, or the severity of the problems attenuated by 42 Walter F. Ulmer, Jr., The Armys New Leadership Doctrine, Parameters 17, no. 4 (December 1987): 13. 43 Ibid., 15. 44 Ibid. 45 US Department of the Army, Army Leadership Field Manual 22-100 (Fort Leavenworth, KS: US Department of the Army, 1997). 46 In other words, instrument validity is the extent to which an instrument measures what it is supposed to. See Susan Carroll, Instrument Validity, Dissertation-Statistics, http://www.dissertation-statistics.com/instrument-validity.html.
78 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015timely command intervention.47 His advice rings true for the Army of todayespecially since established and validated assessment instru ments have been available for the Army. One such instrument is the Ethical Climate Questionnaire (ECQ) developed by Bart Victor and John Cullen.48 Their initial research sought Caring: Emphasis on care and concern for others Law and Order: Adherence to external criteriaprofessional codes Rules: Governed by policies, rules, procedures developed within organization Independence: Members have wide latitude to make own decisions49While the original research focused on organizational categories, sub capable of being assessed independently. More recent research has iden all other issues.50 In one study, researchers found that a climate charac terized by high scores in Instrumental and low scores in Law & Rules, dilemmas and ethical non-compliance.51 Likewise, researchers also iden as either correspondingly high assessments in Law & Rules and Caring combined with low assessments in Instrumental and Independence, or 52 Climate researchers have noted that patterns of relevant dimensions will differ with types of organizations, even within a particular industry.53 Given its import, it is unfathomable that neither the Army nor Department of Defense have valid assessment tools for ethical climates.DoD Approach to Ethics IssuesDuring the DoD review of ethical training programs, it became clear each armed service has its own approach to climate assessment, relying on various instruments, processes, and requirements. In December 2013, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel mandated all com mands above company grade and across the armed services conduct an 47 Walter F. Ulmer, Jr., Military Leadership into the 21st Century: Another Bridge Too Far? Parameters 28, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 13. 48 Bart Victor and John B. Cullen, A Theory and Measure of Ethical Climate in Organizations, Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy 9 (1987): 51-71; and Bart Victor and John B. Cullen, The Organizational Bases for Ethical Work Climates, Administrative Science Quarterly 33 (1988): 101-125. 49 Joan B. Cullen, Bart Victor, and James W Bronson, The Ethical Climate Questionnaire: An Assessment of its Development and Validity, Psychological Reports 73 (1993): 667-674. Capacity to Deliver Ethical Outcome in Public Sector Human Resource Management, Journal of New Business Ideas & Trends 9, no. 2 (2011): 36-37. 51 Ibid., 47. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid., 36-37.
CULTURE AND THE US ARMY organizational climate survey.54 Subsequently, DoD suggested the use of the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) Organizational Climate Survey (DEOCS). Like the ECAS, the DEOCS Opportunity (EO), Civilian Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), Organizational Effectiveness (OE), and Perceptions of Discrimination/ Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault Prevention & Response (SAPR).55The DEOCS also gives organizations the opportunity to add a section to address local concerns. Unlike the ECAS, it is not a purely developmental instrument provided to individual leaders for their selfmanagement and improvement. Its results are briefed to the rater of the commander or activity leader. Appropriately, the DEOCS data will be aggregated for trend analysis within services. While it has the advantages of a readily available and standardized assessment tool capable of provid within the US military. It appears DoD has once again succumbed to seizing what is known and readily available, rather than seeking the most appropriate tool for the task. Given the current scrutiny of senior leader ethics within DoD, it would be prudent to include an instrument like the ECQ as an ethical component of the DEOCS.Army Approach to Ethics IssuesTo their credit, Army senior leaders have persisted as stewards of the Army Profession with the establishment of the Center for the Army Profession and Ethic (CAPE), the implementation of the Army the profession in ADRP-1. The CAPE Master Army Profession and Ethics Training (MAPET) program to train-the-trainers has been well received within the operational and functional force. CAPE is also the June 2015 edition of ADRP-1. The Army Chief of Staffs use of focus on socializing and embedding these efforts within the Army culture. Army Secretary John McHugh hosted a similar symposium last fall for over one hundred civilian leaders in the Senior Executive Service. A review of recent articles in Military Review and Parameters as well as US Army War College research papers, shows renewed interest in character and moral development for Army membersboth uniformed and civilian. For example, analysis of the Values-to-Virtue gap has been offered to better align virtuous behavior with espoused Army Values. Emerging themes focus on building moral courage through developmental programs that enable members to ethically accomplish the mission despite adversity, obstacles and challenges.56 54 Jessica L. Wright, Command Climate Assessments, Memorandum (Washington, DC: Under Secretary of Defense, July 25, 2013). See also John McHugh, Army Command Climate Assessments. Army Directive 2013-29, Memorandum (Washington, DC: Secretary of the Army, December 23, 2013). 55 US Department of Defense, DEOMI Organizational Climate Survey (DEOCS), Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, January 1, 2014, http://www.deocs.net/DocDownloads/ Question_FactorBreakout_2014Jan.pdf. 56 The Army Profession: Keeping the Service on the Right Path, Soldiers June 27, 2013, http://soldiers.dodlive.mil/tag/gen-ray-odierno/.
80 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015However, Army leaders must also consider the untested assump tions challenged by COL Michelson as well as his conclusions. At the core of the Armys current approach is the inference that ethical failures tial evidence to the contrary. Consider that Organizational culture and practices also can normalize unethical behavior, so that organizational members unethical acts are committed thoughtlessly. In such situa tions.considerations of ethics never enter into the cognitive, affective, and behavioral process leading up to unethical acts.57 As Schein notes, it is important to understand that culture is neither right nor wrong, but it may be misaligned with the environment and stated organizational principles. And misalignment leads to poor and unacceptable perfor mance by individuals and the collective. Critically important, culture context. Given that organizational climate is localized and linked to leaders, the ethical climate set by leaders in which they convey ethical expecta tion, implications, and consequences does help employees make sense of behaviors that are morally equitable and morally inequitable.58 Thus, ethical climates should be routinely monitored to strengthen the orga Ultimately, virtuous behavior that is self-motivated and policed by the individual and the institution is the goal.59 Strategic leaders establish climates, especially the ethical climate within Army organizations. When ethical leadership is demonstrated as the norm among organiza tional members, the conditions for a positive ethical climate have been set. Use of the ECQ within the Army to determine the ethical climate type and accompanying outcomes (positive and negative) would enable senior leaders to be proactive rather than reactive to ethical incidents. In its doctrine, the Army recognizes the value to be gained from the social and behavioral sciences. Its Human Dimension Concept calls for abilities, to enhance individual and organizational development along 60 Given the Armys inherently lethal capa bilities, building ethical resilience to cope with and overcome adversity in optimally ethical ways is of paramount importance for the profession of arms.61 57 Trevino, Weaver, and Reynolds, Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review, 968. 58 Christian J. Resick, Michael B. Hargis, Ping Shao, and Scott B. Dust, Ethical Leadership, Moral Judgments, and Discretionary Workplace Behavior, Human Relations 66, no. 7 (2013): 18. 59 Don M. Snider, Addressing the Armys Values-to-Virtues Gap, ARMY (June 2014): 36. 60 US Department of the Army, The US Army Concept for the Human Dimension in Full Spectrum Operations 2015-2024, TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-7 (Fort Monroe, VA: Training and Doctrine Command, Army Capabilities Integration Center, Human Dimension Concept, June 11, 2008), http://www.arcic.army.mil/Concepts/human-dimension.aspx. 61 Alan C. Tjeltveit and Michael C. Gottlieb, Avoiding the Road to Ethical Disaster: Overcoming Vulnerabilities and Developing Resilience, Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training 47, no. 1 (March 2010): 101.
CULTURE AND THE US ARMY Training is Not EnoughWithout doubt, the Army knows how to train. Training programs, lenges. Ethical climates provide leading indicators of potential problems, but unfortunately they are not assessed in the Army. Despite the central roles of honor codes in cadets lives, US service academies training in morals and values have not precluded periodic scandals within those esteemed institutions. Rather than identifying purely individual failures, the West Point cheating scandal in 1976 cited unrestrained growth of the cool-on-honor subculture at the Academy, the widespread viola tions of the Honor Code, the gross inadequacies in the Honor System, the failure of the Academy to act decisively with respect to known honor problems, and the other Academy shortcomings.62 In effect, cadets and their leaders had become numb and blind to espoused ethical prin Commission are still applicable to the larger Army and the other services. Regardless of the drive to inculcate core military values of honor and integrity, other service academies have not been spared from ethical scandals over the succeeding decades. The United States Naval Academy endured its own honor scandal in 1994 with the revelation that 134 midshipman cheated on a take-home exam. In 2012, the United States Air Force Academy reported nearly 80 of its cadets cheated on an online test. Clearly training is not enough. Special Advisor for Military percent of we how develop our character as she addressed the Navys Recruiting Training Command on ethics and professionalism.63Unethical behavior extends well beyond academic cheating to the mistreatment of others by sexual harassment and assault. As the 2005 report of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault & Violence at the Military Service Academies concludes:...the leadership, staff, faculty, cadets and midshipmen must model behaviors tion we recommend the Academies use modern survey and management tools on a permanent basis to provide information to oversight bodies.64 ciples of leadership, values, ethical behavior as well as the need to assess and monitor climate and culture of military organizations, however elite.A Way Ahead for the ProfessionArmy strategic leaders are the senior stewards of the profession those entrusted with an invaluable national asset. Accordingly, they shape 62 Frank Borman, Report of the Special Commission to the Secretary of the Army on the United States Military Academy (Washington, DC: US Department of the Army, December 15, 1976), http://www. west-point.org/users/usma1983/40768/docs/borman.pdf. 63 Sue Krawczyk, Rear Adm. Klein Discusses Ethics, Professionalism During RTC Tour, Americas Navy, December 15, 2014, http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=84878. 64 G. L. Hoewing, and Deliah Rumburg, Report of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault & Violence at Military Service Academies (Washington, DC: US Department of Defense, June 2006), ES-1.
82 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015priorities aligned with the Armys ethical principles. These principles are captured explicitly in The Army Ethic. Senior leaders should direct two actions: First, collaborate with and use research from social and behavioral sciences to develop evidence-based developmental (training and educa tional) programs with measures of effectiveness for individual character and moral development. Second, incorporate or develop empirically validated research instruments to assess ethical climates and include them as part of the DoD or separate Army organizational climate survey. Accordingly, the Center for Army Leadership (CAL) and the Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) should adopt current climate methodology to its assessment of the Armys organizational climate and its ethical climate. The Army has a categorical obligation to develop and use valid techniques and instruments, making it imperative that valid assessment instruments are developed and administered throughout the force. Currently, the services are using the DEOCS, which is designed to address particular areas for which the secretary of defense is respon sible to provide reports to the Commander-in-Chief and Congress: the current area of focus is Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR). As the DEOCS has evolved, each service will have a servicequestions). Understandably, OSD would like to maintain consistency in data collection and reportinghowever, the short-term focus pre cludes inclusion of other important areas like the assessment of ethical climates within the service. The survey of ethical climates will provide leading and reinforcing indicators of the four DEOCS components of EO, EEO, OE, and SAPR. As OSD designated DEOMI as its proponent to administer service climate surveys, an executive agent should be assigned to research and develop ethical climate assessment instruments that are valid within the services and across the Department of Defense. This may entail taking existing instruments, such as the ECQ, and testing their validity and applicability to service populations. If existing assessment instruments are not generalizable to the service, then research efforts must be under service has its own research activitiesfor example, ARIthat could be directed to develop a research-based assessment. Once the instruments are developed, OSD must provide new or modify existing policy for its administration within the operational force and across the services. Within the Army, its Commanding General, Training and Doctrine Command (CG, TRADOC) has designated CAL as the proponent for surveys like the CASAL.ConclusionLeaders as Stewards of the Army ProfessionSenior leaders do matter. They play a critical role in every organiza tion, especially the Army. Only the senior stewards of the profession can design and implement the changes needed to meet the US militarys ethical challenges. For the todays military profession, the 2005 Defense
CULTURE AND THE US ARMY guidance. The Armys organizations should have leaders at all levels who understand the strength of the Armys culture; they should redress the unbalanced focus on competence that is contributing to a weakening of the trust the Army needs from its members and the society it serves. Effective assessments and programs aimed at developing ethical climates will enable leaders to take the necessary actions to make the Army the trusted profession our nation needs.
ABSTRA CT erator of innovation, and criticizes monolithic accounts of military resistance to innovation. It then describes a dimension of military culture focused on the concept of the ideal combatant, and how that concept relates to innovation. Military culture can be improved by: (1) engineering the competitive context for innovation, and (2) cre ating career paths in which new kinds of personnel have a means of advancing, while preserving enduring organizational values.F problem; it is an organizational challenge. Some observers of innovation speak of revolutionary versus evolutionary, or radical versus incremental innovation.1 These approaches to inno vation predict the success or failure of an organizations adoption of very thing we are trying to predict, the theoretical equivalent of a dog chasing its tail. Furthermore, the magnitude of a technological advance is not a good predictor of whether an organization will struggle with it. Militaries may succeed at rapidly adopting new platforms that involve major technological change, yet fail (or be unforgivably slow) to adopt innovations that are incremental improvements. Terms like radical and revolutionary have little use when applied to predicting the organiza tional response to an innovation. Bureaucracies thrive on consistent, standard approaches to resolving familiar problems. Militaries are bureaucracies that depend on stan dardization of tools, training, methods, and organization. Innovation of a new approach (the introduction of variance into the system), and then (if the innovation is successful enough) in the eventual replacement of the existing approach throughout the organization. The generaliza tion of an innovation requires organizational change, which in turn may require cultural change. Culture is a notoriously vague term, some times used as a catch-all to account for behavior in organizations that is 1 Williamson Murray, Innovation: Past and Future, in Military Innovation in the Interwar Period, ed. Williamson Murray and Allan Millett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 306310. Michael Tushman and Charles OReilly III, The Ambidextrous Organization: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change, in Managing Strategic Innovation and Change: A Collection of Readings 2nd ed., Michael Tushman and Philip Anderson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 278-82. CULTURE AND THE US ARMY Andrew HillAndrew Hill is Professor of Organization Studies in the Department of Command, Leadership, and Management at the US Army War College. He has a Doctorate in Business Administration from Harvard Business School, a Master's in Public Policy from the University of California, Berkeley, and a Bachelors in Latin from Brigham Young University.
86 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015 terms. Organizational researcher Edgar Schein has proposed a compelling description of organizational culture: A pattern of basic assumptionsinvented, discovered, or developed by a given group as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integrationthat has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to these problems.2 Scheins great insight is to focus attention on aspects of organiza tional behavior strongly associated with problem-solving and adaptation. To understand an organizations culture, Schein invites us to focus on things associated with what has worked in the past, and to examine the symbols, norms, values, behaviors, etc., that constitute these things. In Militaries are societies unto themselves, with their own sociology, history, values and beliefs. Military culture is built on these principles of shared history and values. Operational and strategic concepts of what works in the military context are entwined with principles of social reconciling the increasing operational capabilities of unmanned aircraft with its pilot-centric values, or the tortured logic of the Navys continued reliance on the aircraft carrier as its central offensive asset, or the Armys even mostlya question of capabilities and resources. Military innova tion not only affects the way wars are prosecuted, but also changes the order of military society, altering the relationship between the soldier, sailor, marine, or airman and the organization. Elting Morison writes, springs from the normal human instinct to protect oneself, and, more especially, ones way of life. Military organizations are societies built around and upon the prevailing weapons systems. Intuitively and quite correctly the military man feels that a change in weapons portends a change in the arrangements of his society.3 This article examines the individual element of military culture as it relates to innovation. This perspective is necessarily incomplete. Military culture is not just about individuals. It also exists at the strategic level (what Carl Builder ably termed concepts of war), and even at the national level.4 The focus of this essay is the cultural concept of the ideal combatant, that is, assumptions underlying the role of a human being in warfarewhat makes an effective commander or subordinate, and what the proper basis of the relationship is between the two. When innovations align with a military organizations concept of the ideal combatant, the natural tendencies of the organization can be trusted to succeed in developing and implementing the change. However, when the innovation does not align with the concept of war, or when it undermines 2 Edgar Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership 4th ed. (New York: Jossey Bass, 2010), 17. 3 Elting Morison, A Case Study of Innovation, Engineering and Science 13, no. 7 (1950): 8. 4 Carl H. Builder, The Masks of War: American Military Styles in Strategy and Analysis (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989), 127.
CULTURE AND THE US ARMY Hill 87assumptions about what makes an effective commander or subordinate, leaders should expect that the innovation will be resisted. This article helps leaders anticipate resistance to innovation rooted in a misalignment between the current concept of the ideal combatant and the new concept underlying an innovation. If leaders understand the nature of this resistance, they will be better positioned to develop appropriate responses to it. Military Culture and InnovationSome explanations for military resistance to innovation claim there is something in the essence of the military milieu or the military mind that is antithetical to change. Williamson Murray describes this view, Military institutions exist in a culture of disciplined obedience in which soldiers, sailors and airmen must remain steadfast in the face of terrifying conditions But disciplined organizations rarely place a high value on new and untried ideas, concepts and innovations.5 This can be termed the conservative culture hypothesis. Samuel Huntington employs this hypothesis when he describes the military mind as one that views the world through the lens of conservative realism.6 An effective military emphasizes order, obedience, hierarchy, division of function, and the supremacy of the society over the individual. Society can mean both the micro-society of the military and the society of the state the military man or woman is sworn to protect. Military organizations are constantly reinforcing their ties to the past, which serves two purposes. First, military organizations value ceremony and tradition, emphasizing the distinctness of the military community and imbuing its members with a stronger sense of collective identity. Second, militaries value the knowl edge of history, which, as Moltke said, is the most effective method of teaching war during peace.7 One can learn valuable lessons from the experiences of others, using it to develop principles and concepts for potential future application. Therefore, military organizations are hyper-attentive to what has worked in the past, further strengthening the militarys culture. According to the conservative culture hypothesis, devotion to tradition and knowledge of history are strengths in prepar to change. The conservative culture hypothesis of military resistance to inno in other organizations.8 The hypothesis appropriately focuses not on the strength of the military culture, but on its content. It is incorrect to suggest a strong culture necessarily inhibits innovation. We must 5 Murray, Innovation: Past and Future, 301. Although I cite Murray, he is not a proponent of this view. For his nuanced view of how military organizations respond to innovation, see his essays in Innovation in the Interwar Period and his more recent Military Adaptation in War: With Fear of Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). 6 Samuel Huntington, The Soldier and the State (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1957), 79. 7 Quoted in Huntington, The Soldier and the State, 64. 8 Francis Flynn and Jennifer Chatman, Strong Cultures and Innovation: Oxymoron or Opportunity? in Managing Strategic Innovation and Change: A Collection of Readings 2nd ed., ed. Michael Tushman and Philip Anderson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 234-251.
88 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015know something about the content of the culture to make that claim. Organizations with strong cultures may be innovative if their cultures encourage behaviors supporting innovation. For the military, the innovation. For example, militaries emphasize the good of the group over the individual, which discourages individual departures from group norms. Military norms tend to be task-oriented and convergent (focused on narrowing options and meeting mission requirements) as opposed to idea-oriented and divergent (focused on developing good ideas and expanding the range of ideas under consideration). Finally, militaries value uniformity over diversity. Members of the military may come from diverse backgrounds, but diversity is suppressed because per sonnel must be substitutable, a necessary condition in an organization whose members are subject to sudden and violent death. The conserva tive culture hypothesis suggests all of these characteristics (collectivism, convergent thinking, uniformity, etc.) militate against effective innova tion in military organizations. However, the conservative culture hypothesis has two problems. First, it treats innovation as a monolithic phenomenon, when in fact successful innovation is a process during which a given aspect of the culture may be both a strength and a weakness, albeit at different stages. The conservative culture hypothesis focuses on the content of military culture that inhibits the generation of innovative ideas, but it does not consider that the same characteristics that may hinder the emergence of ideas (for example, a strong deference to authority) would facilitate their implementation. The military is an execution-oriented culture, and mili tary organizations will effectively implement innovations that receive organizational endorsement. Thus, the notion innovation will improve if the groups norms for uniformity and convergence are diminished is true only if that attenuation affects the organization during idea genera tion and not implementation. hypothesis is that it offers no explanation as to why militaries have differ ent responses to different innovations. As mentioned above, many good ideas do emerge in military organizations, with the responses ranging from enthusiastic acceptance to fanatical rejection. To understand this difference within the military context, it is not enough to say the military has an anti-innovation culture. Cultural Resistance to InnovationTo understand whether a military will struggle with an innova tion, we must look beyond the technological challenges and examine the relationship between an innovation and the culture. How does the innovation align with the organizational concept of an ideal combat ant? How does the innovation align with current cultural assumptions in terms of honor, the delegation of authority, and the tolerance for variation and the desired degree of uniformity? How does an innovation affect how commanders lead, how subordinates obey, or how individual and the social structure of the military is the cultural concept of the ideal combatant. While the content of this concept is complex, this article highlights three characteristics especially relevant to innovation:
CULTURE AND THE US ARMY Hill 891. The conduct of honorable warfare : how the organization values physical courage in the context of war, and how it views the morality, justice and fairness of various weapons and effects; e.g., the use of subma rines or landmines, or the acceptability of civilian casualties. 2. The delegation of decision-making authority : how much the organization delegates or centralizes the decisions to use force, modify a military asset, alter a plan, or call on supporting assets, for example. 3. The degree of regularity in military assets, and the tolerance for differences among those assets : how much a leader accepts variation in equipment, training, effects, etc.Honorable Warfare and Resistance to Innovation idea of honorable warfare. Honor is an inextricable component of the military profession. It is an expression of many characteristics of mili and justice, and treatment of non-combatants. How does an innovation align with ideas of honorable war? Consider three components: courage, justice, and violence against civilians. was an inherent characteristic of all warfare. To kill, a combatant had to be in a position of some vulnerability. Yet the nature of this courage evolved over time in response to changes in warfare. The courage of a pilot in the Second World War differed from that of a soldier in the United States Civil War, which differed from that of a knight in the Hundred Years War. One is not necessarily more courageous than the other, but the value of each type of courage is highly dependent on context. Continuous-aim gunnery revolutionized the accuracy of naval nature of physical courage required for naval warfare: The fourteenwere no longer brave, but that 100 years after the battle of the Nile they had to reveal their bravery in a different way.9Every generation in a military organization develops a unique sense of the courage required in war. What was courageous behavior cultures will try to resist an innovation that upends their principles of honorable warfare before succumbing to the logic of a new weapon. Courage and recklessness are contextual, and the technology of war is crucial to that context. A Royal Navy commander with the disposition to close during the Napoleonic wars might perform well in battle, but such behavior would be suicidal in engagements with German battle ships during the First World War. An innovation that alters the calculus of courage also changes the social context of war, and will therefore be resisted by the organization. Managing Strategic Innovation and Change: A Collection of Readings ed. Michael Tushman and Philip Anderson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 66.
