Research Note

Research Note

Since the World Wars and the Cold War warfare has shifted dramatically. So drastically American has experienced the worst attack on her homeland; the 9/11 attacks. Since the 9/11 attacks, America and the World have seen the rise of a new and effective warfare that has been unstoppable to conventional forces. As we have seen in Vietnam, Iraq, and now Afghanistan. You can call this new warfare terrorist, non-state actors, guerrilla fighters or some other name that would fit the description, but they are almost indefinable.

The United States of America has been a major player in the war all over the world and for the last sixty years have lead the world in military advancement. Since we fought for our independence America has not seen defeat except in our enemy up until the Vietnam War and now the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. One can argue America did not lose in Vietnam or America is not losing in Afghanistan currently, it really doesn’t matter. What does matter is America saw a shift in the result of these two wars; it was no clear victory for America like it has been in the past.

Strategy, tactics, moral, technology, and manpower are all important and necessary to fight a war, however, arguably, I feel America doesn’t understand or know how to deal with our enemies particularly unconventional forces such as the Vietcong, Taliban, or typical tribal and insurgency groups. How do you put your finger on a group that denies the laws of war? How do you conduct diplomacy with a group that has no official diplomats? How do you negotiate with terrorist groups that ignore borders and believe that your country should no longer exist? America failure to develop strategies and techniques to handle these complex insurgent groups, terrorist organizations, and militant tribal groups such as the Taliban proves to be the problem. David Kilcullen, a counterinsurgent expert, lays it down perfectly, “ that while many classical counterinsurgency techniques apply to modern conflicts, in overall terms we face a transfigured form of hybrid warfare that renders many of our traditional ideas irrelevant” (xvii).

David Kilcullen, a native Australian and former advisor to General David Patraeus in Iraq and to the NATO Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, currently serves as a consultant to the U.S. Government. He wrote a book called The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in The Midst of a Big One. In this book Kilcullen “uncovers the face of modern warfare, illuminating both the global challenge (the “War on Terrorism”) and small wars across the World” (back of book).  And he has some answers to our questions above. Kilcullen recommends we change our paradigm and our policy to help the problem. The number one shift that should take place according to Kilcullen is a vocabulary change. He mentions, “professor Michael Vlahos has pointed out that the language we use to describe the new treats actively hinders innovative thought” (295) For example, our terminology for these groups or organization are negative in nature. Unconventional, nonstate, irregular forces all describe the enemy but give them a description of what they are not rather than what they actually are. Instead of approaching diplomacy with these organizations in an international relations mindset and terminology, Kilcullen recommends we us an anthropology approach, which we would understand their culture, social relationships, and institution within their society. A diplomat educated in a particular culture and language would greatly benefit the relationship between the two actors (Kilcullen, 296).

Secondly, Kilcullen recommends using an element of soft power. He mentions that the majority of our spending goes to the Military whereas we should be investing in nonmilitary “elements of national power”, such as “private sector economic strength, national reputation, and cultural confidence”. Our military can only achieve so much and often faces obstacles that military bureaucracy cannot overcome.  There is an imbalance of our military and nonmilitary abilities, therefore hindering America to achieve whatever she sets out to do. Think about it, America’s “Defense Department is about 210 time larger than the U.S Agency for international Development and State Department combined” (Kilcullen, 298). Now put yourself in the shoes of an enemy of the United States, do you get the feeling that America wants to collaborate and fix the problem or just use force unilaterally to overcome the problem?

Kilcullen, as an outsider (Australian) sees the problem from the outside and make great sense of the tangled mess. As one planning to go into the military, it is hard to overcome my own opinions and realize our military is not the solution to every problem on the international scale. Kilcullen says he does not discredit the military and its capabilities, he being an officer in the Australian military himself, but he warns that the imbalance could be harmful and give the wrong impression. Kilcullen is an source for information dealing with the future of warfare and transforming our military  and non military into a capable force to confront our enemies.

Kilcullen, David. The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

Book Review: Who killed Daniel Pearl

Bernard-Henri Levy, a French philosopher who is very well known throughout the Europe, made the International Best seller list with Who Killed Daniel Pearl. This book is wonderfully put together and a thrilling read. Levy takes his readers on a ride through the investigation that lasted one year, Levy recalls. His readers will go to Karachi to Kandahar, New Delhi, Washington, London, and back to Karachi, where Pearl was eventually murdered. The book almost read like a mystery and you cant wait to find out waht is going to happen next as Levy conducts his investigation and follows the clues. Obviously, we all know who committed the murder or who we think murdered the reporter, Daniel Pearl, so Levy seeks to discover why and how they Jihadist killed the Jewish-American.

