Educating MI professionals to meet the challenges of changing geopolitical realities and modern asymmetric warfare

Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin, July-Sept, 2002 by George A. Van Otten

The tragic events of 11 September 2001 brought into focus dramatic changes that ushered in the dawning of the new millennium. Since the end of the Cold War, the often precarious but stabilizing balance of power between the Soviet Union and the United States no longer serves as a catalyst for alignment and focus of the international relationships through which nations and transnational political groups pursue their goals and ambitions.

The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), in response to rapidly changing geopolitical realities, has created a new contemporary opposing force (OPFOR) designed to replace the former Soviet doctrine-based OPFOR upon which U.S. military training relied for nearly half a century. The contemporary OPFOR presents an enemy no longer constrained by the traditional mid-twentieth century view of warfare.

The contemporary operational environment (COE) has far-reaching implications relative to the focus, organization, and methods of military intelligence (Ml) instruction and education. It is no longer appropriate for instructors to rely on Soviet-style doctrine, concepts, and equipment as the foundation for the development of lesson plans, exercises, and instructional materials. Instead, instruction must now rest on solid principles and sound tactics that prepare soldiers to deal with the asymmetric nature of modern warfare effectively. (1)

Emergence of the COE

Great power politics dominated international relations throughout the 20th century. In the aftermath of World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as the world super powers with competing ideologies and military capabilities. The Cold War was the product of this uneasy balance of power. Their struggle for dominance shaped world geopolitical interactions for more than fifty years.

During the 1980s, aware that his country was about to collapse, Mikhail Gorbachev instituted reforms designed to stabilize the failing economy, eliminate corruption, and increase tolerance for free speech. Furthermore, Mr. Gorbachev shifted the Soviet foreign policy toward the United States from confrontation to cooperation. The changes he initiated quickly escalated beyond his control. Within a few years, the Russian people replaced communism with a representative system of government that the buffer states held captive for decades within the Soviet Union declaring their independence, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics disintegrated.

The end of the Cold War seemed to present an opportunity to direct resources once dedicated to maintaining the balance of power toward solving the pernicious problems that plague humanity. However, the resurrection of tribal and cultural conflicts throughout the world, as well as increased tensions and war between nations, replaced the bipolar competition of the Cold War with a multipolar distribution of power and influence that is as (if not more) unpredictable and volatile as the potential for conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States. (2)

Realities of the COE

The nature of world geopolitics is increasingly influenced by nations, groups, and individuals who have, or believe they have, unresolved grievances. Accordingly, fanatics, zealots, and terrorists feel free to ignore the sovereignty of nations for the sake of their causes. New technologies have dramatically diminished the level of protection once offered by great distances. Terrorists can now secure the information they require and travel throughout the world with relative ease.

Given these realities, a number of trends are apparent. Whereas nations will continue to dominate world politics and the United States will remain, in the foreseeable future, the most powerful of nations, growing numbers of the nontraditional "actors" will strive to disrupt and influence established international relationships. Further, the United States will find it necessary to expand greatly the efforts to protect her homeland.

Over the next several decades, it is likely that tribal, ethnic, and religious conflicts will destabilize and fragment vulnerable nations. Moreover, environmental degradation, shortages of critical resources, explosive population growth, and grinding poverty will exacerbate tensions within and between nations. As the gap between the rich and the poor of the world widens, the least prosperous will seek to punish and influence those they hold responsible for their social and economic plights. Advanced technologies have greatly enhanced the ability of those with alleged grievances to promote their agendas violently. It is now possible for a threat possessing only limited resources to exploit specific pockets of vulnerability within the most prosperous and powerful nations. This will increasingly force advanced nations to dedicate considerable time, energy, and resources to protecting the security of their homelands and their interests throughout the world.

Without doubt, the security of the United States is directly linked to the willingness of her citizens to make the sacrifices, and commit the resources, necessary to deal effectively with those seeking to destroy our way of life. Potential enemies and allies generally believe the U.S. citizenry is unwilling to stay the course in a prolonged conflict with a tenacious enemy. The United States' laudable abhorrence of casualties causes many analysts to view our military strategies as predicable. This perception encourages potential enemies to practice asymmetric warfare against both the international interests of the United States and against our homeland. In keeping with their views of U.S. idiosyncrasies, they will avoid a headon fight with U.S. forces. Instead, they will seek the cover of unpredictable actions designed to inflict great loss of life and carnage (such as the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon) while at the same time denying the United States the opportunity to employ its massive combat power. In some cases, the enemy may wait a long time between strikes. These strikes may be multifaceted or individual, and their operations and operatives will remain flexible and variable. It is clear that the United States must develop increasingly sophisticated and flexible measures with which to respond effectively to a wide range of potential conflicts including traditional and asymmetric warfare. (3)