90 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015Unmanned aircraft provide a striking illustration of this dynamic. As discussed above, the character of aerial combat changed dramatically in the decades following the Second World War, but because every gen eration of pilot remained susceptible to a sudden and violent death in the air, they shared a common identity. The operators of a remotely piloted UAV remain conspicuously outside of that fraternity, despite the fact the machines they pilot have more in common with modern piloted attack about operators of UAVs? They attack from positions of relative safety. In many cases, the ground crews supporting the drones are at greater risk than the drone pilots. UAVs undermine one of the core assumptions of the community of attack pilotsto be an effective pilot, you must face danger. The initial response of that communityridicule and rejec tion of drone operatorswas entirely predictable.10Since innovations often change the nature of courage required of combatants, they also change the conditions of susceptibility of a combatant to violence. Note that the innovation may increase or decrease a combatants susceptibility. The issue is how the innovation affects a advent of submarines created a fundamental problem for naval strate gists: how to exploit the capabilities of the platform while adhering to the rules of surface warfare. The ultimate answerone cannotwas preceded by several attempts to control the use of submarines. The London Naval Treaty (1930) was an attempt by the United Kingdom, the United States, Italy, France and Japan to regulate submarine warfare, forcing submarines to abide by prize rules, requiring crews of mer chant vessels be placed in safety before their ships may be sunk.11 Such exercises in restraint are usually overcome by the expediencies of war, but in the meantime they hinder exploration of affected technologies and the integration of those technologies into broader operational con cepts. It is probably not coincidental that militaries had fewer qualms about unrestricted submarine warfare after advances in antisubmarine defenses (sonar, depth charges, aerial surveillance) improved the odds for the surface combatants. To the degree that innovations undermine existing assumptions about fairness in war, they are likely to be resisted. The reaction to innovations that reduce risk in the defensive or the offensive is more ambiguous. It seems a militarys response to such changes largely depends on whether it enjoys an advantage under the prevailing way (machine guns, for example) is likely to be resisted by militaries with favorable offensive capabilities under the existing competitive system. The ideal combatant does not kill indiscriminately. Innovations may change the degree to which the effects of war are felt by non-combat ants. Military organizations develop rules or procedures to determine acceptable civilian losses in pursuit of a military goal, yet technology changes the variables in this calculation. Militaries seek to limit civilian 10 P. W. Singer, (New York: Penguin Books, 2009), 253-254, 367-368. 11 Zara Steiner, The Lights that Failed: European International History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 589-592.
CULTURE AND THE US ARMY Hill 91casualties, and innovations that allow for greater precision in effects (such as guided munitions or improved surveillance) are likely to be embraced. However, some innovations decrease military control over collateral damage, and in such cases, militaries may struggle to adapt. The great challenge is that resistance to innovation on moral grounds is often appropriate. (Consider the United States militarys abandonment of offensive chemical and biological weapons.) The military profession is not simply tasked with executing humanitys wars; it also helps to deter mine what kinds of wars humanity will accept. Nuclear weapons are historys most powerful example of this task. But the bomb remains a fact of the global military environment, despite its grotesque character; until that changes, nuclear weapons should be susceptible to innova tion. However, from the moment of the Trinity test on July 16, 1945, the military profession has struggled with how to think about them. The condition of US nuclear strategy almost seventy years after Trinity attests to these challenges. More often, innovations that run afoul of a militarys concept of honorable warfare are not such stark moral challenges, but more subtle deviations (such as Morisons example of naval gunnery). In such cases, it is not at all clear that the resistance to such innovations is good for the future effectiveness of the organization. In general, innovations that reduce military control over the effects on civilians are resisted.The Shifting Balance of Control over Decision-MakingThe second aspect of the concept of a combatant is the optimal delegation of authority to make decisions. What is the appropriate balance between detailed orders, procedures, etc., and the exercise of individual initiative? In war, it is necessary for commanders to exercise control over their forces, but it is also necessary for subordinate units Carl von Clausewitz captured this tension when he wrote, Everything 12 Worded less poetically, simplicity in conception and simplicity in execution are not the same. The optimal balance between a commanders tight control as the context of war changes. Innovation can alter the balance in either direction. Consider the authority to decide whether to attack hostile ground forces from the air, particularly when the enemy is in close proximity to friendly units. In the absence of communications technology, the pilot must have the authority to decide on his or her own whether (and where) to attack. However, when communications put a pilot within reach of an air controller or some other coordinating mechanism, the pilot must cede some of that authority. In that case, innovation nudges the balance of authority in favor of greater command and control. and machine guns offers an example of the opposite effectinnovations prompting greater delegation of authority to subordinates. The slaughter of infantry advancing in close order over open ground required that 12 Carl von Clausewitz, On War, trans. by J.J. Graham (London: N. Trbner, 1873), 40.
92 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015armies adopt a different means of assault, advancing by small groups, infantry units out of contact with their commanders during crucial assume more authority in directing others and making tactical decisions. Whichever direction the innovation pushes the balance, any altera tion is likely to cause some social upheaval. However, the eternal and abiding desire of commanders is to reduce the fog and friction of war. Innovations that shift the balance in favor of greater transparency and more direct control of their forces are therefore likely to be viewed more favorably than those that shift greater responsibility to subordinates, however necessary the transition of authority. The historian Michael Howard, in an account of the evolution of European military strategy leading up to the First World War, described how the French high experience of the British in the Boer War), only to reverse itself. Howard wrote, Such tactics demanded of the ordinary soldier a degree of skill and self-reliance such as neither the French nor any other European army (with the possible exception of the Germans) had hitherto expected, or ranks.13 The conviction that turned the French high command back to close-order assault was its belief in the absolute necessity of maintaining in the event of general mobilization. Howard imagined the question leaders posed to themselves, How could these lonely, frightened men, deprived of the intoxication of drums and trumpets, the support of their courage to die?14 Innovations that shift greater responsibility to subor dinates will be resisted more strongly than those that do the opposite. The preference of military organizations for greater predictabil discussion of the concept of an ideal combatant: the desired degree of regularity and the tolerance for differences. How much does a military organization value consistency in equipment, training, and procedure for similar personnel and units? Military organizations value predict ability (knowing what effects can be achieved by a given military asset, for example) and substitutability (knowing that a replacement asset can achieve those same effects). Both are improved by standardization. Commanders are comforted by the idea that the choice of unit A or unit B is not a choice between two units with meaningful differences in equipment and trainingwhen commanders articulate their intent, units will execute that intent with similar means and methods. This uni formity improves predictability. It is also necessary for substitutability. A unit whose deployment ends or is rotated out due to losses can be replaced by a unit with similar capabilities. Of course, there is no such thing as perfect predictability and substitutability, but militaries do what they can to reduce uncertainty in these areas. At the extreme, the ideal 13 Michael Howard, Men Against Fire: Expectations of War in 1914, International Security 9, no. 1 (1984): 52. 14 Ibid., 50.
CULTURE AND THE US ARMY Hill 93combatant, whether a commander or a subordinate, is replicable across the entire organization. How tolerant is the organization of variations in equipment, training and procedure? Meaningful innovations may require staged adoption, particularly if the employment of the inno vation is not yet fully understood. That means the organization must introduce variation and diminish uniformity, not a prospect military leaders relish. Furthermore, there is great potential for learning from uncontrolled variance in member behaviors. Ordnance of the Army, General James Ripley received numerous reports at great distances, were accurate at ranges less than 200 yards and greatly the Henry, at least sixteen rounds before reloading, compared to two or three shots per minute for a competent soldier using a muzzle-loading weapon. The math was compelling, but not to Ripley, who, in a letter to the Secretary of the Army in December, 1861, explained his objection The multiplication of arms and ammunition of different kinds and patterns, and working on different principles is decidedly objectionable, and should, in my opinion, be stopped by the refusal to introduce any more unless upon the most full and complete evidence of their great superiority.15 degree of variation in ammunition and arms, as well as the requirement to issue much more ammunition to soldiers using Henrys and Spencers. His response captures the way the military virtue of uniformity becomes (for Ripleys concerns about ammunition were not entirely baselessa panicked soldier could exhaust his ammunition in minutes)? Within the United States military, the degree of uniformity varies both across services and branches within services. The more intercon nected a combatant or unit is with a broader system of resources, the less tolerant is the organization for departures from standard equip ment and procedures. The Navy and the Air Force operate complex, displacements in their systems. This makes staged adoption much more challengingrequiring more central coordination. However, the Army, the Marine Corps, and Special Operations forces, in particular, have greater latitude for exploring the effects of innovations in the operational context. With small-scale or modular innovations, an organization can tive demonstrations may result in the rejection of the innovation if the organization deems the results cannot be generalized. In war, military personnel try new things in response to operational challenges, and the organization tolerates this experimentation because 15 US War Department, and Confederate Armies
94 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015it (usually) values tactical and operational success more than it does rigid adherence to standard procedure. During peace, this tolerance for tions of equipment, procedures, etc.) is much diminished, and hinders innovation. A militarys ideal concept of a commander, a subordinate, and the proper relationship between them are partially determined by ideas about honorable war, of the proper delegation of authority, and the appropriate degree of uniformity in the organization. Innovations that challenge these ideas can be expected to encounter resistance. In summary, mili tary organizations will tend to resist innovations that: Challenge existing notions of the nature and use of physical courage Unfavorably change the balance of risk in the offensive or the defensive Reduce control over the effects of military operations Decentralize decision-making Reduce the uniformity and substitutability of military assets Leaders who recognize the ways in which an innovation is misaligned with the dominant concepts of honorable warfare, decision-making control, and regularity in military assets will be better positioned to set the right conditions for change.Leading Cultural Change, or Managing It?When an innovation is incompatible with dominant cultural con cepts, successful innovation leadership involves three key tasks: (1) identifying the assumptions of the role of the ideal combatant that underlie an innovation, and the extent to which those new concepts align with the existing culture; (2) demonstrating that new assumptions that are misaligned with the prevailing culture will improve the orga persuading the organization that the new concept of a combatant is not a rejection of the enduring values of the organization. This is a decidedly heroic view of the role of the leader in leading innovation, in the face of cultural resistance. But how realistic is it? Innovation leadership in the military is constrained by three endur ing characteristics of the military environment: (1) the need to innovate in peacetime, (2) the control of military leaders over the instruments of innovation; and (3) and the system of internal development and promo Although militaries exist for war, they operate more frequently (at least in the modern era) in times of relative peace. This means militaries need to imagine and to manufacture wartime conditions during times of peace. War is the most persuasive and unforgiving of all competitive contexts. As the saying goes, the enemy gets a vote, and the enemy is very good at identifying and exploiting gaps between the full tactical, operational and strategic possibilities of war and the militarys partial understanding of those possibilities. The organizations natural resistance to embracing an effective innovation will not alter an enemys exploitation of a stubborn adherence to ineffective approaches. For example, when
CULTURE AND THE US ARMY Hill 95losses in two raids against Schweinfurt in August and October, 1943, the notion bombers could protect themselves through mutually supporting raids, only resuming them when longer-range escorts became available.16 But such stark facts are not naturally created in times of peace. The key is creating conditions in peacetime that reveal the essential qualities of technology, procedure, or technique. This is a leadership responsibil ity. But engineering such conditions requires a willingness to challenge established concepts, bringing us to back to military leadership. Military leaders control the use of resources for the purpose of exploration and innovation. Military innovation is deliberate and planned. The US military has units devoted to experimentation, but the experimentation tends to occur within an established framework, and, crucially, it focuses on resolving the problems presented by that frame work, as opposed to discovering and solving problems unacknowledged by that framework.17 In the decade before the First World War, the British Army struggled to incorporate the machine gun effectively into its operating concepts, largely because the Armys conceptual problems were framed in terms of offensive operations. The extraordinary and transformational character of the machine gun as a defensive weapon was therefore poorly understood.18 Furthermore, because militaries are both public and authoritarian organizations, the entrepreneurial use of military resources for unplanned experimentation and innovation tends to be discouraged (to put it lightly) in peacetime. (Note that these con government equipment is common.) they (1) have the individual characteristics the organization desires in honorable war, the delegation of authority, or the degree of uniformity. If the prescription for overcoming resistance to innovation is that senior leaders undermine or abandon the strategic culture and values upon which they have built their careers, the organization is likely to be disap pointed. This is the paradox of innovation leadership: senior military leaders are best positioned to create an environment that allows the organization to discover and validate new ways of doing things, but they that are core to innovation leadership. Given these three conditionsthe need to innovate in peacetime, control of leaders over the means to innovate, and the internal system of leader development and promotionheroic leadership may not achieve the innovation results the military needs. Indeed, when an innovation is 16 Donald Miller, Masters of the Air: Americas Bomber Boys Who Fought the Air War Against Nazi Germany (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2007), 195-205. 17 This roughly corresponds to what the philosopher Thomas Kuhn termed normal science. See Thomas Kuhn, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012), 24-27. 18 Tim Travers, The Killing Ground: The British Army, the Western Front and the Emergence of Modern Warfare, 1900-1918 (Winchester, MA: Allen and Unwin, 1987), 62-70.
96 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015 than encourage it. Yet leaders lead directly and indirectly. In innova tion, direct leadership involves the use of authority to validate problems and direct resources to the solution of those problems. It is deliberate. However, such deliberate approaches tend to reinforce, rather than chal lenge, existing cultural assumptions. The data and reasoning driving deliberate, top-down innovation leadership are themselves products of the existing culture. When an innovation is aligned with the culture, the organization can be trusted to manage the innovation wellwhether its managed from the top-down or the bottom-up. When the two are not aligned, however, the leader must create conditions in which the organizations culture can change. Military innovations that solve problems not yet validated will be problems, beginning on the periphery (or entirely outside) of the organi zations dominant culture and strategy (e.g., carrier aviation), as solutions in search of problems. Strategic military leaders are uniquely positioned to create conditions such that organizations discover and validate new military problems. In peacetime, leaders are responsible for engineering the organiza tional context to create conditions enabling inductive innovationthe discovery and validation of new military problems. Indirect or emer gent innovation leadership involves the management of the competitive context for innovation. Whereas deliberate innovation leadership relies on the omniscience of the senior leader, emergent approaches use the full scope of the organization to explore and exploit new possibilities. the problems of competition it wishes to solve, and how it allocates resources across the set of potential solutions to those problems. The assumptions upon which a culture is based are changed through the demonstration of viable (and preferable) alternatives; the competitive environment in which a new approach is evaluated provides the context for this demonstration. Every war game, every simulation, every con Exploration and experimentation is pointless if we have not deter mined what information would cause us to question our assumptions. Change happens when the old idea is invalidated by new facts, and a new idea replaces it. Although improving military education may be a commonplace recommendation for critics who have run out of ideas, it is nevertheless foundational to learning how to learn. This requires nothing less than a commitment to educating leaders about the charac ter and sources of knowledgeepistemology. We are rarely aware of the typical, self-preserving, responses that we have to dissonant informa tion. Our tools for gathering and analyzing data become more powerful every year, yet our understanding of the fundamental logic and methods
CULTURE AND THE US ARMY Hill 97education, we must learn and re-learn the core principles of epistemol conditions for this change, leaders should understand what constitutes a refutation of dominant concepts of war and the role of combatants in it. and how to embrace complexity. Two powerful mechanisms through which leaders change culture are (1) the allocation of rewards and status, and (2) the recruiting, selec tion, retention, and promotion of leaders.19 present leaders with personnel management challenges. When a change into the organizations existing framework for retention and promo tion? Advanced militaries have elaborate systems for rewarding good tions. In the 1920s, the US Navy successfully managed the addition of This success rested on the astute decisions of Admiral William Moffett, who ensured aviators served in positions that required knowledge of surface warfare, and that non-aviators could command aviation units.20 Thus, although naval aviation posed a serious challenge to the dominant concept of naval warfare, the naval aviation community came to be seen the core values of the US Navy. This delicate balance between revolu Moffett stands out because of how well he struck that balance. He was at various times opposed both by the traditional Navy community, and by the aviators. His core policies can be summarized as follows. First, he interacted with and led aviation units, enabling them to see the new capability within a broadened framework of naval warfare. Admiral Moffetts achievement was built on a simple principle: he remained focused on the idea that naval aviation was an instrument of naval power; this helped him avoid the trap of confusing technology with identity. One of the greatest challenges to military innovation is the way that military professionals over time derive their professional identity from the technologies with which they interact, as opposed to tary innovation often requires professional identity be divorced from platforms, and tied to higher-level concepts of operations.21 Yet such disruption must preserve the organizations enduring values. No new military community will survive if it is seen to be opposed to these beliefs and values. 19 Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership 246. 20 Geoffrey Till, Adopting the Aircraft Carrier: British, American and Japanese Case Studies, in Military Innovation in the Interwar Period, eds. Williamson Murray and Allan Millett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 210-11. Stephen Peter Rosen, Winning the Next War: Innovation and the Modern Military (London: Cornell University Press, 1991), 76-80.
98 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015ConclusionCourage, honor, authority, control, predictabilitythese are power ful military concepts. Innovations that appear to subvert them stand inevitably run up against the dominant concepts of the role of the com batant, and provoke organizational responses that range from simple resistance to deliberate deception. Leaders who understand the culture of the organization will be able to anticipate such responses. Furthermore, retention, leaders can build structures and career paths that protect new approaches when they are most vulnerable to the dominant paradigm. One of the greatest responsibilities of strategic military leadership is fostering a context in which good ideas have a chance to develop into effective means and methods of war. The future depends on it.
ABSTRA CT : Since 9-11, the United States has embarked on a decade of doctrinal and technical innovations focused on defeating net works and individual combatants rather than formations. This ar ticle examines this evolving model of individualized warfare within the context of current debates over the appropriate role of military landpower in an age dominated by persistent threats from non-state actors and unconventional adversaries.In late 2014, the United States reached a milestone of the 500th 1 Beyond the numbers, this event is notable as one example of a new mode of state warfare based on military power being applied directly against individual combatants rather than formations. These so-called targeted killings are perhaps the most vivid example of the individualization of American warfare, particularly the Commander-in-Chief routinely reviewing and approving strikes against named combatants, a phenomenon without precedent in presidential history.2 However, this operational trend is by no means limited to high-level counterterrorism efforts. It represents a more sys tematic disaggregation of national security threats and the adoption of an individualized approach to military targeting that has dramatically transformed the American way of war. Within this paradigm, the target ing of high value individuals and networks has replaced conventional force engagement as the driving force of recent doctrinal change and technical innovation. tactical lessons, doctrinal adaptations, technical advances, and changes to the institutional cultures of the US military. Indeed, since 9-11 the US armed forces have developed the fusion of operations and intelligence for the purpose of hunting high-value targets into a high art.3 Yet even analysis as to their effectiveness and utility as an element of US military 1 Micah Zenko, The US Just Launched Its 500th Drone Strike, Defense One, November 21, 2014, The New American Foundation Long War Journal, and Bureau of Investigative Journalism all monitor US drone strikes taking place outside the active combat zones of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. The sum of 500 total strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia represent an average among the range of estimates as of November 2014. 2 Jo Becker and Scott Shane, Secret Kill List Proves a Test of Obamas Principles and Will, New York Times, May 29, 2012. 3 Linda Robinson, Paul D. Miller, John Gordon IV, Jeffrey Decker, Michael Schwille, Raphael S. Cohen, Improving Strategic Competence: Lessons from 13 Years of War (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2014) 26 CHANGES IN WARS CHARACTER Glenn J. VoelzColonel Glenn J. Voelz is an Army and US Army War College Fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and MITs Lincoln Laboratory. He most recently served with US Army Africa and prior to that was the in the White House Situation Room. In summer 2015, he will join the International Military Staff at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.
100 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015power.4 This article describes the catalysts driving the individualization of American warfare and considers the implications for future national security strategy and the Army.A Post-Westphalian Logic of WarfareThe rise of individualized warfare stands in stark contrast to the pre ceding Cold War era where focus of operational planning, intelligence analysis, and doctrine centered primarily on the conduct of large-scale conventional warfare against nation-state adversaries. The transition is even more profound as a departure from the foundational presump warfare for over three hundred years. The end of the Thirty Years War was notable as the transition point from the age of private mercenary became instruments of the state, acting on behalf of political sovereigns 5 This period also marked the as members of professional armies. Jean-Jacques Rousseaus seminal noting modern warfare was no longer a relationship between one man and another, but a relationship between one state and another, in which individuals are enemies only by accident, not as men, nor even as citi zens, but as soldiers.6 This shift provided the intellectual foundation for legal categorizations supporting the concept of lawful combatancy and the treatment of prisoners, wounded soldiers, and civilians on the As the Westphalian system depersonalized warfare, soldiers became generic members of their national armies in terms of legal status and mined the application and scope of wartime protections, while uniforms emerged to distinguish soldiers from civilians and to provide the opera tional context for lawful targeting.7 Within this mode of warfare, the treatment of soldiers became status-based, meaning that privileges, obligations and rules of engagement were no longer linked to individual identity but rather to the soldiers generic status as part of a state for mation.8 This convention has come under challenge as a result of recent the privileges of combatant status as a result of joining or substantially supporting non-state armed groups in the conduct of hostilities. The ambiguous status of these combatants has led to a revolution in the logic 4 A recent paper by Austin Long, Whack-a-Mole or Coup de Grace? Institutionalization and Leadership Targeting in Iraq and Afghanistan, Security Studies 23, no. 3 (July 2014) offers a useful overview of recent scholarship on the topic and thoughtful examination of leadership targeting in killings and methods of precision targeting, particularly in relation to operations in Gaza. While potentially useful as a comparative case study, that discussion is beyond the scope of this article. 5 Martin van Creveld, The Rise and Decline of the State (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 162-163. 6 Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, in The Social Contract and Other Writings, ed. Victor Gourevitch (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 51. 7 Gabriella Blum, The Individualization of War: From War to Policing in the Regulation of Law and War: An Introduction, eds. Austin Sarat, Lawrence Douglas, and Martha Merrill Umphrey (Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press, 2014), 52. 8 For elaboration on this concept see Gabriella Blum, The Dispensable Lives of Soldiers, Journal of Legal Analysis 2, no. 1 (Spring 2010): 115-147.
CHANGES IN WARS CHARACTER Voelz 101of military targeting and a shift towards highly individualized assess form of warfare where the legitimate use of military force has become tied to quasi-adjudicative judgments about the individual acts and roles 9Doctrine and Individualized Warfare The individualization of American warfare is readily apparent in cations of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency strategies. Debates level they share the important commonality of systematically individual izing the adversary. One of the early lessons of campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan was conventional warfare approaches often were inef fective when applied to operations other than major combat, forcing leaders to realign the ways and means of achieving effects.10 The central challenge, as the Armys targeting manual notes, was in contrast to 11 Over the last decade the US military has dem onstrated remarkable adaptability towards this end, marked by a major the problem of identifying and targeting individual combatants. While counterinsurgency doctrine pointedly emphasizes a broad range of governance and stability measures, much of the tactical focus in recent geting efforts designed to identify and separate the reconcilables from the irreconcilables.12 This effort included aggressive efforts to identify key actors within insurgent networks and conduct kill/capture opera tions against top-tier targets.13 Over the last decade, doctrinal methods evolved in direct response to these operational priorities and strategic approaches. tifying and engaging high-value individuals.14 US forces in both Iraq against insurgent networks and terrorist cells. In Iraq, these networkbased targeting approaches were used to develop all-source intelligence to provide situational awareness of the local environment, its social 9 Samuel Issacharoff and Richard Pildes, Targeted Warfare: Individuating Enemy Responsibility, New York University Law Review 88, no. 5 (November 2013): 1521. 10 US Joint Chief of Staff, Joint and Coalition Operational Analysis Division (J7), Decade of War Volume 1: Enduring Lessons from the Past Decade of Operations (Washington, DC: US Joint Chiefs of Staff, June 15, 2012), 2. 11 US Department of the Army, The Targeting Process Field Manual 3-60 (Washington, DC: US Department of the Army, November 26, 2010), Appendix B-1. 12 General David Petraeus, Commander, US Central Command, Multi-National Force-Iraq, Counterinsurgency Guidance, June 21, 2008. 13 One may arguably identify precursor models of individualized targeting in the Phoenix Program from Vietnam or from other counterinsurgency examples. However, these cases are sig 14 Also sometimes referred to as F3EAD.