The book is divided up into three parts with each art devoted to a specific and key player within the investigation. First, Danny, Second, Omar Sheikh, the mastermind behind Danny's kidnapping, and the last three parts are devoted to a more analytical or theoretical view to the story. Levy goes into great detail about Pearls' life and then switches to Omar Sheikh, giving background to the both of them. The last three parts are by far the best, in my opinion.

As Levy risks his own life following the footsteps to Daniel Pearls murder, he raises very compelling questions, that might go unanswered because of the death of Mr. Pearl. I the last parts of the book, Levy develops a theory that Daniel was on to something. That "something" is what might have just killed him. Levy believes Daniel Pearl's reporter instincts might have lead him to knowing to much about the Pakistani government agency, the Inter-services Intelligence agency, and their relationship with Islamic terrorist groups. Levy also theorizes the possibility of officials in the Pakistan intelligent agency aid al-Queda in what ever ways possible with keeping it under the rug.

According to Levy, the possibility is very high that nuclear secrets have been exchanged by the two parties, al-Queda and Pakistan. This reveals Pakistan as a threat to the West. Currently Pakistan is supposedly a friend of the United States and supposedly fight against terrorism. Levy's suggests the opposite.

This book is great for anyone who is interested in international affairs, terrorist and their secret motives, or simply a thrilling investigation of current events (not so current now).

Cyber Warfare

I think this topic is very interesting and completely over my head considering I would rather do without a lot of technology we have today. I know most of it makes our lives convenient helps more than it destroys, or does it? I know, I know, Im old school.

At the Air Force Academy in Colorado, the military are raising a special breed of warriors, warriors who fight in the cyber arena. I keep telling myself that this Occupation within the military is not silly, but this job could be one of the most important now and in the near future. America is very dependent upon electricity and technology, therefore shouldn't we have someone to protect that just as we have the National Guard to protect our Nation.

Only Army, Navy, Air Force are taking part in the computer warfare in Colorado. The military has been training men and women in the area of cyber warfare for about ten years now, but now the training has been taken to a new level with the increasing amount of internet break in by foreign countries.

I dont even know if there are any laws concerning the cyber warfare that is taking place today. James Clapper, who is the director of the nation intelligence, classified a cyber attack as the number one threat to out national security. This provides awesome job opportunity in computer science and technological studies.

Hatred

I've been reading the memoirs of E. B. Sledge in his book "With The Old Breed", and I keep hearing a common theme among the Marines in the Pacific during WWII. Most of the Marines or soldiers who fought in the pacific or directly against the Japanese developed a strong hatred towards them. Sledge explains in his book that noncombatants hated the Japanese, but the infantry who actually fought face to face with them, held a deep and bitter hatred for the Japanese. Throughout the war in the pacific, the hatred for the Japanese increased, but started off with a great leap in the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The American forces believed the Japanese to be animals, savages, and wicked creatures with the way they fought. Mutilating dead Marine, Kamikaze and Banzai attack (suicidal attacks from planes and charges). The Japanese very well may have view us in the same way, Im not sure. Sledge mentions on his book that, "This collective attitude, Marines and Japanese, resulted in savage, ferocious fighting and with no holds barred. This was not the dispassionate killing seen on other fronts or in other wars. This was brutish, primitive hatred, as characteristic of the horror of war in the Pacific as the palm trees and the islands".

Im trying to understand this hatred between the two enemies at war. Even though they may be at war and deeply hurt by the other, they are both humans and both put there pants on the same way every morning, but in a different part of the world. Does the hatred fuel unneeded or unwanted war and fighting among the two? The Americans, I believe had their minds set for unconditional surrender for the Japanese by whatever means possible.

Today, does this same hatred exist for particular ethnic groups or people we are at war with? It seems if you hate the enemy you are fighting it makes it easier to fight him without guilt or restraint. Its either you are him who dies, or him or your Marine buddy next you. I mean it make sense to hate your enemy when you are fighting him, right? I have concluded that this hate for the enemy that men at war face for the enemy is almost like they are rotting from the inside. They seem to lose the innocence they once had, and all sanity. Maybe war itself is a factor as well.

My question is how do you go battle against someone that is just like you, but from a different part of the world and that usually has a different worldview than you. Will you be an effective Soldier without this attitude fueling you? And is there a case where the attitude is ok? I understand going to battle with someone you utterly despise like the Japanese for the Pacific Marines. How do you avoid this attitude while you are fighting and your buddy next to you dies or your homeland was attacked by these terrorist. What is the proper way to respond?

Lately, I have been exploring different job opportunities. I realized that if Officer Candidate School does not fall through right away, I have a little over a year to work and I would prefer working somewhere I could use my degree in political science/international studies.