102 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015networks, key decision-makers, and their motivations, most famously applied during the successful effort to track, target, and kill terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.15 In Afghanistan, such individualized approaches were used extensively in targeting insurgent networks, result capture or kill high-level insurgents.16 Beyond targeting active combat ants, similar methods were applied against drug producers and criminal conventional targeting doctrine and the Armys institutional training programs.17 Attack-the-Network theory (AtN) offers another example of the doctrinal trend towards individualized warfare. This theory emerged and Afghanistan, and over time has been applied to a broad range of missions such as tracking Joseph Koni and Lords Resistance Army in America. an evolution in analytical approaches related to the adoption of Social Network Analysis for military targeting. Application of Social Network scholarly research dating back to the 1960s, notably Stanley Milgrams early work on network theory and structural disintermediation.18 Admiral notion to distributed sensor systems and precision targeting; however, individual combatants. These concepts were more directly articulated in John Arquilla and David Ronfeldts, Networks and Netwars where they described the rise of non-state actors organized as decentralized net works.19 Under the guise of fourth generation warfare, William Lind, T.X. Hammes and others, foresaw such networks and individual actors supplanting the state as primary drivers of a new security environment, an idea later sensationalized by Thomas Friedmans thesis on super empowered individuals.20Operational Social Network Analysis techniques were introduced Counterinsurgency and have since matured into a foundational component of doctrinal 15 Christopher J. Lamb and Evan Munsing, Secret Weapon: High-Value Target Teams as an Organizational Innovation (Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, March 2011), 33. 16 Carlotta Gall, Night Raids Curbing Taliban, but Afghans Cite Civilian Toll, New York Times July 8, 2011; and Tom Peter, Afghanistan: NATOs Night Raids Cause More Harm Than Good, Report Says, Christian Science Monitor September 19, 2011. 17 Charles Faint and Michael Harris, F3EAD: Ops/Intel Fusion Feeds The SOF Targeting Process, Small Wars Journal, January 31, 2012. 18 Steve Ressler, Social Network Analysis as an Approach to Combat Terrorism: Past, Present and Future Research, Homeland Security Affairs 2, no. 2 (July 2006). 19 John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2001). 20 Thomas L. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree (New York: Anchor Books, 2000).
CHANGES IN WARS CHARACTER Voelz 103thinking.21 These techniques provided the framework for identifying given networks. At the tactical level, Social Network Analysis supported the practical need for conducting pattern of life analysis, identifying tions, and overall visualization of network dynamics down to the level of individual actors. Information obtained from this network analysis often focused on personalized details such as physical descriptions of suspects, their biographic histories, familial relations, biometric data, and forensic evidence in support of operational targeting.22The recent emergence of Identity Intelligence (I2) and methods for personality-based targeting offers another example of the doctrinal evolution towards individualized warfare.23 Identity Intelligence is not an intelligence process, per se, but rather tailored products derived from the fusion of identity attributes (biologic, biographic, behavioral, and reputational information) into operational planning processes. Identity Intelligence integrates the technical disciplines of biometrics, forensics, document and media exploitation, with other all-source data for the purpose of connecting individuals to other persons, places, events, or materials and analyzing patterns of life.24 Only in the last few years has Identity Intelligence matured as part of recognized doctrine; however, its use in support of military operations evolved rapidly due to the challenges of identifying and targeting individuals in environments documentation or intentional evasion. Recognizing these challenges, the DoD formally established biometrics as a core function in 2012 and directed combatant commands to integrate biometrics into mission planning.25What is remarkable about the evolution of counterinsurgency and counterterrorism practices is the degree to which operational target ing has not only become individualized, but also personalized through the integration of identity functions. The greatest weapon of insurgent tions. Population-centric approaches of counterinsurgency, therefore, placed Identity Intelligence activities at the center of efforts to posi tively identify, track, characterize, and disrupt threat actors.26 In Iraq the targeting of high-value individuals became closely integrated with 21 For example, Social Network Analysis techniques feature prominently in the most recent version of US Department of the Army, Intelligence Analysis, Army Techniques Publication 2-33.4 (Washington, DC: US Department of the Army, August 2014), as a methodology in US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment, Joint Publication 2.01-3 (Washington, DC: US Joint Chiefs of Staff, June 2009), and in US Department of the Army, The Targeting Process Field Manual 3-60 (Washington, DC: US Department of the Army, November 2010). 22 US Department of the Army, The Targeting Process Appendix B-1. as part of the updated version of US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Intelligence Joint Publication 2.0 (Washington, DC: US Joint Chiefs of Staff, October 2013). 24 US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Counterterrorism Joint Publication 3-26 (Washington, DC: US Joint Chiefs of Staff, October 24, 2014), V-5 25 Deputy Secretary of Defense, Authority to Collect, Store, and Share Biometric Information of NonUS Persons with US Government (USG) Entities and Partner Nations, Memorandum, Washington, DC, January 13, 2012. 26 US Joint Chief of Staff, Counterinsurgency, Joint Publication 3-24 (Washington, DC: US Joint Chiefs of Staff, November 2013), XVI.
104 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015 ing, logistics, media, command and control). This integration included to create a spotlight effect for denying insurgents access to particu lar operational areas.27 Identity Intelligence tools and techniques were also integrated into a wide range of missions dependent on the ability focused raids, checkpoint and area security, border control operations, and detailed mapping of human terrain. In sum, the commonalities identifying and targeting individual combatants.Technology and Individualized WarfareThe individualization of warfare has been fueled by several key technical innovations over the last decade, including advances in per sistent surveillance, standoff precision strike, data analytics, biometrics, and forensics capabilities. These tools directly enabled what has been described as a patient and relentless man-hunting campaign waged by the US military against non-state actors.28 Certainly, the most visible technology of this new mode of warfare has been the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones. Prior to 9-11, their operational use was limited primarily to reconnaissance missions in the Balkans and Afghanistan; they were not tested as a weapons platforms until early 2001, and then were rapidly adapted for kinetic targeting in Afghanistan. Early in the campaign, General Tommy Franks called the Predator my most capable sensor in hunting down and killing al Qaeda and Taliban leadership.29 These platforms soon emerged as a central component in the mili tarys high-value targeting programs, and their number increased more than 40-fold between 2002 and 2010.30 In Afghanistan there were a total of 74 military drone strikes during all of 2007; yet by 2012, that number averaged 33 strikes per month .31 Over time, improved sensors and software packages enabled analysts to recognize and categorize humans and human-made objects, providing unprecedented real-time surveillance and detailed granularity for targeting individual combat ants.32 strikes have gone from a relative rarity to a relatively common practice as a tool of US counterterrorism.33 27 Joint Center for Operational Analysis, Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, January 2007 to December 2008 The Comprehensive Approach: An Iraq Case Study (Norfolk, Virginia: US Joint Forces Command, February 2010), 14. 28 Robert O. Work and Shawn Brimley, 20YY Preparing for War in the Robotic Age (Washington, DC: Center for a New American Security, 2014), 17. 29 Mark Mazzetti, The Way of the Knife (New York: Penguin Books, 2014), 94-101; also, Andrew Callam, Drone Wars: Armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, International Affairs Review 18, no. 3 (Winter 2010). 30 Jeremiah Gertler, US Unmanned Aerial Systems (Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, January 3, 2012). 31 Amitai Etzioni, The Great Drone Debate, Military Review 93, no. 2 (March-April 2013): 2. 32 Andrew Callam, Drone Wars: Armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, International Affairs Review 18, no. 3 (Winter 2010). 33 Stimson Center, Recommendations and Report of the Task Force on US Drone Policy (Washington, DC: Stimson Center, 2014), 11.
CHANGES IN WARS CHARACTER Voelz 105 have been conducted by these platforms.34However, the expanded use of persistent surveillance introduced new challenges for analysts with a deluge of sensor data making it nearly impossible to track and identify suspicious activities and potential secu rity threats solely through human analytical processes.35 A separate analytical challenge has evolved from the need to collect and interpret different signatures from those of the doctrinally coherent, state-based adversaries of the Cold War era. Analysts must now process and cor relate multiple streams of disparate, unstructured data such as cell phone numbers, biographic data, digital communications, biometric signatures, and forensic evidence in support of lethal and non-lethal targeting. This designed to leverage Social Network Analysis methods, including tools such as Analyst Notebook and the Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS), enabling data integration and advanced network analysis. Other database systems employed in Iraq and Afghanistan, such as the Combined Information Data Network Exchange, a massive repository of tactical reporting, evolved in response to the immense data process ing challenge of analyzing insurgent activities, individual identities, and operational patterns. Of all the technical advances emerging in recent years, biometrics and forensics are perhaps the most vivid examples of the central role of technology in waging individualized warfare. The need to verify identity and distinguish adversaries from the larger population led to 36 As of biometrics by the US military prior to Iraq and Afghanistan. In early 2001, the Army began developing the Biometric Automated Toolset (BAT), offering an initial capability to collect, match and store biometric ment of biometrics occurred in 2004 by Marine Corps units in Iraq where the technology was used to quarantine an insurgent safe haven in Fallujah through biometric screening.37 Use of this technology grew as and separating insurgents from the larger population. Biometrics, linked with operational forensics, was also used extensively for analyzing and penetrating cells employing improvised explosive devices, and by the end of operations in Iraq the US had complied a biometric database of 38Similarly, in Afghanistan, over 7,000 biometric collection devices have been employed in support of detention operations, execution of 34 Micah Zenko, Reforming US Drone Strike Policies (Washington, DC: Council on Foreign Relations, January 2013), 8. 35 Sandra I. Erwin, As Defense, Intelligence Agencies Drown in Data, Technology Comes to the Rescue, Nation Defense Magazine, November 2014. 36 US Department of Defense, Defense Science Board Task Force on COIN and ISR Operations Logistics, February 2011), 65. 37 Thom Shanker, To Track Militants, US Has System that Never Forgets a Face, New York Times July 13, 2011. 38 Spencer Ackerman, US Holds on to Biometric Database of 3 Million Iraqis, Wired Magazine, Danger Room Blog, December 21, 2011, http://www.wired.com/2011/12/iraq-biometrics-database/.
106 Parameters 45(1) Spring 201539 Between 2004 and 2011, US forces collected biometric data on more than 1.1 million individuals equivalent to roughly one of every six enemy combatants.40 This measure was of particular importance in Afghanistan, a country with limited institutional capacity for identity documents, exacerbated by an active black market in forged identity papers. For similar reasons, biometric technologies have spread to other tation, such as counter-piracy operations in East Africa.41 As an Identity Intelligence specialist at the Armys Training and Doctrine Command explained, biometrics puts a uniform on the enemy and enables the categorization of actors even in the absence of traditional status-based signatures.42Expeditionary forensics is another technical area that evolved rapidly in direct response to the shift towards individualized warfare. Forensic tools and analysis supported evidenced-based targeting people, places, things, intentions, activities, organizations, and events. materials to identify suspected insurgents by cross-referencing evi dence with detainee biometrics in support of follow-on targeting and prosecution. By 2006, this capability expanded to include numerous expeditionary forensic facilities analyzing ammunition, clothing, latent States had deployed a total of seven forensic laboratories to Iraq and eight to Afghanistan.43 During that year alone, expeditionary forensics enabled the capture of over 700 high-value individuals associated with improvised explosive devices, or suspected terrorist and criminal activi ties.44 According to one report, this fusion of forensic and biometric to shape the operational environment, including supply chain interdic destruction, and the capture of high-value individuals.45 The task force responsible for detainee operations in Afghanistan estimated that some 39 David Pendall and Cal Sieg, Biometric-Enabled Intelligence in Regional CommandEast, Joint Forces Quarterly 72, no. 1 (January 2014): 70 Additional Training for Leaders and More Timely Transmission of Data Could Enhance the Use of Biometrics in Afghanistan (Washington, DC: US 41 David Axe, CSI Somalia: Interpol Targets Pirates, Wired Magazine, Danger Room Blog, June 18, 2009, http://www.wired.com/2009/06/csi-somalia-interpol-targets-pirates/. 42 Antonia Greene, Including Biometrics in Deployment Training Helps Soldiers Identify the Enemy, Army, April 30, 2012. Additional Planning and Oversight Needed to Establish an Enduring Expeditionary Forensic Capability June 2013), 4. 44 Oliver Herion, Expeditionary Forensic Support to Joint Force Commanders: What Changes or Considerations are Warranted? (Quantico, VA: US Marine Corps Command and Staff College, April 2012), v. 45 Thomas B. Smith and Marc Tranchemontagne, Understanding the Enemy: The Enduring Value of Technical and Forensic Exploitation, Joint Forces Quarterly 75, no. 4 (October 2014): 124.
CHANGES IN WARS CHARACTER Voelz 10746 A Iraq and Afghanistan had revolutionized expeditionary forensics and 47 In sum, the introduction of these technologies enabled a fundamental paradigm shift in targeting whereby combatants were no longer generic soldiers attributes and evidentiary analyses (see table below). Industrial Warfare Individualized War Political Context Westphalian; professional armies recognizes Jus in Bello constructs Post-Westphalian; individual challenges Jus in Bello constructs Characteristics State armies comprised of generic professional soldiers depersonalized, bureaucratic logic Non-state entities; unprivileged Operational Environment cal domain (land, sea, air, space); operational boundaries Theories of and counterterrorism doctrines; population-centric approaches templating, traditional Indications and Warning, conventional ISR and technical signatures biometrics and forensic signatures, document and media exploitation Targeting Paradigm Status-based targeting against units, formations and equipment Measures of quantitative assessment units leadership and operators; predomi capture high value individuals, End State compels political capitulation, repatriation of combatants presents enduring challenge 46 Anthony Iasso, A Critical Time for Biometrics and Identity Intelligence, Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin (July-September 2013): 39-40. 47 US Army Audit Agency, Workforce Requirements for Expeditionary Forensics Audit Report No. A-2012-0031-FFD (Alexandria, VA: December 27, 2011)Key Characteristics of Industrial & Individualized Warfare
108 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015Policy Imperatives and Strategic ChoicesWhile new doctrine and supporting technologies have provided the methods and tools of individualized warfare, ultimately this paradigm response to the threats posed by non-state actors. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) established the initial legal context for waging war against individuals and geographically dispersed net works with broad language authorizing the use of force against nations, organizations, or persons .48 CIA Director John Brennan articulated what might be considered the trickle-down logic of this approach, describ ing how these methods have gradually expanded to wider networks who are part of al-Qaida or its associated forces are legitimate military targets.49 Yet this strategic approach has expanded far beyond leader attacks against individuals as the centerpiece of US counterterrorism approaches in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere.50The trend towards such individualized approaches seems a logical path for a liberal democracy dealing with the threat of terrorism while techniques in the aftermath of 9-11 created political pressure to focus targeting against individuals with legitimate connections to terrorism rather than applying categorical measures against entire suspect groups (racial, ethnic, religious, or otherwise). More recently, public outcry over broad application of domestic intelligence gathering by the NSA suggests similar disapproval of dragnet-like approaches to counterter rorism. However, Americans have expressed few reservations with focused intelligence collection and lethal targeting based on evidentiary approaches and presumptions of culpability, thus presenting few politi cal liabilities.51Beyond the domestic audience, international opinion has also pushed the US toward an individualized, and increasingly personalized approach to warfare. Perhaps the best example has been the broad con demnation of US signature strikes directed against detected patterns 52 This approach closely resembles conventional targeting methods applied against formations, equipment and facilities where technical signatures generally offer reliable categorization of intended targets. However, this notably in Pakistan and Yemen, but also during military operations in 48 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), Joint Resolution 23, 107th Cong., 1st sess. (September 14, 2001). Also, Public Law 2(a), 115 Stat at 224. Remarks at the Wilson Center, April 30, 2012. 50 John Yoo, Assassinations or Targeted Killings Since 9/11, New York Law School Review 57 (2011): 63. 51 Sarah Kreps, Do Americans Really Love Drone Strikes? Washington Post June 6, 2014, and Pew Research, Global Attitudes Project Survey, Global Opinions of US Surveillance, (Spring 2014), http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/nsa-opinion/. 52 Steve Coll, The Unblinking Stare: The Drone War in Pakistan, The New Yorker, November 24, 2014.
CHANGES IN WARS CHARACTER Voelz 109Iraq and Afghanistan.53 In response, the Obama administration has reportedly moved towards increased use of personality strikes only unintended causalities. This process has been formalized by the creation of a disposition matrix, a dynamic, individualized targeting database consisting of biographies, locations, associations and operational pro 54 The administration has also suggested a policy preference for capture and prosecution of individual suspects, when feasible.55 In terms of military strategy, the individualization of warfare has also exposed an inherent tension between traditional military activities and law enforcement functions when todays targeting packages have more similarities with police arrest warrants than with conventional targeting folders of the Cold War-era. During the later phases of opera tions in Iraq and Afghanistan, high-value targeting increasingly involved and forensic science to produce probable-cause-like adjudications as the paradigm evolved into a police-like investigate, arrest, convict model of non-lethal targeting.56 Indeed, the current preference for such indi vidualized approaches will continue to obfuscate traditional concepts personalized targeting methods.Challenges for the FutureThe US response to threats from non-state actors has evolved into a new mode of warfare placing the individual combatant at the center of the analytical and operational challenge. The question remains as to whether this paradigm shift represents a transient diversion from the to land warfare and development of future capabilities and doctrine. Certainly the Armys natural inclination suggests a return to familiar ground of thinking about, and preparing for, conventional land force engagements. However, the catalysts of individualized warfare may not allow a full return to more traditional operating methods. The recent National Intelligence Council Global Trends report depicts a near-future security environment characterized by terrorism, subversion, sabotage, insurgency, and criminal activities; while others predict continuing out Ukraine.57 The commonality among these diverse scenarios is that they The Atlantic, August 19, 2013. Also, Lawfare Staff, Civilian Casualties & Collateral Damage, Lawfare http://www.lawfareblog.com/wiki/the-lawfare-wiki-document-library/targeted-killing/contro versy/. 54 Greg Miller, Plan for Hunting Terrorists Signals US Intends to Keep Adding Names to Kill Lists, Washington Post October 23, 2012. 56 Lamb and Munsing, Secret Weapon: High-Value Target Teams as an Organizational Innovation, 53. 57 US National Intelligence Council, Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds (Washington DC: US Director of National Intelligence, December 2012), 59.
110 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015are all likely to involve targeting against decentralized, individual com batants who use anonymity to operational advantage. However, current operations against the Islamic State may well prove a frustrating test case for the effectiveness of individualized targeting in phases of Operation Inherent Resolve reveal patterns closely resembling conventional approaches, with a clear majority of strikes focused on individuals and key leadership.58 Yet, even success in this effort may have a potential downside. As the military continues to identify and strike individuals from greater distances and with higher accuracy, it should be expected that adaptive adversaries will move towards locations (megaci ties) or modes of operation (cyber) where US targeting advantages are less asymmetric. of US techniques for waging individualized warfare, it is less certain these methods have been effective in achieving larger political objec tives. The perpetual regeneration of terrorist threats inside Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia offer little evidence these techniques have been fully successful as a centerpiece of counterterrorism strategy. Likewise, deteriorating conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan suggest limits as to what these approaches deliver to counterinsurgency efforts. The inher from the overall strategic outcomes they produce. As General H. R. McMaster, Director of the Armys Capabilities and Integration Center, has cautioned, targeting does not equal strategy.59 This area should one be of continuing research and professional debate. As President Obama recently observed during an address to 60 Indeed, this has been the case for an entire generation of soldiers socialized under this operational paradigm and now highly skilled in the art of waging individualized war. to foreheads has become a core military function. The challenge ahead over the last decade can evolve and mature as an integrated component of full-spectrum operations. The risk is that this expertise will be lost in a rush back to focus on conventional warfare, or marginalized as some exotic, niche function within a narrowing scope of strategic utility for American land forces. ible landpower concept enabling rapid transition along the operational 58 Kedar Pavgi, Five Months of Air Strikes in Iraq and Syria in Four Charts, Defense One, January 8, 2015, http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/01/5-months-air-strikes-iraq-and-syria-4-charts/ 102495/?oref=d_brief_nl. 59 Sydney J. Freedberg, Raiders, Advisors And The Wrong Lessons From Iraq, Breaking Defense, March 20, 2013, http://breakingdefense.com/2013/03/gen-mcmaster-raiders-advisors-andthe-wrong-lessons-from-iraq/. 60 President Barrack Obama at National Defense University, May 23, 2013.
CHANGES IN WARS CHARACTER Voelz 111individualized warfare in hybrid scenarios against non-state actors. To Recommendations decade continue to evolve even in the absence of a persistent opera tional targeting mission. The challenge of future hybrid scenarios, such as the situation in Ukraine, will be in detecting and exploiting nonstandard signatures and data sources (cyber, open source, social media, biometrics and forensics) and integrating them with conventional col lection streams in support of situational awareness and targeting. This task will require continuing advances in data processing and tools for analyzing large amounts of unstructured information with the ultimate goal of cross-domain integration, automated tipping and queuing, and improved network visualization. These represent enormous technical challenges that cannot wait for the next crisis. Second, continue efforts to empower soldiers down to the lowest level with real-time integrated data from national level sources. Current biometrics technologies represent one useful example where a squad leader on patrol can rapidly access national-level watchlist information and biographic data on a subject encountered during tactical ques tioning. Within the contemporary threat paradigm there is no clearly bounded battlespace; therefore, an individual of interest encountered in a combat zone may also have relevance to a customs agent at an inter a counterterrorism analyst at the CIA. Bureaucratic interests, technical sharing between such entities. Informational empowerment downward to the tactical level must be the ultimate goal so situational awareness is not limited to the operations center. Finally, continue to integrate concepts such as Identity Intelligence and Network Analysis fully into the doctrinal canon and operational usage. By all indications, various forms of hybrid or irregular warfare will persist in the near future. These scenarios are likely to include lethal and non-lethal targeting against networked entities operating in ungov erned spaces with weak identity regimes and adversaries determined to leverage anonymity for operational advantage. The techniques of individualized warfare and need for identity in particular, cannot afford to squander the hard lessons it has already learned about waging this kind of war.
ABSTRA CT : Widely available precision strike platforms, increasing weapons costs and systemic constraints on major war are altering speed and surprise to force decisions short of escalating into costly small, multi-domain forces, which will require a new approach to crisis management.Multiple US military services are experimenting with how to use smaller formations for missions ranging from crisis response futures war game run by the Army Capabilities Integration Center, featured units engaged in what the new operating concept refers to as joint combined arms maneuver in a megacity.1 Bold Alligator 2014, the annual multinational littoral warfare exercise, experimented with smaller amphibious assault formations operating from Joint High-Speed Vessels and dry cargo ships, as well as long-range raids using MV-22 Osprey.2 The force under examination was a composite, linking distributed units with Other nations are also beginning to experiment with smaller, multicombat team formations and smaller battalion tactical groups.3 Based on lessons learned from the near-war with Pakistan in 2001, and the ongoing challenge of balancing China, India is testing integrated battle groups and formations able to launch short-notice attacks beneath the threshold major theater war.4 The trend extends to armed proxies. As 1 David Vergun, Army Prepares for Dangers Lurking in Megacities, Army, August 28, 2014, http://www.army.mil/article/132817. 2 Lance M. Bacon, Bold Alligator 2014 Tests New Ways of Biting the Enemy, Navy Times November 1, 2014, http://archive.navytimes.com/article/20141101/NEWS/311010026/ Bold-Alligator-2014-tests-new-ways-biting-enemy. 3 Robert McDermott, Moscow Resurrects Battalion Tactical Groups, Eurasia Daily Monitor, November 6, 2012, http://www.jamestown.org/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=40071#. VMUBokY8Kc0. 4 Walter C. Ladwig III, A Cold Start for Hot Wars? The Indian Armys New Limited War Doctrine, International Security 32, no. 3 (Winter 2007/08): 158; the two and a half front war concept refers to China, Pakistan and terrorism, see: Nitin Gokhale, Indias Doctrinal Shift? The Indian Army Is Undertaking Its First Strategic Transformation In More Than Two Decades and It Has Its Sights Firmly on China, The Diplomat, January 25, 2011, http://thediplomat.com/2011/01/ indias-doctrinal-shift/?allpages=yes. CHANGES IN WARS CHARACTER Small Forces and Crisis ManagementBenjamin M. Jensen 2015 Benjamin M. Jensen Benjamin Jensen, PhD is an Assistant Professor at the Marine Corps University, Command and Staff College where he coor dinates the Advanced Studies Program. Dr. Jensen holds a dual appointment as a Scholar-in-Residence at the American University, School of International Service.
114 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015seen in Crimea in 2014, and in ongoing Iranian support to groups like Hezbollah, regional powers are arming their proxies with increasingly sophisticated weapon systems. Despite different core missions and mandates as well as exter nal threats, multiple security actors are clearly signaling preferences for smaller, modernized joint forces. What do these initiatives tell us about potential changes in the character of modern war? Are the cate a larger pattern? This article analyzes the trend towards smaller, multi-domain force capabilities in global and regional powers. It argues that the character of strike and associated command, control, communication, computer, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems combined As result, military thinkers appear to be developing new concepts and forces substituting speed and multiple domain maneuver for mass on 5 Multiple nations are planning to use smaller, modernized combat formations to signal their capabilities and gain advantage in a crisis, and if necessary, Character(s) of War?Analyzing emergent trends across armed forces is an old idea in military studies. Helmuth von Moltke the Elder (1800 1890) hypothesized the changing character of war was a function of how new material conditions, from railroads to telegraphs, changed the speed of mobiliza a change in the tactics of all branches based on the fact that . the tive effect of the case-shot of a six-pounder cannon.6 Despite their differences, Russian military theorists Marshal Aleksander A. Svechin (1878-1938) and Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky (1893-1937) believed the material conditions of the industrial age called for a departure with the Jominian conceptualization of ground maneuver prevalent since Napoleon.7 Major General J.F.C. Fuller, architect of Plan 1919, sought a science of war based on technology and mysticism.8 William McNeills seminal work, Pursuit of Power examined how material factors from tion, Stephen Peter Rosen, Winning the Next War: Innovation and the Modern Military (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), 19-20. The term is also used in Dima Adamsky, The Culture of Military Innovation: The Impact of Cultural Factors on the Revolution in Military Affairs in Russia, the US, and Israel (Pal Alto: Stanford University Press, 2010), 21, and Emily Goldman, Introduction: Military Diffusion and Transformation, in Emily Goldman and Thomas Mahnken, The Information Revolution in Military Affairs in Asia (New York: Palgrave Macmillian, 2004). 6 Bemerkungen vom 12. Juli 1858 ber Vernderungen in der Taktik infolge des verbesserten Infanteriegewehrs, in Militrische Werke Vol. II, Part 2, as it appears in Antulio J. Echevarria II, Moltke and the German Military Tradition: His Theories and Legacies, Parameters 26, no. 1 (Spring 1996): 91-99. 7 Jacob W. Kipp, The Origins of Soviet Operational Art, 1917-1936, in Michael D. Krause and R. Cody Phillips, Historical Perspectives of the Operational Art (Washington: Center of Military History, 2007). 8 J.F.C. Fuller, The Foundations of the Science of War (London: Hutchinson and Company, 1926).
CHANGES IN WARS CHARACTER Jensen 115technology to economic activity and the environment created different modes of warfare and a unique specialization of violence.9 After the Cold War, numerous scholars and practitioners sought Gordon Sullivan called, post-industrial warfare.10 Observing the com Robert Kaplan argued there was a breakdown in the old state order demics, urbanization, demographic shifts, and state failure.11 Former British Army General Sir Rupert Anthony Smith suggested modern war the people.12 In industrial war, the utility of force, to use General Smiths expression, was total. Accordingly, the theory of victory was the mass mobilization of society in order to defeat the armed forces of the enemy state conventional military force aligned with clear political objectives. The emergent paradigm after the Cold War was war amongst the people. Here the theory of victory shifted from mass armies seeking rival populations. Military force was not decisive. Rather, the utility of concept captured in current US Army doctrine.13The question becomes which forces of change coalesce to produce a paradigmatic shift in warfare. Borrowing from the Marxist concept of modes of production, Mary Kaldor hypothesized a new mode of warfare in which globalization internationalized intrastate identity con 14 Similar to Kaldors modes of warfare, William Lind and Thomas Hammes technological changes. Modern war was in the fourth generation, involv ing the use of all available networks (e.g., social, economic, political) to compel an adversary.15 As seen in Russian actions in Crimea in 2014, irregular warfare conducted through proxies.16 9 William H. McNeill, The Pursuit of Power (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1982). 11 Robert D. Kaplan, The Coming Anarchy: How Scarcity, Crime, Overpopulation, Tribalism, and Disease are Rapidly Destroying the Social Fabric of Our Planet, The Atlantic, February 1, 1994; Robert D. Kaplan, The Coming Anarchy: Shattering the Dreams of the Post-Cold War (New York: Vintage Press, 2001). 12 Rupert Smith, The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World (New York: Vintage Press, 2008). of the Army, ADRP 3-0 (Washington, DC: US Department of the Army, May 2014). 14 Mary Kaldor, Old and New Wars: Organized Violence in a Global World (Stanford University Press, 1999). For an overview of the new wars literature see Martin Shaw, The Contemporary Mode of Warfare? Mary Kaldors Theory of New Wars, Review of International Political Economy 7, no. 1 (Spring 2000): 171-180, and Mary Kaldor, In Defence of New Wars, Stability: International Journal of Security and Development 2, no. 1 (2013): 4. 15 T.X. Hammes, The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century (New York: Zenith Press, 2006), i. 16 The leading authority on hybrid warfare is Frank Hoffman. See Frank Hoffman and James N. Mattis, Future Warfare: The Rise of Hybrid Wars, Proceedings 132, no. 11 (November 2005): 1819. For an overview of the broader literature Hoffman spawned, see Timothy McCulloh and Richard Johnson, Hybrid Warfare (Tampa: Joint Special Operations University Press, 2013).
116 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015The Current CharacterFor emerging powers like China and India, there is a perception that professional formations.17 Since the late 1990s, Chinese military planners have developed a vision of local wars waged by elite forces that strike 18 Building on Jiang Zemins 2002 guidance rapidly and decisively under conditions of xinxihua or informationized warfare, each Chinese service laid out aggressive modernization plans.19 lating enemy vital forces and arms can no longer be achieved by simply adding numbers of forces, planes, tanks and artillery pieces.20 Major General Zhang Shiping, Deputy Director of War Theory and Strategic the transformation from mechanization to informationization... from a defensive pattern to an offensive pattern.21 Conceptually, some observ ers assessed the reforms as shifting the focus from wars of attrition to quick campaigns, from an emphasis on defensive operation to offensive operations, and from absorbing blows to operational preemption. Since 2004, Indian defense circles debated the extent to which the military should adopt a more offensive posture to deter Pakistan. Through the Cold Start doctrine, a war plan envisioning a series of joint strikes by integrated battle groups twenty kilometers into Pakistan, the Indian military hoped to create a more agile and precise instrument of war. Such an instrument would allow India to deter, and if necessary, attack Pakistan, as a reaction to, or to prevent, a Pakistani or Pakistani-backed limited attack on India.22 Indian planners believed a mix of diplomatic pressure and nuclear escalation increased the importance of smaller, high capability joint formations able to strike inside Pakistan on short notice.23 To back Cold Start and other offensive, limited war concepts, the Indian military embarked on a $100 billion, ten-year modernization program. The reforms also included upgrading the Pakistani air force referring to Russian actions in Crimea what Eastern European and Baltic scholars are calling new generation warfare. Perspective, China Quarterly 146 (June 1996): 445-448, 451-453; Nan Li, The PLAs Evolving Campaign Doctrine and Strategies, in James C. Mulvenon and Richard H. Yang, The Peoples Liberation Army in the Information Age (Santa Monica: RAND, 1999). For an overview, see Jacqueline Newmyer The Revolution in Military Affairs with Chinese Characteristics, Journal of Strategic Studies 33, no. 4 (2011). 19 Shi Daoxian, Analysis of Combat Styles In Informatized Warfare, China Military Science Journal 2 (August 2011). 20 Yang Yi, Gaojishu Tiaojianxia Zuozhan Fangshi, Fangfa Yanjiu Yu Sikao on the Styles and Methods of Operations Under High-Tech Conditions] (Beijing: Military Science Press, 1997), 7 as it appears in Nan Li, The PLAs Evolving Campaign Doctrine and Strategies, 152. 21 Zhang Shiping, Chinas Sea Power (China: Peoples Daily Press, 2009), 191. 22 Walter C. Ladwig III. A Cold Start for Hot Wars? The Indian Armys New Limited War Doctrine, International Security 32, no. 2 (2007); Ali Ahmed, The US Perspective on Cold Start, (December 2010); Sunil Dasgupta and Stephen P. Cohen, Is India Ending Its Strategic Restraint Doctrine? Washington Quarterly 34, no. 2 (2011). 23 Walter C. Ladwig III, A Cold Start for Hot Wars? The Indian Armys New Limited War Doctrine, International Security 32, no. 3 (Winter 2007/08): 158-190.
CHANGES IN WARS CHARACTER Jensen 117power in the words of Prime Minister Manmohan Singhfrom the Hormuz to the Malacca Straits.24 In the United States, Cold War-era interdiction campaigns and Soviet military theory are the historical foundations of the emerging preference for smaller, joint precision forces. Starting with experiments in Vietnam in the 1970s and later Assault Breaker experiments led by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the United States experimented with an integrated battle network of strike and C4ISR assets.25 This move led Soviet military thinkers to theorize about a reconnaissance strike complex that would give conventional muni tions the same effects as nuclear weapons. Between the 1990/1991 Gulf War and the air interdiction operation in Kosovo in 1999, the United States rapidly accelerated its use of different types of precision strike and ISR assets toward what Russian Major General Vladmir Slipchenko called sixth generation warfare.26 Today, this network enables mis sions ranging from global strike to distributed ISR operations.27 Yet, the states monopoly on precision strike proved short-lived. By 2006, even non-state actors like Hezbollah demonstrated the ability to engage an IDF Corvette with a Chinese-designed C-802 Anti-Ship Cruise Missile.28 China and Russia both maintain high-end precision strike capabilities and a supporting constellation of space-based ISR assets.29 Concerns over these near-peer capabilities animate Joint Staff interest in concepts and systems able to counter future anti-access/area denial threats to US power projection.30Furthermore, a greater number of states are using proxies armed with high-end capabilities to advance their interests. Although proxy warfare is an age-old practice, actors like Russia and Iran increasingly the proliferation of high-end capabilities allowing irregular groups in Eastern Ukraine to operate advanced surface-to-air missiles and, in the case of Hezbollah, launch anti-ship missiles. The use of irregular proxies for crisis brinkmanship is not limited to traditional weapons or combat alone. For Martin Libicki, capabilities from drones to cyber technologies enable a new form of non-obvious warfare that enables 24 Ashok K. Mehta, The Need for Long-Term Modernization Plan, Political and Defence Weekly 10, no. 2 (October 2010). For a discussion, see Walter Ladwig III, India and Military Power Projection: Will the Land of Gandhi Become a Conventional Great Power? Asian Survey 50, no. 6 (2010): 1162-1183. Amit Gupta, Indias Military Aviation Market, Strategic Studies Quarterly 3, no. 2 (2009); and R. K. Jasbir Singh, ed., Indian Defence Yearbook 2009 (Dehra Dun, India: Natraj Publishers, 2009). 25 Barry D. Watts, Six Decades of Guided Munitions and Battle Networks: Progress and Prospects (Wahington, DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, March 2007); Barry D. Watts, The Evolution of Precision Strike (Washinton, DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, August 2013); Thomas G. Mahnken, Weapons: The Growth & Spread of the Precision-Strike Regime, Daedalus, Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences (June 1, 2011). 26 Vladimir Slipchenko and Voina Budushchego. Moscow: Moskovskii Obshchestvennyi Nauchnyi Fond, 1999 as it appears in Jacob Kipp, Russian Sixth Generation Warfare and Recent Developments, Eurasia Daily Monitor 9, no. 17 (January 25, 2012). 27 Global strike and distributed ISR operations are part of USAF doctrine, see: https://doc trine.af.mil. 28 Randy Huis, Proliferation of Precision Strike: Issues for Congress (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, May 2012). 29 Ibid., 13-15. 30 US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Operational Access Concept (Washington: US Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2012)
118 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015states to conceal their involvement.31 With respect to Russia, NATO refers to a new strategy of ambiguous warfare leveraging covert action and cyber-attacks.32 Just as the costs of hitting a target decrease for most modern mili taries and their proxies, the price of force modernization is increasing. Compare the costs of the F-18 Super Hornet and the F-35C, the US Navys replacement. The unit cost of the older F/A-18 Super Hornet is $57 million compared to nearly $130 million for its replacement, the F-35C.33 As platforms become more expensive, states have to make hard choices about their investments. While new systems like the F-35 promise superior capabilities, the sheer cost per unit restricts the ability of even the United States, whose defense budget dwarfs that of most The costs of large, conventional forces are increasing. Yet, the fre quency of major theater war is decreasing. Most countries, especially in an interconnected world, are concerned about the negative consequences of international investors are war wary. Through diplomatic pressure and faces diminishing returns. In such a world, competition and militarized disputes do not go away. Rather, there are incentives for crisis brinkman ship and preparing for short wars waged by small joint combined arms teams or proxies. Toward a New Theory of VictoryAs seen in the previous examples, the proliferation of precision strike, increasing weapons costs and systemic constraints on major war alter how military actors approach operational art and prepare for future tions decreases, actors seek speed and surprise in an effort to achieve victory, that is, force a decision, short of escalating to costly major wars. Furthermore, there appears to be a growing appreciation for the utility emerged in early concepts for integrating rotary wing aviation into the Marine Air-Ground Task Force in the 1950s (e.g., single weapons system concept) and in theorizing Special Forces (i.e., relative superiority).34 A military can achieve the effect of a 3:1 ratio even against a numerically superior opponent by attacking along multiple domains and present ing a foe with multiple dilemmas, a concept captured in the idea of 31 Martin Libicki, The Specter of Non-Obvious Warfare, Strategic Studies Quarterly 6, no. 3 (Fall 2012). 32 Peter Apps, Ambiguous Warfare, Providing NATO with New Challenge, Reuters, August 21, 2014, http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/21/uk-nato-summit-idUKKBN0GL1KA20140821. 33 Costs for the F/A-18 Super Hornet obtained from F/A-18 Strike Fighter, United States Navy Fact File, Last Update: May 26, 2009, http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display. McGarry, Analyst: F-35C to Cost $337 Million Apiece in FY15, DOD Buzz July 30, 2014, http:// www.dodbuzz.com/2014/07/30/analyst-f-35c-to-cost-337-million-apiece-2/. 34 Terry C. Pierce, (London: Frank Cass, 2004), 80-83; and William F. McRaven, Spec Ops: Case Studies in Special Operations Warfare: Theory and Practice (New York: Presidio Press, 1996).
CHANGES IN WARS CHARACTER Jensen 119cross-domain synergy.35 This evolving set of assumptions produces a preference for speed and multi-domain maneuver. The new Army Operating Concept, Win in a Complex World calls for expeditionary maneuver and joint combined arms to present our enemies and adversaries with multiple dilemmas.36 The concept places a premium on operating across multiple domains and developing situational understanding through action while possessing the mobility to concentrate rapidly.37 The Chief of Staff of the Army is pushing for a professional force that is able to provide expeditionary, decisive land power tailored and scaled to perform missions.38 Through Regionally Aligned Forces (RAF) connected by a global landpower network, the Army will gain the situational awareness and access points to achieve a capability overmatch.39 As stated in the Army Operating Concept, to retain overmatch, the Joint Force will have to combine technologies and integrate efforts across multiple domains.40 As seen in the 94th Army Air and Missile Defense Command Task Force Talon deployment of regional exercises with the 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, setting the theater to achieve potential overmatch requires demonstrating the ability to re-posture capabilities.41The idea of using speed and multi-domain maneuver to destabi lize a numerically superior adversary is at the heart of Marine Corps doctrine.42 In the US Marine Corps, the new operating concept, Expeditionary Force 21 calls for smaller, special purpose Marine AirGround Task Forces operating from a mix of shipping and partner nations.43 These tailorable forces will be deployed forward and able to respond rapidly to evolving crises ranging from embassy evacuation, to arraying forces in theater to deter future aggression. The US Marine off, vertical land] Operations (DSO) concept that envisions employing landing zones and forward arming and refueling points with the intent 35 US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Capstone Concept for Joint Operations (Washington, DC: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2012). 36 US Army Training and Doctrine Command, The US Army Operating Concept: Win in a Complex World, TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1 (Fort Eustis: US Army Training and Doctrine Command, October 13, 2014), iii. 37 Ibid. 38 Raymond Odierno, The US Army: Trusted Professionals for the Nation, Army (October 2014): 23. 39 David G. Perkins, Army Operating Concept: Delivering the Future, Army (October 2014): 65. 40 US Army Training and Doctrine Command, The US Army Operating Concept: Win in a Complex World, 11. 41 Vincent K. Brooks, Rebalance and Beyond, Army (October 2014): 107-108. Of interest, additional watercraft and amphibious capabilities, see John Sullivan, Army Watercraft Critical to Joint Combined Arms Maneuver, ARCIC-HQ December 19, 2014, http://www.arcic.army.mil/ Articles/arcichq-Army-Watercraft-Critical-to-Joint-Combined-Arms-Maneuver.aspx. 42 US Marine Corps, MCDP 1 (Quantico: US Marine Corps, 1997). For a historical treatment of the emergence of maneuver warfare in the Marine Corps, see Pierce, Disruptive Technologies: Disguising Innovation, 85-103, and Terry Terriff, Innovate or Die: Organizational Culture and the Origins of Maneuver Warfare in the United States Marine Corps, Journal of Strategic Studies 29, no. 3 (2006). 43 US Marine Corps, Expeditionary Force 21 (Washington, DC: US Marine Corps, March 4, 2014), 2.
120 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015of complicating enemy targeting solutions.44 Course, the capstone exercise has second lieutenants launching airborne mission involves multi-domain coordination with simulated F-35s using Samsung tablets.45 Students in the Advanced Studies Program at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College synthesized these concepts as a new approach to distributed maritime operations that envisions a wider range of expeditionary operations including using land forces for sea denial and new shaping activities.46The US Air Force and Navy are also examining ways to use tai lorable strike packages with multi-domain overmatch potential. The Navy is exploring a new concept, distributed lethality that envisions dispersed formations of hunter-killer surface action groups.47 The architects envision these formations achieving better multi-domain inte gration with the Marine Corps in order to, provide persistent presence the right capability to the right target for the joint-force commander.48 called Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons, JAM-GC), including most recently, Valiant Shield 2014, a combined air, sea and cyber exercise involving land and carrier based aviation assets.49 Separately, the Air Force is conducting proof-of-concept exercises to test Rapid Raptor, deploying detachments of F-22s with all support personnel and material on C-17s to friendly air bases on short notice.50 capabilities for remote split operation (RSO) using remotely piloted aircraft (RPAs) in support of both Joint Special Forces Task Forces and conventional ground units.51 While many of these systems and ideas, including rapid deployment and airborne raids, are old, they are being envisioned at lower echelons and in new contexts. Other countries are also seeking fast, scalable multi-domain capa bilities. Since 2000, the Indian military has conducted exercises in the Arabian Sea integrating air, sea, and land task forces designed to block ade Pakistani ports and launch small amphibious operations.52 Similar 44 Marina Malenic, USMC Drafts Key F-35B Operational Concept, Janes 360 May 21, 2014, http://www.janes.com/article/38269/usmc-drafts-key-f-35b-operational-concept. 45 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., F-35s, V-22s, and Samsung Tablets: Junior Marines Pioneer New Tech, Tactics, Breaking Defense, May 21, 2014, http://breakingdefense.com/ 2014/05/f-35s-v-22s-and-samsung-tablets-junior-marines-pioneer-new-tech-tactics. 46 The papers are available on request. Contact email@example.com. For a discussion The Micro-MAGTF: Optimizing Distributed Amphibious Operations, Marine Corps Gazette 99, no. 1 (January 2015). 47 Thomas Rowden, Peter Gumataoto, and Peter Fanta, Distributed Lethality, Proceedings 14, no. 1 (January 2015). 48 Ibid. 49 Brok McCarthy, Valiant Shield 2014 Comes to Successful End, September 23, 2015, http://www.pacaf.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123425856. 50 USAF Airmen Evaluate Rapid Raptor Concept in Guam, Air Force Technology, December 5, 2014, http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsusaf-airmen-evaluate-rapid -raptor-concept-in-guam-4460735. 51 For an overview of USAF doctrine for reachback and distributed operations, see Curtis E. Lemay Center, Annex 3-30: Reachback and Distributed Operations, November 7, 2014, https:// 52 Vinod Anand, Evolution of a Joint Doctrine for Indian Armed Forces, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, http://www.idsa-india.org/an-jul-600.html.
CHANGES IN WARS CHARACTER Jensen 121joint exercises between the Indian Army and Air Force since 2004 have tested the ability to deploy integrated battle groups.53 During exercise Sudarshan Shakti in 2012, Indian forces leveraged UAVs and satellite precision targeting in support of a traditional integrated battle groups, consisting of a division minus with attached armor, artillery and aviation formations conducting short notice attacks against an adversary.54 In December 2013 exercise Shahbaz Ajay sought to validate new, scalable joint formations including integrating Indian Air Force operations with airborne and helicopter insertion.55Based on the conduct of the 2008 war with Georgia, Russia began an aggressive military modernization effort focusing on ready brigades as opposed to larger divisions that required time to mobilize.56 The concept focused on smaller ground forces as part of a larger Joint force (i.e., tri-service interconnectedness). To assess the progress of the reforms as early as 2009, the Russian military used the Zapad exercises to test new concepts and force readiness. Of interest, the overall direction of the reforms, similar to the Indians, is to use small, joint formations that can move on short notice and engage targets from multi-domains. In the Zapad 2013 exercise, Russian forces experimented with a wide array of UAVs for target acquisition and Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) in support of air and ground forces.57 In separate exercises held in Kemerovo Oblast in 2013, the Russians successfully propelled howitzers.58 Based on events in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014, the Russians are also exploring new approaches to irregular warfare backed by the threat of conventional and strategic escalation. Israeli Defense Force (IDF) doctrine calls for rapid counter-attacks leverage multi-arm coordination for quick attainment of war objec tives.59 After 2003, the IDF began exploring a small and smart Army to shock opponents.60 According to IDF Chief of Staff Benjamin Gantz, The time factor is critical, and the campaign must be shortened because the home front is paying a heavy price. The new operational outlook presents a swift transition to a state of war and the implementation of the shock and awe doctrine to achieve the campaigns goal within a few days.61 The concept envisions helping the IDF survive budget cuts while building on the assumption technological innovation will continue 53 Subhash Kapila, Indias New Cold Start War Doctrine Strategically Review, South Asia Analysis, Paper No. 991, May 4 2004, http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/paper991. 54 Nitin Gokhale, India Military Eyes Combined Threat, The Diplomat, January 17, 2012, http://thediplomat.com/2012/01/india-military-eyes-combined-threat. For an analysis of the es calation potential of these exercises and the evolution of Cold Start, see Ali Ahmed, Indias Doctrinal Puzzle: Limiting War in South Asia (New York: Routledge, 2014). 55 IHS Janes, India, Janes World Armies January 27, 2015. 56 For an overview as it relates to ground forces, see Rod Thorton, Military Modernization and the Russian Ground Forces (Carlisle, PA: US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, 2011). 57 IHS Janes, Exercise Overview: Russian Federation, Janes World Armies November 12, 2014. 58 Ibid. 59 Israel Defense Forces, Doctrine, http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/about/doctrine/de fault.html. 60 Alex Fishman, The IDF of the Next War: Army Chief Gantzs Bold and Revolutionary YNet News, November 7, 2013, http://www. ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4403710,00.html. 61 Ibid.