I was scanning the internet and stumbled across an organization call the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). CNAS is a non profit think tank based in Washington DC. The CNAS seeks to develop strong and sound defense and security policy for the benefit of the United States. "CNAS engages policymakers, experts and the public with innovative, fact-based research, ideas and analysis to shape and elevate the national security debate". Also, they help to prepare policy makers and military leaders for possible future events. Obama and administration have turned to CNAS for recent Afghanistan affairs and also affairs in the new emerging Asia-Pacific region. 

After looking through many of there publications and projects, I was quickly overwhelmed with all the information they have on security issues. (I guess this is the organization the government can go to for sound advise and analysis). I thought it would neat to work for this organization one day, but Im not sure it would fit my idea of a job. I don't want to wear a suit and tie everyday, or have a really cool office and my own computer. Discussing security issues would be cool, but I think I would prefer "being in the field". 

Korea

I feel that the recent flight of two B-2 bombers was meant to let North Korea know the U.S. will possible respond if it or South Korea is attacked. But how will the US respond is the question.

“This is important for two reasons: The north only respects one thing — strength and power,” said retired Army Col. David Maxwell. “It is important to demonstrate that strength and will. Second, the north will not attack in the face of strength and readiness.” Under the International Law umbrella, I have been studying how states and non states interact with one another. Under the International Law umbrella, I have been pondering realism and idealism quiet a bit, which is wrong and which is right or maybe a mixture of the both. I believe this quote above reveals America's attitude and behavior, I'm not saying its wrong or right, but the B-2 Bombers sent to Korea war definitely a realism approach to the issue in North Korea. “Ironically the stronger we are the less there is a chance of miscalculation by the regime,” Maxwell said in an email. “If we show daylight in the alliance they will try to exploit that and then we are going to have trouble.” How do you seek an idealist approach when a country avoids negotiations stating and believes the armistices that ended the Korean war to be void?  

Being a military commander, I bet it is hard to take an idealistic approach to any conflict. You have the strongest military in the world and you are in control of that military in some capacity, why wouldn't you want to use it! I believe it can be very tempting to just say, "we can send in the military". And to give commanders some slack, that is their job. That is why they are in the military, to command and lead soldiers in war. 

The B-2 bombers flew from an American base all the way to South Korea to drop fake munitions on an Island off the mainland of South Korea and then back to America in all in one mission. No stopping, so there is no doubt it was to warn the N. Korean.“Tension rises almost every year when it’s time for the U.S.-South Korean drills to take place, but as soon as those drills end, things quickly return to normal,” Sung Hyun-sang said in Seoul. North Korea’s latest threats are seen as efforts to test the new government in Seoul, led by President Park Geun-hye, to change its policies toward Pyongyang. North Korea’s moves at home to order troops into “combat readiness” also are seen as ways to build domestic unity as Kim Jong Un, who took power after his father’s death in December 2011, strengthens his military credentials. I am looking forward to the response of Kim Jong-un to the warning. 

Special Operators Whereabouts After Afghanistan.

The secretive special forces are already known for their undercover work and low key operations. As the war in Afghanistan is drawing to end, where will the majority of the special forces (SF) go? Admiral Bill McRaven, the US Special Operations Commander gives us some direction to where they will be in the near future.

March 6th, Adm. McRaven met with lawmakers to talk about this very issue. He mentions that the majority of Special Operators are in the Central Command Region (USCENTCOM--the yellow area on the map above), about 85% of all SF are deployed to the CENTCOM region. It is Adm. McRavens desire to push the Special Operators to other commands or regions as their work is sone in Afghanistan (or will it ever be done). To be honest, I believe America and the US Special Operation Command (USSOCOM) will keep a close eye on the CENTCOM region and have a force that is ready to fight in an instant near by. SF will continue to operate in Afghanistan and Pakistan after conventional forces leave, it only make sense.

If the majority of SF leaves CENTCOM, where will they go and what will they be doing? In 2001, there were about 30,000 special operators in the Navy, Air Force, and Army. Now in 2013, the force has grown significantly to 70,000 and the addition of the Marine Special Operation Command (MARSOC) in 2006. I imagine the continued growth of SF because of the way we are fighting. Unconventional, irregular, guerrillas, terrorist, freedom fighters, whatever you want to call them, warfare has changed and it calls for SF attention. Politicians label the SF community the "cure all medicine". I have the feeling politicians rely on the SF to fix anything and they might be able to, but just because the SF can sure all doesn't mean you send them every time. To answer my question at the beginning of the paragraph, SF  will be providing internal defense to foriegn allies and network to strengthen relationships.

As Im looking at the map  above, its hard not to think that America just divided up the world into region and probably put in place commanders over each region and a responsibility within that region. Just funny to think about and how it relates to America trying to police the world.