122 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015to favor increased lethality and precision. 62 As seen in the 2008 and 2014 during operations in Gaza, the IDF worked to integrate air and ground fed targeting.63 The IDF is at the forefront of developing mini-precision munitions that will enable dispersed ground and air elements to engage in multi-domain targeting in urban campaigns.64Large militaries are not the only ones developing these capabilities. Singapore is investing in what they refer to as a 3rd Generation Army construct capable of overmatching larger formations.65 The idea is a knowledge-based force that observes and orients faster than future adversaries can react, a vision similar to former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Admiral William Owens in the 1990s. 66 Since 2007, Nordic Battlegroup includes a Swedish infantry battalion designed to be reinforced with support resources such as engineering, logistics, antiaircraft, intelligence, transport helicopter, medical or mine clearance or special forces.67There appears to be an emerging character of modern conventional where diffusing precision strike-capabilities change the tempo of opera tions. Exercises, concept development, and procurement all point to a mode of warfare in which increasingly lethal, cheap technology as well as economic and diplomatic constraints on sustained, major theater war appears to be an assumption that speed is more important than mass and forces can achieve short-term overmatch through multi-domain maneuver. Implications for Crisis Management The diffusion of precision-strike systems combined with an assump threshold is altering the character of war. Multiple nations are planning to use smaller, modernized combat formations or hybrid proxies to signal their capabilities and gain advantages in a crisis, and if necessary, are likely consequences? 62 Ibid. tions in Gaza, see Benjamin S. Lambeth, Israels War in Gaza: A Paradigm of Effective Military Learning and Adaptation, International Security and missions, see Yaakov Katz, Israeli Forces Deliberate Fire-Support Roles and Missions, Janes International Defense Review, September 3, 2010. 64 On mini-precision munitions, see Robert Hewson, Small but Perfectly Formed: Mini Munitions Offer Precision Impact, Janes International Defense Review, August 14, 2009. 65 Speech by Senior Minister of State for Defence Mr Chan Chun Sing at the 3rd Generation Army Wide Area Communications System Commissioning Parade, May 10, 2013. 66 Neo Kim Hai, Towards a Knowledge Based SAF, Singapore Armed Forces http://www. 67 The EU Battlegroup Concept and the Nordic Battlegroup, Regeringskansliet May 5, 2014, http://www.government.se/sb/d/9133/a/82276.
CHANGES IN WARS CHARACTER Jensen 123There are two potential risks apparent in the emerging character of war that will require military and civilian decision makers alike to relearn the art of crisis management. First, as multiple countries optimize their forces and doctrine, they could produce a world prone to rapid escalation and miscalculation. One can imagine a scenario in which rapid deploy the adversarys C4ISR as seen in AirSea Battle.68 Yet, because precision 69 Such a situation could risk what Barry Posen calls inadvertent escalation.70 A world of small, optimized forces seeking advantage before tensions escalate could fuel a 21st century short war illusion. 71 Military planners could inadvertently box in political leaders to high-risk courses of action predi cated on lightning fast assaults that force an adversary to capitulate. Operational plans need to factor a broader range of instruments options Current joint doctrine moves from Phase 0 Shaping to Phase I Deter.72 Yet, coercion, as latent force, is more than deterrence.73 It employ minimal threats across multiple instruments of power to induce a change in behavior.74 In crisis management, one does not wait until to back down short of pulling the trigger. The goal, to use Sun Tzus reduces the incentives to rely on any single option, from military force to economic sanctions. Second, if what can be seen can be hit, and military actors are primed and developing future options. Every action in the transition from Phase 0 to Phase I should produce potential costs for adversaries and increase the range of response options open to national decision makers. Large forces are large risks and, hence, potentially introduce more costs 68 Jan van Tol, Mark Gunzinger, Andrew F. Krepinevich, and Jim Thomas, AirSea Battle: A Point of Departure Concept (Washington, DC: CSBA, 2010). Striking First: Preemptive and Preventive Attack in US National Security Policy (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2006). 70 Barry Posen, Inadvertent Escalation: Conventional War and Nuclear Risks (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991). 71 For example, see debates about the origins and purpose of the Schlieffen plan: Holger H. Herwig, Germany and the Short War Illusion: Toward a New Interpretation? Journal of Military History, 66, no. 3 (July 2002): 681-69, and Kier Lieber, The New History of World War I and What It Means for International Relations Theory, International Security 32, no. 2 (Fall 2007): 155-191. 72 US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Operation Planning (Washington, DC: US Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2011) discusses Flexible Response Options (FROs), but focuses the majority of the appendices on Flexible Deterrent Options (FDOs). 73 Thomas C. Schelling, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966). 74 In addition to Schelling, major studies on coercion include Daniel Byman and Matthew Waxman, The Dynamics of Coercion: American Foreign Policy and the Limits of Military Might (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Gordon A. Craig and Alexander L. George, Force and Statecraft: Diplomatic Problems in Our Time, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), Alexander L. George, ed., Avoiding War: Problems in Crisis Management (Boulder: Westview Press, 1991), Lawrence Freedman, ed., Strategic Coercion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), and Oran Young, The Politics of Force: Bargaining During International Crises (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968).
124 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015options as, with carriers, they change the focus from crisis response to protecting the proverbial capital ship. Future joint plans will need to look beyond traditional force demonstrations and uses of large forma tions like carriers and brigade combat teams to pressurize a crisis. These risks highlight the need for the defense community at large to become more imaginative in approaching coercive diplomacy. Small, joint expeditionary forces imposing potential costs on an adversary act to signal intentions, but they are only one signal amongst a larger array of instruments of power. The effects of coercion tend to be cumula tive. Therefore, new approaches to leveraging force demonstrations and other military signals alongside diplomatic and economic pressures become a strategic priority to advance national interests short of trigger ing increasingly dangerous limited wars. If a new theory of victory is emerging, then its core idea depends on credible signaling of the cascad
Adding to the Special Commentary in the Winter 2014-15 issue of Parameters (vol. 44, no. 4), Daniel Glickstein gives Daniel Bolgers Why We Lost an Incomplete grade.Why We Lost offers an inside account of the Afghan and Iraqi a broad, strategic discourse on the major policy goals of those wars. Chapters of the book characterize many of the prominent military and civilian personalities involved, but I hew here to General Bolgers strate gic commentary and would like to single out three key points for further scrutiny: the lack of a cohesive enemy in both Iraq and Afghanistan; how deeply the oscillation of American support and the broadcasted deadline for an American presence impacted the readiness of the Afghan Security Forces (ANSF), and the strategic calculus of our enemies; and, lastly, the importance of buy-in from local civilians and the cooperation of local security forces in forging an enduring stability.Know Thyself, Know Thy EnemyThe most vexing problem for tactical forces in Iraq and Afghanistan was identifying the enemy. As General Bolger noted, our technology and that they could slay their antagonists with impunity today, tonight, and usual, therein lay the rub. (426) With the exception of periodic Special Operations Forces raids and larger conventional operations (valley sweeps with blocking positions, etc.), the average day consisted of clearing routes of improvised explosive devices and meeting with local and ineffective hit-and-run ambushes. Usually, coalition forces could expect to escape unscathed, and in some instances even pick off a few victory make, especially against guerilla enemies. (428) Additionally, there was a failure to acknowledge the diversity of antagonists in each theater. Al Qaeda and the Taliban took center stage and presented the strongest threat to American soldiers. But organized groups such as the Haqqani Network and Hizb-i-Islami Gulbuddin, OF NOTE Reconsidering Daniel Glickstein Daniel Glickstein served in Afghanistans Laghman Province as a US Army National Guard soldier in 2011-2012.
126 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015 nationals interspersed into the Afghan and Iraqi mix as well. General Bolger states we were drawn into nasty local feuds, we took on too many diverse foes, sometimes confusing supporters with opponents and vice versa. (429-430) The counterinsurgency canon that came to the forefront by 2006 posited that providing services to the population and protecting them against the insurgents would win greater popular support and weaken the enemy. But troops already stretched too thinly could not guarantee 24/7 protection for civilians across each theater, and all the afore-mentioned foes had ample opportunity to threaten, coerce, or cajole varying levels of support. And appeals and strategies that might work to counter the Taliban proved completely ineffective against the violence of a farmer angry at events such as Robert Bales murder of Afghan civilians in 2012. Short-term CommitmentAnother major point raised by General Bolger is the irreparable damage stemming from the media-shaped erosion of long-term US commitment. By the late 2000s, the American publics tolerance for extended, bloody campaigns abroad as fading fast, and many politicians were echoing this sentiment. The antagonists in Iraq and Afghanistan, no strangers to using the internet and social media to study the enemy, were well aware of this shift in domestic US politics. Predictably, the insurgents were willing to bide their time, avoid risky and decisive engagements, and wait for the international coalition and American forces to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. The Coalition, and not the insurgents, fell into a sustainability trap. negatively impacted US service-members, too. While General Bolgers suggestion of a correlation between drug abuse and disciplinary issues amongst soldiers and the eroding US commitment may be exaggerated, his overall claim the president thoughtfully and deliberately condemned Americans in uniform to years of deadly, pointless counterinsurgency patrols sure to end in a wholesale pullout rings true. (374) Faced with improvised explosive device strikes with no real enemy in sight, and the inevitable conclusion the war would be over in another year or two, the strain from 2011 onwards was quite substantial for US service-members.All Security is LocalThe last critical point, and most vexing problem, is the matter of local support and security. Consider the notable successes of the past decade: Colonel McMasters stabilization of Tal Afar, Captain Travis Patriquins unconventional methods leading to the origins of the Sunni Awakening in Iraq, and the fruitful albeit short-lived deployment of Afghan Local Police. Although each case is unique and characterized by different methods, local buy-in and support were critical to each. A foreign military force can only affect so much change in a given country, and each decision casts secondand third-order effects of unknown magnitude. (David Kilcullen once offered the interesting analogy of considering what would happen if an Iraqi security force tried to come in and establish order in New York City.) Local national forces appear
OF NOTE Glickstein 127to constitute the only option with the ability to attain legitimacy, used along with the background knowledge needed to root out antagonists at the tactical level. empower these local forces to reach a suitable level of performance. made worse by trying to determine whether or not they are sympathetic to enemy combatants. In addition, the sectarian divisions in Iraq and and abetting local militias (Shia death squads in 2006-2007 Iraq, for example), and this nuanced problem deserves further attention.ConclusionGeneral Bolgers blunt talk in certain chapters must be taken in stride, and should not detract from his depiction of the past decade decisive, conventional strikes such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq is abso lutely correct. But this fact should not be pushed to an extreme where we abandon counterinsurgency yet again, and pray for better, more spark further debate on the factors contributing to the effectiveness of counterinsurgency but still require study. For me, the most critical issue was the process of choosing and training a local military and police force. Other soft skills such as with contractors and civil-military teams to establish public works and in these areas over time. However, the security-force training process was too often plagued by stop-go changes, insider attacks, corruption, desertion, and sectarian divisions. This is the area needing further illu mination. Train-and-equip programs remain preeminently a domain of the US Department of Defense and US Armed Forces. Given General Bolgers critical positions as an advisor to the Iraqi Army and later as the commanding general of NATOs training mission in Afghanistan, I had hoped to hear more about these problems, which arguably may determine more than any other whether the US can meet minimal and mined to be in the US national interest. Despite this shortcoming, Why We Lost lays the groundwork for analysts, civilian and military, to reex amine strategic tasks, derive lessons, and exhibit the moral courage to tell policy-makers their ends require far more time (and other resources)
This commentary is in response to BG(R) Huba Wass de Czege's article "Defeating the Islamic State: Commentary on a Core Strategy" and Paul Rexton Kan's article "Defeating the Islamic State: A Financial-Military Strategy" published in the Winter 2014-15 issue of Parameters (vol. 44, no. 4).Recent articles concerning the defeat of ISIS by BG(R) Huba journal Parameters seek to overturn Clausewitzs assertion that War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will. ( On War 75) The United States and its allies will not defeat ISIS through legitimacy-seeking-nation-building projectsfor which the West does not currently have the political will to execute over the long termnor campaign against it. Host-peoples may perceive the West as arrogant in assuming it can force the legitimacy of an Iraqi or Syrian government on them. It would also be disingenuous to claim population-centric counterinsurgency operations, such as the government in a box proposed by BG(R) Wass de Czege, is not nation building, as these operations seek to clear the enemy, hold key terrain (and population centers), and build national forces and government (including public infrastructure). This is literally a description of nation building. US conventional military power supported by the strongest allies avail able in the region, such as the Kurdish peshmerga The obvious solution strategic value to the United States or its allies. However, when that is not a possibility, the default option should not be population-centric counterinsurgency. There are a number of successful pre-1945 examples of counterinsurgency operations that have little to do with fostering military doctrine. This approach, which trumpets engagement as a and infrastructure projects, builds on a notion of counterinsurgency that Building legitimacy, as espoused in FM 3-24, is beyond the scope of have demonstrated, infrastructure projects and the imposition of Western rule of law on foreign peoples are fools errands. A former Army company commander in Iraq recently challenged my claim population-centric COIN had faileduntil I asked him what happened to the Iraqi governments legitimacy as soon as US troops left the area. On "Defeating the Islamic State"Jason W. WarrenMajor Jason Warren graduated from West Point and earned a PhD from Ohio State University. Serving in various positions from platoon through division, he has also deployed to Afghanistan and Sinai, Egypt. He recently taught military history at West Point, and now serves as Director of Concepts and Doctrine at the USAWC. He recently published Connecticut Unscathed: Victory in the Great Narragansett War.
130 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015A casual survey of the news in America reveals problems with cor ruption, and it is folly to think predominantly military forces with a sprinkling of interagency personnel can solve the intractable, centurieslong squabbles and injustices of other nations and peoples. History offers many examples of failed operations in this vein from Alexander the Great to the present. Decision-makers tend to lack historical insight, however, and have little knowledge of past events since 1945, let alone antiquity. Training a military force in local culture and history, as community police, and for civil engineering, is beyond the capabilities of all but elite US units. It should thus come as little surprise that legitimacy-building efforts have failed since 1960, and in fact proponents of population-centric COIN cannot point to a single modern success, which begs the obvious ques tion of why the United States continues to employ such methods. For example, John Nagls assertion in Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife that the British succeeded in employing population-centric COIN in Malaysia has been debunked as a one-off based less on counterinsurgency and more on the de facto segregation of the Chinese insurgents (who were thus already separated from the Malaysian population at large), as well as the geographic situation of Malaysia. Financial warfare and the use of law enforcement to confront adver saries like ISIS, are also only sideshows for the main event of armed sense, and the use of law enforcement to incarcerate Taliban and Al Victory is achievable through the employment of conventional forces accompanied by competent local allies, such as the Kurds. The destruction. Non-lethal counterinsurgency methods play a tangential role in this endeavor. As Peter Mansoor establishes in his book Surge conventional forces employed during that phase of the Iraq campaign, used more lethality than in previous operations there. In fact, the restive Iraqi provinces imploded into sectarianism, and ISIS conquests soon followed once US forces departed, indicating non-lethal legitimacy and engagement had failed. Special Operating Forces (SOF) and airpower (including drone strikes) play a tangential role in targeting ISIS leaders. Although SOF-Airpower will not win the war, it supports conventional ground operations. As recent events in Yemen reveal, without conventional forces protection and intelligence gathering, SOF cannot operate effectively. Examples of US conventional military power employed in the Philippines, numerous incursions into Latin America from the 19th20th centuries, and Connecticuts success in the Great Narragansett War (King Philips War), all demonstrate how conventional power with com petent local allies can defeat insurgents such as ISIS. Competent military power, less concerned with legitimacy, nation building, law enforcement, United States were to unleash it in the Levant today.
Paul Rexton KanI am not sure the diligent people at the US Department of Treasury would take kindly in having their efforts to combat ISIS labeled as sideshows. Be they Clausewitzian or not, their efforts to damage ISISs ability to operate and form a functioning state are in the best keeping of the American tradition of using all of our instruments of national power to defeat an enemy. There is little in my article suggesting a conventional military cam paign would be ineffectual against ISIS; nor is there any suggestion that COIN is the only option. In fact, winning hearts and minds may be more distracting than going after bank accounts and bottom lines. To imply my article recommends the United States and its partners arrest and incarcerate members of ISIS in Syria and Iraq is a facile interpre tation. As the recent Special Forces raid in Syria that killed Abu Sayyaf atteststhere was little need to Mirandize the purportedly central Warren suggest the information gained from the raid on the inner work been shelved in favor of some sort of conventional campaign? Is he recommending the US forego its current efforts to cripple the illicit Major Warren implies the strategic choices when employing an to COIN (or to nation-building) or preclude a conventional military approach. The choice is not a binary oneits not tanks or banks. A conventional military approach can also include a component of economic warfare waged against a proto-state like ISIS. The history of conventional wars is also the history of embargoes and sanctions that were part and parcel of a broader strategy to bring down an adversary. small set of examples Major Warren lists at the end of his commentary is a narrow approach for what is clearly a broader problem. Although history is not my discipline, I am fairly certain the enemies in those wars recruitment efforts to draw more foreigners into the fray, or to pay for expanding their franchise to countries in other continents. If, as Major Warren argues, Victory is achievable through the employment of conventional forces accompanied by competent local allies, such as the Kurds, then I am confused. I believe the US Air Force is a conventional force that has already been employed along with the Kurds against ISIS targets in the current campaign. The Iraqi mili tary and moderate Syrian rebels may not be competent local allies in the eyes of Major Warren; but, it is unfortunate that he should discard
132 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015his commentary is merely an argument for a larger role for conventional US ground forces in an expanded war across both Syria and Iraq. Should policy makers decide to accept such an escalation, the ensuing campaign successful ground operations against Husseins Iraq followed years of efforts hobbled Iraqs ability to replace military equipment and train its forces, contributing to coalition military operations against the increas ingly economically fragile nation. cial efforts in whatever types of wars the United States wagesCOIN or conventional or some mixtureagainst a foe like ISIS should not be removed from serious strategic discussions.
Should Mercy-Killings Be Allowed?" published in the Winter 2014-15 issue of Parameters (vol. 44, no. 4).Dr. David L. Perrys provocative article on the ethical viability present day with startling clarity. One of the real strengths of Perrys analysis is the selection of exemplary case studies that are not detached and abstract, but concrete and, most of all, recent. It would be very easy to dismiss this topic as obtuse moral musings, but Perry has not given us that option. Instead, he directly demonstrates this is an issue for our times. moment, a function for the adjudication of the military justice system. However, legality and ethicality are two different, if related, issues. The imposition of lenient sentences on well-intentioned soldiers convicted of current social mores, but that is still, sadly, a pretty weak solution. Perry himself appears to realize that, but he may have a point, in this case: It may well be the best conclusion ends up also being a pretty weak solution. Real life is like that, sadly. Most ethicists would agree dealing out death is wrongful when it ter minates an individuals potential to exercise agency. Clearly we can waive that standard when the individuals agency means the denial of agency to another person. Hence, we can argue in favor of self-defenseit is pre sumably okay to kill an individual who is trying to kill you. Euthanasia, however, might require a parallel rationale, that is, the individual killed has no agency left to exercise. That is the problem I think we face. Is an individual in pain truly competent to surrender his agency and beg for death? It may be he has a serious head injury. It may also be that he still kind of determination on behalf of another, who is writhing in pain, and whose judgment may be unreliable? If pain is at the heart of the issue, which is the better course of action: the application of moral judgments, or the application of morphine injections? Perry mentions the inestimable James Rachels in his article. facts straight. ( Elements of Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed., 17) Unfortunately, G. K. Cunningham Dr. G. K. Cunningham is Associate Provost at the US Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania. He also teaches elective courses on campaign planning and analysis, leadership studies, ethics and cultural relations, and military history.
134 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015 unbearable suffering, but we need to be sure the unbearableness of the David L. PerryI am very grateful to my friend, former colleague, and distinguished my article. I have no quarrel with most of the claims he makes, but a In the third paragraph Dr. Cunningham states, Most ethicists would agree dealing out death is wrongful when it terminates an indi viduals potential to exercise agency. He rightly notes an exceptional But even if we then focus on innocent persons, meaning not guilty of a capital crime and not posing a lethal threat to others (characteristics that also undergird the just-war principle of noncombatant immunity), some civilian requests for euthanasia (in the Netherlands, e.g.) are made by competent individuals who (reasonably) no longer value their contin ued life, or (reasonably) believe it portends little more than unbearable pain, suffering, dementia, indignity etc. I can not speak for most ethi cists, but certainly many prominent ones (including several noted on p. 121 of my article) believe honoring such requestsdesignated as vol clearly means killing an innocent, rational personwhen it terminates an individuals potential to exercise agency. (A similar argument can support physician-assisted suicide, when patients are still able to take lethal doses of medicine themselves.) So perhaps Dr. Cunningham would agree the really troubling cases of euthanasia that end someones ability to be agents/subjects of their own lives are ones where competent individuals are killed without the informed consent owed to them and against their stated wishesi.e., involuntary euthanasia. Dr. Cunningham goes on to note a different moral situation, when the individual killed has no agency left to exercise. In domestic set tings we might imagine individuals who used to be competent but now can no longer reason due to advanced dementia, or others whose mental disabilities never permitted them to be competent. If such individuals were also clearly suffering terribly, and nothing short of death or com plete unconsciousness would alleviate their misery, then unless they had previously (while competent) stated preferences to the contrary, perhaps nonvoluntary euthanasia might be regarded as merciful and right. I still
euthanasia. But I also agree with Dr. Cunningham that the prognosis for a soldier who has just received a serious brain injury can be too ambigu ous to warrant active euthanasia on the spot. As I noted on p. 133, The treat wounds and save lives as best they can, and use as much morphine as needed to alleviate suffering, even if the dose required might also suppress the victims breathing. I would now go further and say our troops ought to be able to expect those things, especially since I have euthanasia.
ON STRATEGY Strategy and Defence Planning: Meeting the Challenge of Uncertainty Perspectives on Strategy The Strategy Bridge: Theory for Practice Reviewed by Major Nathan K. Finney, US Army strategist currently on the Army Staff.F S. Gray. Currently wrapping up a career in academia at the University of Reading as the a professor in the Department of International Politics and Strategic Studies and the Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies, he also served as a defense advisor for both American and British governments, at one point serving on the Reagan Administrations General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament. These experiences, together with decades of research, led to over two-dozen books, multiple edited volumes, and innumerable journal articles. Among this vast body of work, the trilogy of The Strategy Bridge: Theory for Practice, Perspectives on Strategy, and Strategy and Defence Planning: Meeting the Challenge of Uncertainty will most shape this discipline and the education of practicing defense and strategic planners well into the future. While all three are complementary, The Bridge and Perspectives are the most similar. Much as his predecessor in strategic theory, Carl von Clausewitz, whose magnum opus On War was written to explain a general theory of war that could be used in educating practitioners, Gray uses these two tomes to delve into a general theory of strategy. The Bridge is the more comprehensive of the two, taking Clausewitzs theory and building upon it to describe the dicta and parameters necessary for practitioners to bridge tactics and policy to be good enough in the translation of force into political effect. Perspectives on the other hand, The Bridge The most important addi tions these two books provide to the theory and practice of strategy are to its inherently relative nature and the dialogue and negotiation that make up the development of any strategy (as well as the particular strategies that lead to actions on the ground). Strategy and Defence Planning: Meeting the Challenge of Uncertainty, the last book in the trilogy, builds upon Grays general theory of strategy including the incorporation of the relative and iterative nature of strat in planning for future security. As might be deduced from the expanded title, Defence Planning is in large part a discussion of uncertainty in this case, the uncertainty that plagues attempts to plan for the future defense of a polity. 240 pages $82.99 256 pages $89.99 328 pages $88.99
138 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015Three core elements of Grays discussion on defense planning are: the impossibility of overcoming all uncertainty about the future when shaping the people, processes, and technologies for defense of a nation; by the political and bureaucratic preferences of those involved; and, also like war and strategy, it is an exercise in relativity one need only be good enough (better than the adversary) to be successful. Of par ticular interest to current efforts at shaping the Department of Defense in our current environment is Grays dichotomy stemming from the political nature of defense planning. This dichotomy details the fact that defense planning can only be tested when employed to achieve political effect and must have both an internal and an external consistency; all measures at planning for the future must meet todays domestic politics and bureaucratic preferences (internal) and be successful when employed against an adversary (external). historical understanding to defense planning because this is the only source available to ascertain patterns of behavior accurately that could be drive human choices in the future: The choice of historical experience as the essential fuel for a toler ably prudent theory of defence planning is not exactly a heroic one. The reason is that there is literally no alternative to education in history for the preparation of contemporary defence planners. ( Strategy and Defence Planning 38) Such a focused treatment of the place of history in a defense planner or strategists intellectual tool kit makes one wonder whether it should play a larger role in the education of military and civilian leaders, whether before service or during their career progression. The ability to pick up a book on history belongs to any literate individual the capability to read history holistically, ascertain trends, and determine patterns useful in planning for future defense scenarios is something requiring focused education over time. Overall, Defence Planning is an admirable addition to the theory of strategy Gray developed in his previous two books. I recommend mili tary and civilian leaders interested in or likely to be involved in the development of strategy or the preparations for the future defense of a polity read this remarkable trilogy, as well as study it over the course of their careers. Each book will provide different insights and cogni tive tools necessary to hold together the bridge spanning the policy and tactics that make up strategy development and defense planning. These books should join works like On War the Art of War and the History of the Peloponnesian War as mandatory canon internalized by the military leaders and practitioners likely to participate in the development of strategy.
139Restraint: A New Foundation for US Grand Strategy Grand strategy is an often controversial term in the vocabulary of United States foreign policy. Competing visions of the US role in global affairs lead to watered-down policy pronouncements which must be evaluated in hindsight by their manner of implementation for a clear interpretation. In his latest book, Restraint: A New Foundation for US Grand Strategy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Barry Posen activist behavior which he dubs a grand strategy of Liberal Hegemony. This strategy, he argues, has been wasteful and counterproductive in securing US national security interests, and he offers a competing vision ments against Liberal Hegemony compelling, his grand strategy of Restraint will be divisive on a number of levels. terms and developing his arguments. He scopes his use of the term grand strategy along national security lines related to the generation of military power, avoiding potential pitfalls of debate over issues such strategy of securing the superpower position of the United States largely through the active promotion of democracy, free markets, and Western values worldwide. Variations of this strategy have been championed on both sides of the political aisle by liberals and neoconservatives. His counterproposal, Restraint is a realist-based grand strategy which focuses US military power on a narrow set of objectives, relies on command of the commons to ensure global access, avoids entanglement in foreign Posen advances a largely maritime-focused strategy to command the worlds commons. Liberal hegemony is a strategy based upon a worldview that sees accountable governments as safe and secure partners for perpetuating the American way of life and non-accountable or non-existent governance a leading role for the United States in establishing and defending this order. It is this role which Posen believes to be ill-conceived and poorly mitment of US forces worldwide. Posen views the current network of US alliances and security guarantees as largely a Cold War relic, allowing countries such as Germany, Japan, France, the Republic of Korea and even some of the Middle Eastern oil suppliers a free ride on the US taxpayer. He also believes that some of these commitments have encour aged reckless behavior, with Iraq and Israel as particular examples. Posen states that, since the end of the Cold War, policymakers have consistently exaggerated the threats to US interests in various regions of the world, 256 pages $29.95
140 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015 argues that most US allies could (and would) manage their own security if forced to do so and they would naturally balance against threats to regional stability and the emergence of aspiring hegemons. Also, impor tantly, Posen bases his arguments on the assumption that great powers (current and emerging) will maintain a nuclear deterrence capability and this will largely reduce the likelihood of great power wars. The grand strategy of liberal hegemony, in the form described by Posen, would likely have fewer supporters today than any time since the early 1990s. There is no doubt the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, com bined with the larger Global War on Terror, have been tremendously dubious. As of this writing, the Iraqi government faces mortal danger from extremist groups. Democracy in Afghanistan is a tenuous prospect at best. Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, the recently departed director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, was quoted in recent statements as saying that even after more than 13 years of war the US is not safer and extremist ideology is exponentially growing. There is little argument that business as usual is no longer an option in US national defense. While the status quo would seem to require a change, the level of disengagement recommended by Posen could be problematic in ways his book fails to explore. The network of alliances and security guarantees maintained by the United States does more than simply abet stability be rather opinionated as to the conduct of world affairs. While rarely stated explicitly, security assistance in its various forms is one of the processes of other nations. A prominent example is Congress linking of security assistance for Pakistan in 2011 to a concrete set of performance objectives. It is also true that countries hosting US bases or deployments as well. Unfortunately, balancing power is a dangerous game which does not always lead to stability. Posen argues, for instance, the US should remove ground forces from Japan and the Republic of Korea, believing the South Koreans are more than a match for the North Koreans and both Japan and the ROK will balance against China once they have to. But what if the Japanese and the Koreans assess the threat differently than the United States? What if one nation attempts to buck pass its security preparations to another and holds out too long? Stalin did this before World War II, expecting France to bear the cost of balancing against Germany. When France fell, the stage was set for Hitlers inva sion of Russia. Balancing can also have unintended consequences. Posen states, Restraint aims to energize other advanced industrial states into improving their own capabilities to defend themselves (162) But the capability to defend generally implies a capability to attack as well. Japans balancing against China would almost certainly arouse insecurities on the Korean peninsula, among other places. Nationalist tendencies in either location US can no longer afford to be the guarantor, but abandoning this role
141will relinquish a measure of control the United States maintains over its international environment. The United States will always maintain some responsibility to assist its allies and could be drawn into regional Posens vision for command of the commons means the United States would dominate the air, sea, and space. His treatment of space is brief and largely sound, but he underestimates the contested nature of this arena. Air forces are treated as essential but could be right-sized to coincide with a reduction of ground forces. The thrust of Posens argument is the United States should support its grand strategy of Restraint size and priority of ground forces. In his view, the balance of power and nuclear deterrence will reduce the likelihood of great power war, and a need for massive counterinsurgency operations and render the current force structure irrelevant. Oddly, Posen argues for a reduction in naval forces as well, going so far as to assess the number of aircraft carriers reconstitute the reduced forces if necessary, but should save its money in the meantime. Regardless of the readers views on the grand strategy of Restraint articulated grand strategy and demonstrates the pitfalls the United States has faced in navigating national security policy without this level counterinsurgency operations is strong. The grand strategy he proposes is problematic for a variety of reasons, largely for the optimism of its assumptions and its required alignment of forces. However, this work provides a starting point for debate and a structure from which various alternatives might be built and assessed. Posen is right that something needs to be done differently.
142 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015 MEMOIRS/BIOGRAPHY Knife Fights: A Memoir of Modern War in Theory and Practice What is it about colonels named John with revolutionary ideas about how to conduct warfare and an inability to function effectively within the existing military system? For the US Air Force, it was John Warden and, to a lesser extent, John Boyd, who invented entirely new concepts for aerial warfare, but who could never get out of their own way enough to maximize the effect of their ideas. For the US Army, Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl played the same role, and it is evident in his recent memoir, Knife Fights that he has only partially internalized the Point graduate, Rhodes Scholar, and recipient of a PhD from Oxford University, Nagl quickly developed a reputation as a brilliant defense intellectual and he is accustomed to being the smartest person in the matter expertise, and his ego gets the better of him throughout this work. Nagl was integral to the development of the US Armys 21st-century understanding of how to conduct counterinsurgency warfare, and his Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife and Iraq. His memoir offers a tremendous opportunity for insight into the development of FM 3-24: Counterinsurgency, the key doctrine manual far too much of his memoir is dedicated to settling old scores and taking unnecessary cheap shots at people who helped him at every stage in his career. While some degree of criticism for senior leaders decisions is certainly warranted, this reviewer found Nagls decision to deliberately comes across as arrogant, demeaning, and peevish, completely unbecom Sledges With the Old Breed for an object lesson in how to criticize fellow service membersthe insiders who served with Sledge could certainly identify the cowards and the villains in his work, but outsiders could not do so with any certainty. After detailing his service in the Persian Gulf War, Nagl explains his intellectual development at West Point, Oxford, and the Command and General Staff College. None of those august institutions, nor their faculty, met Nagls high standards, suggesting his theme for the work ing his dissertation at Oxford, Nagl was appalled to have it rejected at presses he considered worthy of his efforts, and he makes no friends in the publishing community with his vicious attacks upon Praeger, the press that eventually published his work. Even a chapter break does not halt the assault on Praeger, who Nagl blamed for poor book sales, even Press, 2014 269 pages $27.95
143Chapter 3 is by far the best in the workit is a thoughtful memoir of his deployment in 2003-2004 to Al Anbar province, just as the region descended into complete anarchy. There, Nagl discovered the fundamental differences between theory and practice. The chapter is exceptionally well-written, balanced, and offers a solid critique of his experiences, both positive and negative, in the Iraqi desert. Sadly, it is though NCOs and enlisted personnel bore the brunt of the casualties under his command, there is little evidence Nagl knew much about In Chapter 4, Nagl turns his attention to the genesis of FM 3-24 discussion. He goes to great lengths to inform the reader that Conrad Crane was the second choice to lead the writing effort, although to Nagls credit, he eventually admits that Crane, a self-effacing academic if ever there was one, was the better choice for the role. Additional insults are lobbed at senior civilian and military leaders, including some who tale of essentially selling out his co-author, Paul Yingling, for the sake of his own promotion opportunities, a move that paid no dividends. Perhaps that is why he passionately attacks the promotion systems failure to elevate his choice of leaders, while at the same time dem onstrating how often the process was circumvented by aspirants with powerful benefactors. By Chapter 6, Nagls story has worn thinhe presents himself as one of the central architects of the strategy applied in Iraq in 2006, and yet, David Petraeus elected to leave Nagl commanding a training battalion in Kansas rather than bring him into the inner circle as he summary of events in Iraq and Afghanistan, but probably should have focused instead upon his own role and how his unit performed in its train the trainers mission. It is clear Nagl offered a verbal summary of course, it is not so obvious what else was accomplished by his unit. Chapter 8 stands out as Nagls chance to offer advice on how the military should conduct its affairs in the future, and is another shining example of what happens when he turns his formidable intellect upon a challenging problem. He comes to many of the same conclusions as have other prominent defense analysts, namely, US conventional dominance and nuclear deterrence make irregular warfare the only viable option key works an interested reader should consult for more information, as the extremely truncated bibliography hits a few of the obvious highlights, but barely scratches the surface of good works currently available. Overall, this memoir has some unique insights, particularly regard ing the need for, creation of, and resistance to a new counterinsurgency doctrine. Unfortunately, the authors often-cutting style, relentless selfwork. Nagls perspective is reminiscent of Cassandra of Greek mythol ogyan oracle with unfailing accuracy, but doomed to be disbelieved
144 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015by all who heard her prophecies. Perhaps Cassandra, and John Nagl, would have won over more believers had they been able to present their predictions in a less caustic fashion. This book is a worthy addition to the shelf for any consumer of war memoirs, any student of military doctrine, or a scholar interested in the development of modern counter much like the war in Iraq, it could have been so much more successful with a better execution of a well thought-out plan.The Strategist: Brent Scowcroft and the Call of National Security F Brent Scowcroft. Some luminaries burned more brightly Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski come to mind but their time in the spotlight was shorter. Scowcroft was a senior policy maker in both the Washington policy circles between and after his stints in the White House. And he was there for some of the most seminal events in American Cold War. As Bartholomew Sparrow puts in The Strategist his massive has consistently had such a profound impact on the national security policy of the United States. For many in Washington, Brent Scowcroft is a pillar of the foreign policy community and a global strategist par excellence. (xii) Capturing a career of this magnitude is an ambitious undertak ing so Sparrows book includes well over 500 pages of primary text. It draws deeply from both secondary and primary material includ Scowcroft himself and dozens of his colleagues and associates, many of them central architects of American security policy. Sparrows admiration for Scowcroft is evident on every page. At times it tips so far toward imbalance that it detracts from the power of the book: the author consistently gave Scowcroft credit for everything that worked out well and absolves him of responsibility for what might seem to be missteps. For instance, when recounting components of the Bush policy that were less than successful or outright failures such as Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Scowcroft recedes into the background. On successful endeavors such as the Bush administrations response to Iraqs invasion of Kuwait in 1990, he moves to the fore as when Sparrow argues that Scowcroft Almost single handedlydetermined what the United States response to the invasion of Kuwait was going to be (385). Still, there is much to be drawn from this impressive book. Two questions are particularly important. Sparrow places great stress on the idea that Scowcroft is the model of a national security adviser, combin ing a detailed grasp of complex issues with realism, pragmatism and a willingness to work behind the scenes rather than hogging the limelight. 752 pages $34.99
145Sparrow notes George H.W. Bush described Scowcroft as the perfect national security advisor. Hes an honest broker, yet has strong opinions out of public view, Sparrow wrote, Somewhat wary of Congress, skeptical of the media, and uncertain about the wisdom of the public, he believes in a security policy made by mandarins a hierarchical approach (559) If this is accurate, the question is how the United States can rou Powell, who had some of the same attributes, came out of the military. Is the answer that the National Security Adviser should routinely come from the senior ranks of the military? That has some appeal but also profound implications for civil military relations. As illustrated by the tenure of retired Marine General James L. Jones as Barrack Obamas national security adviser shows, success in uniform does not always translate into success at the National Security Council. A second important question and one Sparrow addresses more directly is whether Scowcrofts brand of pragmatic realism is still as relevant today as it was during the Cold War. During Scowcrofts time sible to craft a working consensus among Americans and their elected leaders that allowed things to get done. Todays security system is very different. Violent transnational networks, both ideological and criminal, may not have fully surpassed other nations as security threats, but they are at least co-equal. Domestically, the Cold War idea that partisanship should at least be muted in national security policy has collapsed. Instead, there is hyperpartisanship driven by a new form of populism created by the Internet, 24 hour news, and talk radio. This new populism has now spilled over into relations between the Executive Branch and Congress, making national security policy simply one more battleground for par like Scowcroft, who deliberately kept a distance from partisan squabbles, could be effective in this complex, dangerous new political climate. It years of the Cold War but not a model for the future. In any case, Sparrows magisterial book provides an invaluable picture of an important era in US national security policy and lays a foundation for talking about Americas future even if it does not attempt to provide a roadmap for it.
146 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015 ASIA Asias Cauldron: The South China Sea and the End of a Stable The South China Sea has rocketed into the headlines in recent years spawning a cottage industry of instant experts proffering alarmist commentary and provocatively titled volumes. Tensions in maritime Southeast Asia have been on a slow boil since at least 2010, but whether the South China Sea merits the label of Asias cauldron is debatable. Kaplan is prone to hyperbole, but he has done his homework and is no neophyte when it comes to the Asian littoral (he is also the author of Monsoon a geostrategic examination of the Indian Ocean published in 2010). Kaplan is right on target when he underscores the importance of the South China Sea to the wider region describing it as central to Asia as the Mediterranean is to Europe. (49) Using colorful anatomical terminology he describes this body of water as the throat connect certainly a major maritime thoroughfare crisscrossed by a spiders web of sea lanes. But is it accurate for Kaplan to identify this semi-enclosed sea as a principal node of global power politics? (49) If global power politics is used as a synonym for geostrategic competition between the United States and China, then the answer is yes. However, many in the United States and elsewhere insist the ten sions in the South China Sea are not about power politics; rather (for many in Washington and other capitals), what is under threat is the sacrosanct principle of freedom of navigation. Arguably, the real issue is which great power or set of powers will guarantee this principle now and for the foreseeable future, and whose interpretation of freedom of navigation will be observed in this body of water. But for many in China the issue is Beijings territorial claims over many islands, reefs, atolls and associated waters in the South China Sea. These claims tend to be made on the basis of a purported historical record of Chinese presence and activity in the area as well as Chinas interpretations of international law. And many Chinese view highminded US rhetoric about the sanctity of freedom of navigation as a ruse to justify continued geostrategic meddling and invasive military activity in Beijings maritime backyard. The author suggests Chinas approach to the South China Sea is akin to Americas Monroe Doctrine in the Caribbean Basin. (13) However, as Kaplan observes, this parallel has its limits. An important difference is Washington never made territorial claims to all the islands and waters of the Caribbean; rather, the United muscularly asserted itself in this region over the years, but rather the United States never asserted sovereignty on the basis of historical claims. House, 2014 225 pages $25.00
147 world. While Asias Cauldron book does not add much beyond what has already been written about the South China Sea itself, Kaplans astute broader geostrategic analysis is well worth the price of admis sion. Discussion of this body of water becomes a launching pad to raise larger, uncomfortable questions about the future trajectory of US-China The strategy of other claimants to the land formations and associ ated waters to counter Chinese pressure tactics is to push the United States to remain engaged in Southeast Asia while avoiding an escala capitals of the region to choose Beijing or Washington. Understanding how these other claimants and interested parties play is important and Kaplan does make efforts in this regard. Unfortunately, too much of the book six of its eight chapters is crammed with perceptive but peripheral geopolitical travelogue of the states surrounding the South China Sea. Much of this discussion successive chapters on Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Taiwan, and China does little to illuminate the roles each of these actors play in the South China Sea slow boil drama. These shortcomings aside, Asias Cauldron is recommended reading the world. The Indian Ocean and US Grand Strategy: Ensuring Access and Promoting Security The history of Americas relationship to the worlds oceans and seas began with the crossing of the Atlantic Ocean. American interest spread following independence to the Mediterranean Sea when North African pirates tested the young republic. The growth of the China American horizons yet again, but the Indian Ocean did not assume a similar level of importance to the United States as these others until long after World War II. It caught strategists attention only belatedly Middle Eastern oil and in reaction to Soviet advances in those waters. According to Peter Dombrowski and Andrew C. Winner in The Indian Ocean and US Grand Strategy it is time that negligent attitude toward this important body of water and its surrounding nations changed. This book explores the same general territory mapped out by Robert D. Kaplans Monsoon in 2010. Kaplan wrote; It is my contention that the Greater Indian Ocean, stretching eastward from the Horn of Africa past the Arabian Peninsula, the Iranian plateau, and the Indian Subcontinent, all the way to the Indonesian archipelago and beyond, may comprise a map as iconic to the new century as Europe was to the last one. (xi) Press, 2014 232 pages $49.95
148 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015The formerly slighted Indian Ocean is, in Kaplans view, on the verge of becoming a new international strategic locus for the United States. This prediction and the concomitant requirement to make prudent national strategic preparations for the consequences that would follow from its realization provide the thematic framework for the collection of essays that make up The Indian Ocean and US Grand Strategy. Editors Dombrowski and Winner argue in their introduction that the rise of the Indian Ocean as a trade route and potential battleground elicits questions about whether, and how, American policymakers should adjust their previously limited approach to the region. (2) The required information for this reassessment according to the editors includes: 1) a determination of US interests in the region; 2) a grasp of the geopolitical characteristics of the region and their dynamics; and 3) the development of mechanisms by which the interests of the US can be furthered. the status quo. In light of recent events, perhaps the most compelling of those discussed is that allies and partners in the region may per ceive the status quo or a slight decline in US defense activities...due to the Afghanistan and Iraq drawdown as Washington pulling back more broadly. This may result in more aggressive behavior on the part of adversaries (11) (If the chaos there is evidence, this last prediction seems to have been realized in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq and may suggest the Obama administrations proposed Asian pivot as a potential step in the right direction, but they also point out that it does not include a their concluding chapter, offering the beginnings of an analytic frame work for evaluating the contending strategic approaches offered by the authors of the other essays. Their unsurprising conclusion is the United The editors introductory and concluding chapters bookend essays by eight other scholars offering varying assessments of the need for American engagement and the methods through which Americas geo political future in the region ought to be pursued. The second through seventh of the essays examine various strategic options, and essays eight and nine track the possible paths of evolution of recent policies into the future. All of the authors are either scholars or foreign service pro fessionals with backgrounds in strategy, political science, or Asian or Strategic speculation like that contained in The Indian Ocean and US Grand Strategy often makes for interesting reading assuming one can decipher the sometimes dense prose. However, the likelihood of any of the suggested Indian Ocean strategies receiving a serious trial in the near future seems small as long as other concerns continue to take center stage. For example, future China policy will undoubtedly include an Indian Ocean component, but of more immediate interest is Chinas advancing Great Wall of Sand as some are calling Chinas island hopping and building program in disputed South China Sea waters, and allies. Chinese encroachments there will not wane soon and will capture much of Americas limited resources before they can reach the Indian Ocean.
149If some of those resources do pass through into the Indian Ocean, it will almost certainly be en route to the Middle East. There they will continue to go so long as the Middle East where it could be argued the United States has long had and is now watching the decline of the sort of regional policy these authors advocate for the Indian Ocean continues in its currently chaotic state. Perhaps that crumbling structure, which might be thought of as a policy under real-world review, ought to be repaired before moving on to other regions. exploration always has value, even though it may not be realized until long afterward. At present, however budget pressures may keep the real ization of an Indian Ocean regional strategy consigned to the academic seminar for room.The Hundred-Year Marathon: Chinas Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower Author Michael Pillsburys book The Hundred-Year Marathon, which is about Chinas quest to become the worlds primary superpower by 2049 (the 100th anniversary of the Communist Party of China), contains three key elements. First, this book is unique in that, with regard to Chinas geopolitical strategy, it attempts to weave two important elements of Chinese historical and cultural thought, namely the use of stratagems and the concept of shi (how to attain a strategic advantage over an opponent), throughout the entire narrative. Pillsbury relies extensively on writings and strategic lessons learned from the Warring States period, stating, I learned that the Warring States mind-set has long been dominant among Chinas leaders. Pillsbury stresses that hawks have persuaded the Chinese leadership to view America as a dangerous hegemon that it must replace. Other works on Chinese strategy typically move away from this emphasis, making the analysis feel less Chinese and more Western. Second, Pillsbury offers readers several insights regarding his per sonal history that indicate the extensive depth of his knowledge and why his book has to be taken seriously. His information comes from his shi concept was mentioned often, he writes), personal interviews among a host of primary sources in China (to include former leader Deng Xiaoping), and access to Chinese defec tors. His ability to read and speak Mandarin, access to such sources, and his work with the Central Intelligence Agency, and his role as a policy advisor were also important. Third, Pillsburys book, perhaps unintentionally, may long serve as a primer for aspiring Chinese analysts. He offers educators several areas where they should direct their attention. For example, he lists the nine principal elements of Chinese strategy that form the basis of the Hundred-Year Marathon and in the conclusion of the book he lists con cepts the United States can adopt from Chinas Warring States era to 336 pages $30.00
150 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015offset or counter Chinas strategic aims. Further, to insure analysts are not taken in by Chinese claims the United States is nothing more than a global hegemon or a great Satan, he explains in some detail how much assistance America has provided China over the years, in economic, diplomatic, and military terms. In spite of these extensive friendly gestures on the part of the United States, China looks at US assistance (through its prism of skepticism and suspicion) as part of an overall stratagem against China. It continues to harbor concerns the United States is out to humiliate China. Perhaps this is merely a case of how China has learned to view the world through the Warring States template, where power politics, intrigue, deception, and open warfare existed side by side. Or perhaps this is simply the case with autocratic regimes, as we often hear the same claims of humiliation from Russias current leadership, even though they have been offered extensive assistance through the years. The assistance was clearly not intentioned to exert dominance over Russia, rather, it helped Russia get back on its feet. The United States simply does not have the desire, budget, forces, or strategy to dominate strategic giants such as Russia and China. The book has a few shortcomings. For example, it would have been informative for Pillsbury to access and report on the context of some of the Peoples Liberation Armys more recent strategic works beyond the Science of Military Strategy (2001). It is important to know if Pillsburys continued references to the Warring States period are still in vogue. Or are we seeing more creative input in concert with President Xi Jinpings China Dream? When Pillsbury asks whether we are continuing to unwittingly assist in the challengers ascendance, important responses are required from the perspective of strategy. Analysts, independent of their level of experience, should carefully weigh the lessons Pillsbury has learned. The responses of a new generation of strategists to such questions as whether we are assisting the Chinese will shape our future meaningful engagement with China. Books like Pillsburys will be important to their assessment processes.Asian Maritime Strategies: Navigating Troubled Waters as a foreign This book is a primer on the strategically vital, internationally complicated, and potentially explosive region running from the Yellow Sea through the Straits of Malacca to the western Indian Ocean. The study moves on known headings, with few discoveries, as it seeks to help those unfamiliar with these turbulent waters. The author, Bernard D. Cole, is a retired Navy captain who was skipper of a frigate and commodore of a destroyer squadron. As an academic, he earned a PhD in history from Auburn University, has spe cialized in Asian naval issues, and teaches at the National War College in Washington DC. Institute Press, 2013 320 pages $34.95
151Early on, the author points to the essentially maritime character of the region, then bit by bit acknowledges the basically continental orientation of Asian nations throughout history. Today, he writes: Few Asian nations have coherent maritime strategies or ocean policies that name an Asian counterpart, and neither Sun Tzu nor other classical Chinese strategists have much to say about seapower. Indeed, from 1498 when the Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama landed in India, Asian nations were notable for their lack of naval power to fend off European, Russian, and American seaborne incursions. By nations: Japan, Thailand, and Nepal. Two exceptions to this absence of seapower: A Chinese admiral, Zheng He (sometimes written Cheng Ho), led several exploratory voyages through the South China Sea and across the Indian Ocean in interest after that. Japan responded to the arrival of American and Russian warships in the 1850s by building a navy strong enough to defeat Russia at sea World War II, Japan lost 3,032 warships and commercial ships and was Thus, Asian seapower is largely a product of the postwar period in which Asians have built navies from the keel up. Chinas plans have been the most ambitious, but Beijing had to resort to getting a Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) general, Liu Huaqing, to change into a naval armed forces.) of defense, advance, and logistics. By 2000, Lius navy would be able to defend waters from the coast Japan south through the Philippines to Indonesia. By 2020, the Chinese navy should be able to defend farther east, to the second island chain running from Japan through the Mariannas to Indonesia. Finally, Cole concludes, by 2050, the PLAN (PLA Navy) would possess aircraft carriers and have the capacity to operate globally. For the moment, Cole asserts, Japan has a better navy: It is the most capable maritime force in East Asia. It is not as large as Chinas navy but it is more technology-intensive, more experienced, and more highly trained. He argues Japans naval strategy has gradually shifted from a narrowly focused defense of the home islands to a global focus. However, Cole contends: National policy makers in Tokyo during the past decade or more have failed to acknowledge this maritime
152 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015dependence; they have not adequately funded the armed service most crucial to Japans national security. colonial rule, in this case from Britain in 1947, soon to begin assembling an armed force, including a navy. As Cole notes: It is no exaggeration to say that Indian maritime strategists take the name Indian Ocean literally. Cole reports that Indias 55,000 sailors, a relatively small number, reports that Indias naval leaders appear to realize that their force is not capable of going one on one against the Chinese. Hence, India has sought to forge strong relations with other navies, particularly those of the United States, Japan, Singapore, and Vietnam. Asian Maritime Strategies while valuable, is marred by several ques tionable contentions. A sampling:The author asserts that John Lehman, who served in the Reagan Administration was almost unquestionably the most strategically minded Secretary of the Navy in US history. Yet Mr. Lehman was distinctly controversial and was reined in by Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger for overstepping his authority. 288 ships on any given day, Cole says. A few pages later, an admiral is ships. Not a big difference but a good editor should have insisted that those numbers be reconciled. In Japan, Cole says, the Japanese government pays most of the costs of US warships based there. That is overstated as the Japanese cover the yen costsshipyard workers, guards, rentwhile the US pays considerably more for the ships, their operations and maintenance, and the pay and allowances of the crew. In Australia, the author says, US Marines are establishing a base. In fact, the Marines are rotating through Australian army training areas. Similarly, he writes that US ships will be homeported in Singapore when they are being rotated there for a six months at a time. Politically, rotat ing troops through someone elses training grounds or ships through a host nations piers and setting up a base or port are quite different.
Modern Soldiers 153 MODERN SOLDIERS The Combat Soldier: Infantry Tactics and Cohesion in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries A Cambridge graduate and professor of sociology at Exeter University, authored a superb and in-depth look at todays soldiers. Kings research passion, the examination of the sociological phenomenon collective actionhow and why groups form and sustain themselvesranges from sports teams to the military. In The Combat Soldier, King meticu lously explores how cohesion and combat performance, often assumed unchanging and universal across wars, may have changed in the course of the last century, as armies have moved away from the citizen towards the all-volunteer professional model. (39) King examines how armies in Western-like, democratic societies behave and maintain cohesion in the face of the hellish experience of combat. He does so by deftly analyzing how the multiplicity of factors including comradeship, political motivation, doctrine, tactics, and train ing (39) affected combat performance in battle from World War I to the present. Rather than a macro perspective, he studies the phenom enon from the grassroots level using the infantry platoon as his unit of analysis to identify what motivates these soldiers to act in unison in a combat environment. His method includes comparing citizen army platoons from World War I to Vietnam against the modern, profes sional army platoons which have fought from the Falklands to the most recent operations in Afghanistan. By design, his emphasis focuses on six armies: Australia; Canada; France; Germany; the United Kingdom; and the United States, and applicable infantry platoons from their methodologies aid Kings objectivity in analyzing the conditions affect ing combat performance. Consequently, he challenges commonly held notions of citizen armies, both positive and negative, in comparing their parable and generalizable. S.L.A. Marshalls research based on 30 years of study on combat soldiers serves as Kings starting point. Marshall, widely regarded as the expert on soldiers in combat, came under attack over the past 25 years. Criticisms cast doubt on his methodology and objectivity, discrediting Men against Fire While addressing criti cisms of Marshalls research, King examines and defends the essence of it to serve as his foundation for exploring the differences in combat performance between citizen armies of the twentieth century and professional armies of the current century. King explains how armies 538 pages $107.00
154 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015formerly appealed to masculine honour, nationalism, ethnicity and the 20th century. However, he argues new factors have emerged, as a result of the shift from mass to modern tactics due largely to advances in technology and the changing nature of modern warfare. Such factors soldiera direct result of the shift to all-volunteer, professionalized armies. King contends the technical and tactical expertise of matured all-volunteer professional armies (inclusive of both commissioned and oped and sustained through rigorous training. Expertise in individual skills contributing to synchronous collective action has become the dominant factor in determining platoon combat effectiveness. King (38) or, in todays counterinsurgency environment, the privilege of not matches its opponent so thoroughly that resistance is plainly futile. (38) Kings comprehensive and detailed explanation of how todays armies conduct training through drills and rehearsals is persuasive. the US military today the integration of women into the infantry. He provides a balanced and comprehensive treatment of this issue. Although which the decision should or could be implemented, he does provide a different frame of reference through which to consider the issue and evaluate possible ways to achieve the desired end. nating in-depth exploration to inform their views and put todays combat experience into an historical perspective. For military professionals, the accomplished academic, Kings thorough analysis and research, comple mented by expert testimonials, makes the book readable while advancing a meticulous and compelling argument. In particular, Kings descrip tions of current infantry platoon training in various armies provide an informative and cross-sectional view. He implicitly communicates the vital role commanders and trainers from company to division level play indirectly in combat infantry platoon development. parallels with either their own branches of service (air and naval) or branch within the ground forces (armor, artillery, etc.) identifying the factors driving their own collective action and informing their own professional expertise. They would also gain a broader appreciation for service chief or combatant commander perspective, especially in these in advocating for funding to resource training and readiness emerges. Although an outcome less tangible than those compared to monies spent on modernization (platforms) and personnel (end strength), King resourced on par with, if not more than, the other twoif a credible
Modern Soldiers 155combat land force is to be preserved. Having the best equipment in tive in battle.Every Citizen a Soldier: The Campaign for Universal Military Training after World War II As the American profession of arms seeks to reclaim its identity, it is encouraging to see the emergence of warrior-scholars. William Taylor is one, as an Annapolis graduate and former US Marine Corps academia. In Every Citizen a Soldier, Taylor appropriately examines familiar terrain the US policy formulation process to address postwar national security through the preparedness of its military force to protect American interests. Ostensibly, his thesis is the US militarys drive to reduce the time to prepare individuals and units for war through a program of universal military training was subverted by political and social agendas. For this reviewer, such an examination is particularly timely as the United States marks more than forty years since the end of conscription and the inception of the All-Volunteer Force with the termination of the military operations across the globefrom the heightened Cold War and a series of contingency of operations (Panama, Somalia, Bosnia, and range of military operations. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey recasts the National Military Strategy with his focus on readiness, force structure, and modernization. Arguably, the Taylor provides the context of experiences of the Second War World, which weighed heavily in the American psyche, especially as the nation imagined global threats could emerge after the Allied victory in 1945. During the war, it was apparent, as Taylor clearly presents, American society reconnected with its values and the national leadership held its citizenry responsible in supporting the war. He describes the three-fold challenges faced after the war: balancing national interests with indi vidual liberty; determining the role of universal military training (UMT) relationship of citizenry to its military. Taylor provides a well-explicated precursor to the UMT efforts. Military historians will be familiar with the post-First World War Plattsburg Movement where American students and businessmen volunteered for basic military training under the command of thenformer Army Chief of Staff General Leonard Wood. The movements toredGeorge C. Marshall and John Palmerboth who became the 2014 262 pages $39.95
156 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015foremost uniformed advocates for UMT. This legacy of the First World War became the National Defense Act of 1920, which reorganized the General Reserve (including the National Guard). However, a critical provision for compulsory military training of males between the ages of 18 and 21 was dropped from the bill. In hopes the world would not followed George Washingtons imperative for a respectably defensive posture (22) with a small standing army and reliance on mobilizing its citizenry for military operations. Embroiled in the Second World War in 1944, Army Chief of Staff General Marshall signed War Department Circular No. 347 to make UMT the primary goal of the armys postwar establishment. (29) To Marshall, UMT was essential in developing military leaders, inform ing public opinion on military matters, minimizing the expense of a large standing army, and aligning democratic traditions with civilian participation in defense and a small standing force. Above all, Marshall and other uniformed advocates saw UMT as the way to improve military effectiveness. It is easy to use contemporary professional vocabulary to frame the Army effort as a military campaign in its design, planning, and dem onstration of a UMT program. The Army chief of staff provided the vision and strategic direction. The general staff performed estimates of friendly and opposing forces. Together, they developed concept of operations, and scheme of maneuver with lines of operation. It was clear to military leaders of the time that readiness of the force was abso lutely essential for national security. In an Army that grew from 400,000 to 5.4 million between 1938 to 1942, it was important to shorten the early on supportive stakeholders, called Friendliesas well as opposi tion groups to UMT. For this reviewer, the chapter Pig in a Poke was especially intriguing and illuminating in presenting the concerns their perspectives, undesirable consequences for American society. In todays vernacular, the lines of operation included communica tion synchronization and strategic messaging across the War Department and build support for UMT in the public sector. Clearly, the goal was surprisingly, members of Congress levied charges of impropriety in civil-military relations against the War Department. Taylors analysis reveals, while senior military leaders had a very for UMT as an instrument to shape American society. Shades of Clausewitzin other words, the military instrument was adapted and to the core design of its program. The UMTs essential elements were to select men meeting entrance requirements, and train them to achieve individual and collective skills thereby effectively contributing to unit UMT structure was the maintenance of racial segregation for the sake of military effectiveness.
Modern Soldiers 157Elements of the UMT discourse foreshadow contemporary discus sions of the US military and the Army. One can easily envision similar internal debates on Department of Defense force structure and capa bilities needed to protect national security interests in an environment develop the narrative for Strategic Landpower had similar elements of campaign design with its intent, lines of operations, and messaging. Despite the advocacy of iconic strategic leaders like President Truman and General Marshall, UMT was not enacted (defeated in 1948) and selective service was reauthorized by Congress in the summer of 1951. Subsequently, large segments of American society remained untouched by military service. (167) Again, the military necessity so clear to Army leaders did not resonate with civilians in the Executive and Legislative Branches. Other priorities subordinated the military instrument to civilian-derived policy. Taylor has produced an immensely informative and insightful book for senior military professionals. His concluding chapter captures the critical responsibility of strategic leadership: Senior army leaders grappled with the daunting challenge of crafting a postwar policy in the face of great uncertainty. Even as battlesstill raged, they attempted to create a viable army that would stand the test of the unknown and be well suited to a democracy. (168) Such challenges endure for our military leaders of today and Taylors work serves as important contribu tion to understanding the nature of policy formulation for the security of the Republic.
158 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015 IRREGULAR FIGHTERS The Islamist Phoenix: The Islamic State and the Redrawing of the Middle East Since its inception in June 2014 when ISIS released a statement announcing the establishment of the Caliphate, not a single day has passed without the media reporting some activity by this notori ous extremist organization. For example, the British weekly magazine The Economist reported that ISIS is spreading fear, but is losing ground. (March 21-27, 2015) The Christian Science Monitor Weekly reported ISIS is sophisticated, lethal and growing in numbers, but will not become a global force. (March 30, 2015) Some reporters treat ISIS as just another annoyance, while others question the ability of the West to deal with this new brand of terrorist organization effectively. No matter how the media treat ISIS, one important thing must be kept in mind: in the post-World War II period, no armed group has ever carved out such a large territory. It is an armed organization redesigning the map of the Middle East drawn by the French and the British with the Sykes-Picot Accord of 1946. In her book, The Islamist Phoenix Loretta Napoleoni argues that, while the Western media treats ISIS as little more than a gang of thugs on a winning streak, the organization is proposing a new model of nation-building that relies on globalization and modern technology. (xiv) According to Napoleoni, ISIS and its leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi are viewed by many Sunnis in Iraq as an Islamist phoenix risen from the ashes of Abu Musab al Zarqawis jihad. (14) ISISs spiritual leader, al Baghdadi, presents himself to members of the Caliphate as a man with honorable qualities, and traces his lineage to elected Caliph, al Baghdadi spoke inside the Grand Mosque of Mosul dressed in the traditional attire of an imam. (16) In his speech to his followers, al Baghdadi shows himself as a wise and pragmatic religious leader telling them, I am the wali I am not the best of you, so if you see that I am right, assist me. If you see that I am wrong, advise me and put me on the right track, and obey me as long as I obey God in you. (17) Al Baghdadi also portrays ISIS to its followers (and the world) not as the monstrous organization represented by the Western media. Instead, al Baghdadi presents ISIS as elites in the Middle East and Western powers. (78) Therefore, al Baghdadi has said those who can immigrate to the Islamic State should immigrate, as immigration to the house of Islam is a duty. (76) He also called upon all Muslims to join the Caliphate to reconnect with their roots. This call also served as a means of creating Arab identity. An integral part of al Stories Press, 2014 160 pages $11.95
Irregular Fighters 159to the purity of religion, to the origins of Islam and the teachings of the Prophet. (85) Another important element of al Baghdadi as the Islamist phoenix is his appeal to geography. (81) As Robert D. Kaplan has written in The Revenge of Geography, geography informs, rather than determines. Geography, therefore, is not synonymous with fatalism. But it is, like the distribution of economic and military power themselves, a major constraint on and instigator of the actions of states. (29) In the case of the Islamic State, al Baghdadi and ISIS attempt to rebuild the Caliphate in Syria and Iraq is linked to their belief that this is an area where Gods judgment will come to pass. Also, geography has always been essential to Islam both religiously and politically. (81) The Islamic State and al Baghdadi are also actively involved in the globalization of world politics. Rather than rejecting modernity, its leadership shows an unparalleled grasp of the limitations facing contemporary powers in globalized and multipolar world. (xiv) ISIS has been able to use technology to spread its messages and promote its cause, linking them to the world news. For example, one of ISISs more successful ventures is an Arabic-language Twitter app called The Dawn of Glad Tidings, or just Dawn. The app, to keep up on the latest news about the jihadi group. (63) Unlike the Taliban or al Qaeda which rejected music, technology, dancing, etc., ISIS has not only embraced them, but also put them to use to advance its cause very successfully. In conclusion, the Islamic States use of terrorism to promote changes in the Middle East differs from previous organizations, such view of Islam in different parts of the world; al Baghdadi and ISIS are trying to establish the Caliphate in the Muslim world and, where Gods judgment will come to pass. ISIS is also different from previous terror ist organizations due to its embrace of geography, pragmatism, and a sense of nation-building. I highly recommend this short but timely book addressing an organization that has had much written about it yet about which much remains a mystery. Students of the US Army War College and providing what people need and want from their leaders.Laws, Outlaws, and Terrorists: Lessons from the War on Terrorism In Laws, Outlaws, and Terrorists Gabriella Blum and Philip B. Heymann ism policies. The message of the book is the United States needs to move away from a perspective that views the law as a cumbersome liability in task mainly on non-coercive means. 2013 256 pages $14.95
160 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015 the book seem to be stating obvious lessons from the war on terror, such as the idea that adopting a war paradigm as a response to terror ist attacks can lead to inadequate and counterproductive policies. This point has been made over and over again after 9/11. However, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls announcement that France is at war with terrorism after the 7/8 January 2015 attacks in Paris demonstrates it is a point well worth repeating. Lessons from the war on terror are easily forgotten in the panic ensuing a terrorist attack. The book provides a store house of memory, patiently discussing arguments leading down However, the chapter on targeted killing is one of the weakest. There is little in Blum and Heymanns recommendations with which resort, targeted persons must pose a real threat, targeted killing has to be lead by sound intelligence, and caution must be taken to avoid collateral Heymann do not dig deep enough to tease this out. The books discussion of detention unfortunately focuses solely outside the combat zone and implies detentions in Afghanistan and Iraq were less problematic because detainees were apprehended war. However, a number of individuals who ended up in Guantanamo were captured in Afghanistan and Iraq, though not necessarily on the combatants. The chapter on interrogation is the best in the book as it really pushes the debate towards uncomfortable questions such as US cooperation with foreign intelligence agencies possibly using torture. It also goes a long way to deconstructing the ticking bomb scenario and shows it is merely hypothetical scenario that should not guide our thinking on interrogation. policies. It makes the case for abandoning the outright refusal to negoti ate in favor of a case-by-case assessment, a point recent research has supported. The second, more original suggestion the authors make is akin to a global hearts and minds initiative towards the Muslim world on the part of Western governments. This rests on the assumption that the chief enabling factor of terrorist attacks is the popular support ter rorists enjoy as far as their views of the Western world are concerned, even if this support does not extend to the tactics they choose. This is an interesting idea, even if it is not fully convincing. It does not address to all sorts of terrorisms, as the authors seem to imply: historically, the extreme left terrorist networks of the 1970s and 1980s relied much less on popular support than current Jihadist terror networks do. Yet these weaknesses should not distract from the fact that this is a already know, but will be rewarded with carefully presented arguments and discussions and will be able to use the books weaknesses as solid indicators of issues needing further debate.
161 CANADIAN ARMY A National Force: The Evolution of Canadas Army, 1950-2000 Warfare Centre and Editor in Chief, The history of Canadas civil-military relationship after the end of the Second World War is a complex story, parts of which remain largely the British Empire, Canada emerged from the war with a new voice of independence shaped in part by its wartime relationship with the United States. Still, for much of the Cold War era, Canadas military forces found themselves split between its British traditions and an emerging American way of warfare resulting from latters dominant role in the cooperative defence of North America, the Korean War, and NATOs defence of Western Europe. In his most recent work, A National Force: The Evolution of Canadas Army, 1950-2000 independent scholar Peter Kasurak offers a broad and sweeping narrative of the Canadian Armys history from the Korean War to the beginning of the War on Terror. While general histories of the Canadian Army are nothing new, Kasuraks study is very different from previous offerings in its analysis of the chosen subject. Departing from what he describes as the standard narrative of the armys history, Kasurak sets out to reframe a story often viewed through the lens of Samuel Huntingtons Soldier and the State with the perspective of Peter Feavers Armed Servants The exercise is novel and intriguing, if not at times outright controversial, with the results often at odds with the established scholarship on the subject. The history of the postwar Canadian Army is typically divided military in 1968 has at times been referred to as the command era, followed afterwards by what many critics have referred to as a manage ment era. The former is often perceived as a golden age of the Canadian fessional. The latter during which the army was integrated with the one military historian later described as a generation of professional replaced with civilian business management concepts. British traditions and ethos were discarded. It is this established narrative that Kasurak takes aim at, and using Feavers agency theory sets out to demonstrate it was in fact not the civilian leadership but rather the army that was the right after the Second World War. Any attempt to recast a military organizations historical charac Canadas postwar army has yet to receive detailed academic attention and there remain some gaping holes in the basic narrative, never mind Columbia Press, 2013. 348 pages $95.00
162 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015the analysis or revision of the existing historiography. For example, the cial history of the Cold War era Canadian Army above the regimental level. Moreover, army biography, especially of the senior Cold War era postwar army headquarters or the Mobile Command organization that NATO operations and UN peacekeeping missions have yet to receive gaps in the historiography of the subject, so it was disappointing that the author did not do so. Though it is framed as a critical study of the armys institutional evolution, unfortunately National Force is just another history of civil-military relations that in this instance sides with the civilians over the soldiers. There is in fact very little explanation in the book of how the army actually functioned as an institution during the Cold War, how headquarters functioned, how the army was commanded or structured, or how the armys combat development processes con the defence operational research and development establishments that receives barely a nod in this study. Instead, readers are given limited context of what shaped army decision-making leaving one to wonder how the author was able to determine exactly that senior Canadian army ing their duty to serve the states civilian leadership. Though Kasurak admits it should not be imagined that civilians are above criticism, too often he gives them a free pass, and this book is clearly aimed at reducing the complex institutional processes of shaping armies through war and peace into a singular struggle between the noble politician and While the notion of challenging the armys established narrative is both original and welcome, missing scholarship has forced Kasurak to gloss over critical elements of the armys history and draw conclusions without any proper foundational context. The result, unfortunately, is a fractured and biased history that at times appears contrived rather than deduced. In the absence of other scholarship on the period, this book is recommended as an acceptable addition due to what new material it does bring to the narrative. However, readers are cautioned to examine its evidence and conclusions with a very critical eye.Stopping the Panzers: The Untold Story of D-Day E role of the Canadian Army has been underestimated and undervalued. In seven decades of historical publications, it has been accused of being 400 pages $34.95
163Canadians fought hard, they were referred to as hockey players led by donkeys. Stopping the Panzers: The Untold Story of D-Day proves these allegations to be false. The story of the Canadians during Operation mission to stop the panzers. Marc Milner is a well-respected professor and director of the Brigadier Milton F. Gregg, VC, Centre for the Study of War and Society at the University of New Brunswick. Additionally, he is an expert on World War II with many books and publications on military history. In 2011, the Society of Military History awarded Milner the Moncado Prize for his article in The Journal of Military History, based on his research for Stopping the Panzers He spent many years researching Operation Overlord. In contrast to other historians he focused on the Canadian forces and the German units opposing them. He and his team conducted research in many archives such as those of the Canadian regiments, the Royal Canadian History Institute in Toronto, the Howard Gottlieb Archives in Boston, the Liddel-Hart Centre in London, the US Army Heritage Center in Carlisle, and many other Canadian, British, American and German archives. Milner also visited Normandy to understand better Stopping the Panzers is not a repetition of earlier books or journals about Operation Overlord. It is a rich collection of new facts of the Canadian role and the German opposition to the 7th and 9th Canadian Brigades. Thorough research by the author and other scholars lead to new facts. Operation Overlord was mainly about speed and operational tempo and in contrast to the other larger allied partners this is not what the Canadians displayed. The mission of the Canadians was never to conduct a fast offensive operation. The mission for the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division was not to advance with speed and seize Caen, instead the mission was to stop the impending German counterattack. The Germans anticipated an allied landing on the beaches of Normandy. One of their options was to thrust this landing back into the North Sea with an armored attack on the allied bridgehead west of Caen, which is precisely what they tried to do. Allied planners expected the Germans to counterattack, which could have hampered the entire allied operation. If the Germans had driven a wedge between the British and US armies, the landing would have failed. The mission of the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division was not to seize Caen, but to control key terrain along the road from Bayeux to Caen, consolidate, and stop the counterattack. They paid a high price with the highest numbers of casualties of all allied units during this operation. Stopping the Panzers is a paradigm shift in Canadian history on Operation Overlord. It is a well-written book that is, despite the vast amount of new facts, easy to read. Because it is based on rigorous research from allied and German archives and because the authors familiarity with the terrain Stopping the Panzers is not just another book about Operation Overlord, but a truly unique view on the Canadian mission and role in the operation. Because it is so groundbreaking and well-written it is a must-have for every individual interested the Second World War. This is a job well done by Milner, his team, and above all, the men of 3rd Canadian Infantry Division who paid a very high price for doing what they had to do.
164 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015 CIVIL WAR, WWI, WWII, & THE VIETNAM WAR Nobody was better trained as a mid-nineteenth-century commander in chief than Jefferson Davis. There were more important American military leaders and more successful Washington hands prior to the Civil War, but Davis was almost unique in the way he navigated both worlds. A graduate of West Point, combat veteran and war hero also a long-serving US senator from Mississippi, who had chaired the Committee on Military Affairs and held the post of Secretary of War during the Pierce Administration. If anybody was prepared for the challenges of an American civil war, it was Davis. Yet both contemporaries and historians have always appeared underwhelmed by the man whom James McPherson now sympathetically labels, The Embattled Rebel. Part of the problem was too much expertise. Davis knew better as in his relationship with Robert E. Lee), he meddled and microman aged incessantly. McPherson goes so far as to claim, No other chief shaping of military strategy. (11) Thats a bold statement in light of Abraham Lincolns equally assertive leadership style, but the noted Civil War historian demonstrates time and again how obsessive Davis was about exercising his duties as commander in chief. The signs were appar ent from the beginning, when on Sunday morning, July 21, 1861, the Confederate president could stand it no longer and commandeered a mander, rallying straggling troops by proclaiming, on horseback, I a little bit of combat in 1864 at Fort Stevens near Washington, but the former Illinois militia captain never ventured anything quite as bold as this. Nor was Lincoln as aggressive as Davis in demanding face-to-face lines to see for themselves what was happening. Of course, Lincoln usually gets praised for being attentive to such against allowing these sorts of comparisons to cloud a more objective evaluation of the losing side of this equation. Instead, the author tries to understand Davis on his own terms and thats exactly what makes this particular Rebel leader seem so embattled. Even the most devoted Civil War buff will be surprised by how early and often Davis found himself criticized and undermined by his own contemporaries. At his First Inaugural address as an elected president, delivered on February 22, 1862, Davis felt compelled to acknowledge, we have recently met with Press, 2014. 320 pages $32.95
165serious disasters, (66) even though the war was not yet a year old. And Albert Sidney Johnston, was dead (mortally wounded at Shiloh) and the Confederates most popular general at the time, Pierre G.T. Beauregard, essentially went absent without leave, forcing Davis to relieve him. The western theatre was proving disastrous for the Confederacy, an especially painful reality for the Mississippian in charge. And by late spring 1862, the Union forces, which had successfully sailed out from the defenses of Washington to the Virginia peninsula, were only miles away from capturing Richmond. Fortunately for Davis and the Confederacy, out of this grim command in early June 1862 and then earning an extraordinary run of victories over the next year with the Army of Northern Virginia, until their terrible defeat at Gettysburg in July 1863. But even so, the underlying trouble for Davis during that selective series of triumphs was how much Lees success as a military strategist often collided what McPherson terms here the policy interests of the Confederacy. (9) Southern military offensives in the fall of 1862, for example, actually alienated Border States such as Maryland and Kentucky, and did little to affect diplomatic affairs. Lees audacious tactics also came at a high human cost one the lesser-populated Confederacy could ill-afford. Even if Davis could forget some of these problems and McPherson makes clear he never did whatever hopefulness the Confederate president may have derived from Lees short-term gains was soon lost in a cascade of recriminations over setbacks in the west and elsewhere. Davis spent weeks traveling across the South trying to quell problems among his feuding generals, especially regarding his deeply unpopular western departmental commander, Braxton Bragg. Nothing worked. There were also desperate problems with commissary and supply, made worse by poor administrative decisions. The tetchy secretaries of war, and one miserably unhappy vice-president. Moreover, Davis faced deepening resistance from a balky Confederate Congress, cally, after falling from a balcony at the Confederate White House. Yet despite all of it, Davis endured. He was in poor health from McPhersons compact study is the portrait of a leader undaunted. Davis may have been irritable, but he was never defeatist. While he has edges his sympathies for the Union, nevertheless has created provocative grounds for greater empathy and deeper analysis than most readers have
166 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015Doughboys on the Great War: How American Soldiers Viewed Their Military Experience Doughboys on the Great War: How American Soldiers Viewed Their Military Experience, by Edward A. Gutirrez, was written with the goal of capturing how American soldiers thought about their experience in the First World War. In particular, Gutirrez sought to reveal the motivation of the men to answer their countrys call. The book opens with a discussion of how views and memories change over time. The challenge feelings of American soldiers in the First World War during, or close to, the end of their military service. The obvious starting point for such data were biographies and personal letters. Yet, Gutirrez also sought sources posing similar questions to establish broader patterns of understanding and ascertain why men fought. (3) The solution for the author was found in post-war questionnaires distributed by the states of Virginia, Connecticut, Utah and Minnesota. Gutirrez spent fourteen years study ing these surveys and found that data collected shortly after the soldiers returned from military service portrayed their feelings and motivations more accurately. By using this information, Doughboys on the Great War endeavored to explain why individuals volunteer to go to war, and, if reality fails to match expectations to ascertain the cause of these erro neous presumptions. (12) Using data collected largely from these questionnaires, Gutirrez traced the impressions and motivations of the Doughboys from their entry into the Army, to basic training, the journey to France, combat, and home again. Just as was the case in Europe 1914, patriotic enthusi asm proved to be one of the chief motivations in joining the military in 1917 and 1918. Yet, there was something grander than this. Gutirrez uncovered, in his extensive research, a sense of duty was indeed a greater motivation than enthusiasm. To highlight this view, a Virginian is quoted as saying I believe now that it is the duty of every man to serve his country in time of need. (23) Yet, the sense of duty could not make up for the lack of prepared ness in the United States. Upon arriving at basic training, the men of came in April 1917, the United States lacked what it needed to train and equip a modern army. Instead, soldiers often trained with wooden needed to train a force for war. Indeed, many men would needlessly die in combat due to inadequate training and preparation. As one soldier wryly commented, It is however, a matter of grave discussion, why, when at Camp Gordon, we were taught to sing, while after the armistice War Memories. Athens, GA: Press of Kansas, 2014 320 pages $34.95
167 pounded by a lack of psychological understanding. Once the soldiers experienced the reality of modern war, they found neither a sense of duty nor enthusiasm could help them overcome fear and devastation. Instead, the moral character they had developed in life before entering the army proved vital. Quoting one veteran in this regard, Men get out of war what they brought to it. Gutirrez rightly added, The prewar life experience and personality of a soldier dictate how that soldier will react in battle. Individual predispositions share a soldiers experience. (44) This proved especially true in the US military of the First World War, which lacked the skills to train an army for modern warfare. Although outside of the scope of the book, a more extensive description of the campaigns and engagements in which the Doughboys fought would have provided better context for the reader. This would have enhanced its value by putting into perspective the views of the soldiers who experienced battle. Yet, despite this, Gutirrez provides a well-researched and thoughtful book. Doughboys on the Great War is a gripping and engaging view into the feelings and perspectives of the average soldier before, during, and the soldiers experience, to include an engaging description of the moti vations driving Italian-Americans and African-Americans in proving book is a valuable contribution to the historiography on the First World War, and a welcome addition to the Centennial commemoration of the tragic epoch.A Mad Catastrophe: The Outbreak of World War I and the Collapse of the Habsburg Empire Historical Services DivisionThe present work is a long-overdue look at a neglected topic on the First World War. Author Geoffrey Wawro is a well established author with earlier monographs on the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian Wars of 1866 and 1870 respectively. His current work blazes a new trail. A Mad Catastrophe examines the pre-war Austro-Hungarian Empire, policy makers monumental decisions, and the disastrous operations in 1914. The acknowledgments section is a fascinating read unto itself on his ancestors and their links to the current story. He intends to demolish the myth of the quaint Austro-Hungarian Empire under grandfatherly Emperor Franz Joseph. His introduction sets the stage in no uncertain terms. Chapters 1 through 5 describe the peacetime Dual Monarchy, including war plans and the pre-military response to the assassina tion of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie. He sees an unworkable state, the more so due to Magyar duplicity; Austrian inad equacy; and unsolvable, ethnic tensions, which demanded national, Group, 2014 440 pages $29.99
168 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015self-determination. Franz Joseph, the venerable Emperor from 1848, is out of his depth in the unraveling domestic situation and the more-chal lenged diplomacy of the early twentieth century during its latest crisis. Domestically, his shortcomings were glaring in a structure that empow ered him over a bureaucracy of ostensibly representative institutions. Wawro explains why the Hapsburg state did not posture itself for success. The long-expected showdown with Serbia, showcased by the assassinations, provided more challenges than opportunities. Diplomacy notwithstanding, nearly six weeks passed before troops invaded Serbia. Swift action by Austria would have capitalized upon international sym pathy. More critically, Chief of General Staff Conrad von Htzendorf Russia simultaneously. A Serbian campaign had to be immediate or not at all. The text paints a similarly dismal picture of Austro-Hungarian con General Oskar Potiorek commanded no less than three disastrous invasions of Serbia in four months, between August and December. Conrad sabotaged proper weighting of effort and deployment in either poor Austro-Hungarian performance against a better-prepared Russian Army, despite its own challenges. Chapter 14 outlines the devastating rest of the war, marked by faster decline, and the unsuccessful, post-war successor states to Austria-Hungary. In essence, the political, social, and economic situation of the exercise scenarios substituted for free-thinking maneuvers. Numerous aspects of national power lacked adequate capability and capacity. Austro-Hungarian land forces did not have the strategic basis, opera power. The army had not seen action in nearly half a century; whereas the Serbians were battle-hardened after two Balkan wars. The Russians had learned important lessons from the war with Japan in 1905. Some Austro-Hungarian leaders understood modern warfare, but learning was far too uneven across the force. The author made skillful use of well-documented, primary sources. tions, subordinates comments, and foreign observations into smoothly levels. Moreover, the books maps integrate the analysis between armies and corps on the ground, while the text showcases the exceptional degree to which infantry divisions with thousand-man battalions were the coin of the realm of land power. Note these divisions were large of eighteen and sixteen battalions respectively, compared to the more common twelve.
169The book shows the deadly combination of rabid ethnic nationalism unleashed in total, industrialized warfare. Atrocity begets atrocity on both sides. Austro-Hungarian treatment of Serbs in particular in 1914 The particular use of primary sources leads to the books great est challenge, which is balance. Wawro leaves no doubt repeatedly and explicitly that Austrian leaders, the Emperor and Conrad in particular, were blundering incompetents. The Dual Monarchy was ineradicably is left wondering how such an entity could have waged four years of protracted war unprecedented in totality. It was not alone in woefully under-forecasted requirements for a prolonged war with a muchattacks and synchronized assaults into catastrophic failures. The book often reads more as an indictment, rather than an assess ment. The text tends to present the demise of the Hapsburgs as a predestined, linear decline from peacetime unpreparedness to wartime bungling. Wawro faced unique challenges with these primary sources. Still, more helpful would have been an integrated, comprehensive analy sis of politics, economics, manpower, and equipment production, etc. century mind in comprehending the inconceivable wastage of the Great for both attacker and defender. Arguably, a revolution in military affairs (RMA) took place between 1914 and 1918. There were shortcomings aplenty in 1914. Yet, what army of the major powers realistically could develop a defensive doctrine that could win a war quickly? The politi cians would not end the war, the diplomats could not, and the generals groped for war-winning solutions. Austria-Hungarys most senior leaders too often decided poorly. Arguably, they made more mistakes than their foes; but these errors were unaffordable given their armys inherent weaknesses, com pounded under wartime conditions. Also, a German rescue seems an inadequate explanation of individual and collective political, social, and military resiliency to 1918. Wawros book is nonetheless an important work, a case study of senior leaders facing increasingly acute challenges without clear solutions. Indeed, he convincingly explains how Austria-Hungary was conceivably the major power least prepared to wage war in 1914, even compared century. Peacetime plans and wartime execution must account for shift ing diplomatic, political, social, and economic factors; plus they must balance national perspectives and interests with alliance/coalition goals. Indeed, the wider and more complete research on the Great War to date highlights the depth and breadth of mistrust among the powers. Their interests evolved before and during the war, often in unforeseen ways. Wawro shows how diverging Austrian and German strategic and opera tional aims can make ostensible allies into competitors or adversaries. Finally, perhaps Wawros greatest illumination is how Austrian leaders
170 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015failed to comprehend the Clausewitizian notion of war as serious means to serious end, replete with chance.The Devils Alliance: Hitlers Pact with Stalin, 1939-1941 College LondonThe Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 23, 1939 is one of the most notorious diplomatic arrangements of all time. With this deal on economic Soviet Union, Hitler and Stalin crushed Poland, divided up central and Eastern Europe between them and heralded the coming of the Second World War. During the Cold War, historians could only consult the German records of the negotiations leading to the non-aggression pact and the brief period of Nazi-Soviet collaboration, but since the collapse of the Soviet Union our knowledge of the Soviet side of the episode has In The Devils Alliance, Roger Moorhouse draws on the latest research and sources to offer readers a vivid retelling of the making and break ing of the deal. He carefully reconstructs the game of political hardball played play by the German foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, and his Soviet counterpart, Vyacheslav Molotov. The absorbing story of the diplomatic bargaining over frontiers and trade is set against the wider context of the implementation of the pact. The twenty-two months of Nazi-Soviet collaboration enabled the two regimes to experi ment in the brutal imposition of their ideological visions on the peoples of Eastern Europe. Behind the German armies, advancing into Poland came special police units to murder Jews and others deemed enemies of the Third Reich; the advance of the Red Army permitted Moscow step by step to Sovietize its share of eastern Poland and the Baltic states and to murder or exile its political foes. With great skill, Moorhouse conveys the human tragedy of these events with telling details from individual experiences. Through these individual tragedies multiplied thousands of times over, Moorhouse reminds us why the collective memories of the period of Nazi-Soviet collaboration overshadow the politics of Eastern Europe to this day. Moorhouse underscores the basis of the deal was strategic, not ideo logical. Although the two regimes are often lumped together under the them together. Ribbentrop may have dreamed about a grand alliance between the Axis states and the Soviet Union to confront AngloAmerican powers, but he was alone in this respect. Hitler needed the pact to isolate Poland. Stalin opted for it because he could archive Soviet territorial ambitions in Eastern Europe and remain out of the impending European war, at least temporarily. In this respect, it is worth recalling the Nazi-Soviet Pact failed to achieve Hitlers primary purpose: he had hoped the stunning announcement of the pact would persuade London and Paris to abandon Poland to its fate and to seek a peaceful way out of the European crisis of 1939. 372 pages $29.99
171As we know, Britain and France did not seek peace because they were determined to defend their status as great powers, and the balance of economic-military power was ultimately in their favor. Germany avoided a slow defeat through attrition and economic strangulation by the swift victory over France in May-June 1940. No one was more surprised than Stalin, who had predicted his deal with Hitler gave the Soviet Union a few years of peace to arm and prepare for the expected war against Germany and its allies. Although Moorhouse correctly dates the formal German decision to attack the Soviet Union to December 1940, Hitler began to air the idea with his top military advisors just after the French sued for peace. He was never at ease with a grand political bargain that allowed Moscow to acquire German machine tools and blueprints of advance weapons in exchange for industrial raw materials. Mistakenly convinced they could defeat the Red Army in a few weeks, the German high command enthusiastically prepared for Operation Barbarossa. In 1941, Soviet intelligence reported these preparations with growing alarm, but Stalin dismissed them as provocations to lure him into a war he did not want. He saw the German arms buildup in Eastern Europe as part of the hard bargaining process over territory and trade the Nazi-Soviet pact had initiated. In a report of 5 June 1941, the Joint Intelligence Committee in London came to the same conclusion. Stalin simply did not expect Hitler would attack until the war against Britain and its informal ally the United States had ended. As Moorhouse shows in his book, Stalins failure to anticipate the German attack cost the Red Army and the people of the Soviet Union dearly.Four Decades On: Vietnam, the United States, and the Legacies of the Second Indochina War The American War in Vietnam continues to engage creative scholars from across diverse academic disciplines to rethink both the legacies of the war and the war itself. The editors of Four Decades On have assembled an impressive collection of scholarship in this vein, drawing counter-narratives, and remembrance and reconciliation to assess the enduring legacies of a ten-year war, now literally Four Decades On, and they go beyond traditional, though still useful, American or Vietnamesenating conclusions of new, cross-disciplinary approaches applied to understand better the deep and lingering legacy of this war. In this, the editors succeed. Christina Schwenkel, for example, an anthropologist at the the evolving narrative of the war exhibited at museums, memorials, and other war-related sites in Vietnam. As Vietnams economy becomes more global and war tourism gains popularity among American visi tors, narratives at these sites (which Schwenkel calls memory-scapes) 334 pages $24.94
172 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015have shifted from the older hurray-for-we-defeated-the-Americans to a softer, more American friendly tone, often focusing on mutual victim hood of combatants and non-combatants, regardless of nationality. For Schwenkel, reconciliation, ironically, may be the most important if not unintended consequence of Vietnams desire to open markets with the United States and court American tourists. Analyzing cultural legacies looms large in this collection. Historian Walter Hixson, of the University of Akron, examines how Americans have emphasized healing and overcoming the Vietnam Syndrome tends to focus on the American soldier as victim and the Vietnamese intent in Vietnam and American militarism in general. Fitting well into this rubric of memory, narrative, and reconciliation are the divisive issues of Agent Orange and accounting for POWs/ MIAs. The legacies of both have been strewn with myth, politics, and manipulation. Diane Niblack Fox, an anthropologist who also teaches Vietnamese Studies at the College of the Holy Cross, offers one the better article-length studies of this controversial issue. Fox looks at the impact of the use of chemical defoliants from multiple perspec history, and most interestingly the actual experience of those directly affected. She ably dissects the various meanings and contexts of Agent Orange among diverse constituencies that transcend class, borders, and even time. Fox argues that closing the gap between state policy and international relations with individual experiences and needs is key to approaching reconciliation for Americans and Vietnamese over the Agent Orange controversy. H. Bruce Franklin, professor of English and American Studies at Rutgers University, likewise tackles the POW/ MIA myth, providing again one of the better article-length examina tions of the evolution of this extremely sensitive issue. From the political manipulations of the Nixon administration to Chuck Norris numerous the POW/MIA myth maintained momentum from its apparent useful ness in all but silencing the anti-war movement in the early 1970s to way to focus on American victims of the war rather than on why the to Hixon, for Franklin, the POW/MIA myth conveniently enables legacy from Vietnam. graduate students, but those with a more passing interest in what is the on using pretentious terminology and, further, assume all are familiar with their particular disciplines theoretical frameworks, they make their otherwise valuable work inaccessible to a willing cross-disciplinary audi ence. This frustrating problem crops up across the collection and can be distracting. Another minor and related issue is a hint of rejection toward more traditional historical approaches. Scholars utilizing these
173new, important approaches should be mindful of the debt they owe to for historical understanding, without these newer methods they would have no context and little upon which to build. Do not let these concerns, however, discourage reading these valu able essays. Four Decades On challenges assumptions, dispels myths, and offers insightful arguments on causation, memory, narrative, and reconciliation among nations and, more interestingly, among peoples. Vietnam, we will be reminded how much that experience continues to affect us, and how we are still unwilling to engage in an honest discus sion on Vietnam. Laderman and Martini have compiled a provocative collection of the best new scholarship on the Second Indochina War. Specialists should read it and engage in the conversation.
Article SubmissionsThe editor welcomes unsolicited works that adhere to the following criteria: Content RequirementsScope: The manuscript addresses strategic issues regarding the theory and practice of land warfare. Visit our website (www.strategic studiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/) to gain a better understanding of our current editorial scope. Audience: cers as well as members of government and academia concerned with national security affairs. Clearance: If you are a member of the US military or a civilian employee of the Department of Defense or one of its service departments, Concurrent Submissions: The manuscript is not under consideration with other publishers and has not been published elsewhere, including on the Internet.Formatting RequirementsLength: 4,000 words or less. File Type & Layout: New Roman, 12-point font; double-spaced; 1-inch margins. Visual Aids: Only include charts, graphs, and photgraphs when they are essential to clarify or amplify the text. Images must be grayscale, a minimum of 640 x 480 pixels, and submitted in their original Citations: Document sources as footnotes. Indicate all quoted material by quotation marks or indentation. Reduce the number of footnotes to the minimum consistent with honest acknowledgement of indebtedness, consolidating notes where possible. Lengthy explanatory footnotes are discouraged and will be edited. The Quarterly generally uses the conventions prescribed in the Chicago Manual of Style .Submission RequirementsSubmit to: firstname.lastname@example.org Include: Each author's full name, mailing address, phone number, e-mail address, and curriculum vitae or biographical sketch. (When there are multiple authors, please identify the primary point of contact.) applicable) as attachments. An abstract. Lead Times: submit it by the following dates: 1 DecemberSpring 1 MarchSummer 1 JuneAutumn 1 SeptemberWinter Note: Lead times only ensure the editor will consider a manuscript for recommend a manuscript for publication in any upcoming issue to meet space or topic requirements. Review Process: process can take four to six weeks from date of receipt. Contributor's Guidelines
176 Parameters 45(1) Spring 2015Book Review SubmissionsParameters publishes reviews of books on history, political science, military strat egy, grand strategy, and defense studies. The editor welcomes inquiries for potential book reviews. email@example.com. In the e-mail, provide: The book's title and the name of the author(s) or editor(s).
Parameters47 Ashburn Drive | Carlisle PA 17013-5010 717.245.4943 http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters email: firstname.lastname@example.org The US Army War College Quarterly, Parameters is a refereed forum for contemporary strategy and landpower issues. academia concerned with national security affairs. Parameters is indexed in, inter alia, Air University Library Index to Military Periodicals U.S. Government Periodicals Index, LexisNexis Government Periodicals Index, Worldwide Political Science Abstracts Lancaster Index to Defence & International Security Literature (UK), and PAIS Bulletin. Book reviews are indexed in Gale Groups Book Review Index. Parameters is also available through ProQuest and UMI. Congress Catalog Card No. 70-612062. Subscriptions: US Army War College graduates who are actively employed by the government as well as select organizations may receive a gratis subscription. For eligibility requirements, visit the website listed above. Address Changes: Submit address changes for unpaid subscriptions to the Parameters For paid subscriptions, submit address changes to the GPO (bookstore.gpo.gov). Reprint Requests: For permission to reprint articles, contact the Parameters prepared to provide the articles title, authors name, publication data, intended use, quantity, and means of distribution. Commentaries & Replies: We invite reader commentaries on articles appearing in Parameters. Not all commentar ies can be published. For those that are, the author of the article will be invited to provide a reply. For additional information, visit the website listed above. The US Army War College educates and develops leaders for service at the strategic level while advancing knowledge in the global application of landpower. The purpose of the US Army War College at this time in our nation's history is to produce graduates who are skilled critical thinkers and complex problem solvers in the global application of landpower. Concurrently, it is our duty to the Army to also act as a "think factory" for commanders and civilian leaders at the strategic level worldwide and routinely engage in discourse and debate on ground forces' role in achieving national security objectives. The Strategic Studies Institute publishes national policy debate and bridge the gap between military and academia. The Center for Strategic Leadership and Development contributes to the education of world class senior leaders, develops expert knowledge, and provides solutions to strategic Army issues affecting the national security community. The Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute provides subject matter expertise, technical review, and writing expertise to agencies that develop stability operations concepts and doctrines. The Senior Leader Development and Resiliency program supports the US Army War College's lines of effort to educate strategic leaders and provide well-being education and support by developing self-awareness through leader feedback and leader resiliency. The School of Strategic Landpower develops strategic leaders by providing a strong foundation of wisdom grounded in mastery of the profession of arms, and by serving as a crucible for educating future leaders in expertise in war, strategy, operations, national security, resource management, and responsible command. The US Army Heritage and Education Center acquires, conserves, and exhibits historical materials for use to support the US Army, educate an international audience, and honor soldierspast and present. U .S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE CENTER forSTRATEGIC LEADERSHIP andDEVELOPMENT U.S. Army War CollegeSLDRSenior Leader Development and Resiliency
Contemporary Strategy & Landpower FOR THIS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS, VISIT US AT http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ The Quarterly The US Army War College rfntbnnDavid E. JohnsonnrKevin M. Felix and Frederick D. Wong Michael Evans William G. AdamsonrntnMatthew Morton Charles D. Allen Andrew HillrnrnnGlenn J. Voelz Benjamin M. Jensen VOL. 45 NO. 1 SPRING 2015 PARAMETERS (USPS 869) US Army War College ATTN: Parameters47 Ashburn Drive Carlisle, PA 17013-5010 Periodicals Postage Paid VOL. 45 NO. 1 SPRING 2015