The Changing Nature of Potential Threats
With the offi cial end of the cold war in 1991, as Alvin and Heidi Toffl er state in their 1993 book War and Anti-War: Survival at the Dawn of the Twenty- First Century , 1 the industrial wars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (which were marked by huge armies, mass production of modern weapons, and mass destruction) could be said to have ended. Industrial-age warfare was being replaced in the twenty-fi rst century by information-age warfare. But in the post – cold war period, large standing armies continued to exist in the United States and elsewhere, and the organizations, doctrines, policies, and equipment of the cold war era continued to be emphasized. The focus of U.S. military planning in the last decade of the twentieth century was on being able to fi ght two concurrent regional confl icts (major-theater wars) — one on the Korean peninsula and one in the Middle East. The model was still a bipolar, relatively stable, conventional-warfare environment. Large national forces would oppose each other in traditional industrial-war scenarios — tank on tank, aircraft versus aircraft.
As Gary Hart has stated, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, “ funda- mentally altered the nature of national security and how to achieve it. . . . It dem- onstrated America ’ s vulnerability to a kind of savagery never seen in our country ’ s history. ” 2
Perhaps America should have seen this coming. In his 1993 book, Out of Control:
Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-First Century , Zbigniew Brzezinski (national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter) warned that in the greater Middle East an impoverished, shapeless Islamic cluster was permeated with anger at the West but lacked suffi cient cohesion either to lift itself into modernity or to strike forcefully at the West. The result, he predicted, would be a vast region of chronic instability that is caught between the competing impulses of traditionalism and modernism. 3 Similarly, Henry Kissinger (secretary of state under Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford) in his 1994 book Diplomacy said that the
twenty-fi rst century would move from the bipolar confrontations and universalists ’ ideologies of the twentieth century to a world of great pluralism, change, and uncer- tainty, which would make it hard for all countries to steer their foreign policies in sensible directions and might make them unable to preserve peace if their interests and identities collided. 4 But changing from one paradigm to another is diffi cult 5 without a true crisis (such as the one that was brought on by the terrorists ’ attacks of September 11, 2001). Not until after that event did people begin to realize how the world had been changing signifi cantly in the national security arena. And after that, America was at war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The environment changed between the cold war era and the post – cold war era, and this gradually became widely recognized. 6 Perhaps the fi nal recognition of this changed national security environment was given in a set of speeches that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made to the military. In an April 21, 2008, speech to cadets at West Point, he stated that the military must better prepare to fi ght “ brutal and adaptive insurgencies and terrorists ” in “ long, messy, unconventional confl ict. ” 7 Against such enemies, he said, traditional measures of military might (such as the amount of fi re power that can be directed at a target) will be less important than other elements of national power, such as economic and diplomatic might. He went on to urge the military services to stop spending money on costly weapon systems that are designed to fi ght big, conventional wars and to focus instead on training and preparing to fi ght irregular wars and to battle terrorist networks. In April 2009, he proposed signifi cant budget shifts (such as stopping production of the F-22 fi ghter aircraft, which was not used in Iraq or Afghanistan) and increasing funding for ground robots and unmanned intelligence aircraft (which have proved valuable in twenty-fi rst-century scenarios). Recognition of this changed environment for mili- tary operations was made offi cial when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs declared (on January 15, 2009), that “ the future operating environment will be characterized by uncertainty, complexity, rapid change, and persistent confl ict . ” 8
In this new environment, the changed requirements for national security are affected by globalization not only on the supply side (the defense industrial base) but also on the demand side. The interconnectedness of the “ fl at earth ” 9 has come about through the globalization of industry and technology, an explosion in inter- national trade and investment, increases in international travel (facilitated by inter- continental jet aircraft), the worldwide communications capability presented by communication satellites, the widespread use of the Internet, and worldwide televi- sion coverage (such as by CNN and BBC). These have shrunk the world so that oceans and continents no longer represented the barriers that they were in the past.
And these were accompanied, in the military arena, by such things as interconti- nental ballistic missiles that are armed with nuclear warheads. A person in one part of the world can activate these missiles by pushing a button and thereby launching
enormous destructive power against cities on the other side of the globe. In the same regime of weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons can give small groups of people enormous power without requiring the large level of fi nancing that nation-states once needed to achieve this level of destruc- tiveness. This interconnectedness and interdependency of society also has made nations more vulnerable to acts of terror — both physical and psychological.
In addition, many in the world have not benefi tted from globalization. In fact, the gap between poor and rich was actually widening during this period (by 2007, 75 percent of the world ’ s population had only 25 percent of its wealth). 10 And this disparity between rich and poor continues to widen (on a per capita basis) due to the rapid population growth in the poorer countries. Because America is viewed as the wealthy superpower and therefore in control of the world, it receives the focus of the frustration and wrath of these unemployed, poor people in the urban areas of the underdeveloped world. 11
In summary, we have moved from a relatively stable and predictable bipolar world to a world with many players (often not at the national level) who have great frustration, hatred, unemployment, and poverty and yet who are capable of pos- sessing weapons that can cause great harm to many people around the world — including those in the United States. In the twenty-fi rst century, the United States is facing ten areas of potential threats: (1) terrorism at home and abroad, (2) the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological), (3) cyberwarfare and cyberterrorism (against military and civilian infrastructures and the economy), (4) violent Islamic fundamentalism, (5) interna- tional narcocriminals, (6) regional confl icts (that pull in the United States), (7) failed states (that cause great instability and harm in a local region and bring in the United States), (8) struggles for scarce resources (such as oil, gas, water, food, minerals), (9) global pandemics and natural disasters, and (10) potential future peer competi- tors. Each of these ten potential future threats will affect the military demand for equipment — from the restructured twenty-fi rst-century national security industrial base of the United States and from the rest of the world.
1. Terrorism at Home and Abroad Based on recent terrorist incidences — the 2001 attacks in the United States, the 2000 attacks on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, and the 1983 bombings at the marine barracks in Beirut — the military are likely to get involved whether attacks are on the civilian population or on the military. In the twenty-fi rst century, terrorism may well be linked to other, more traditional con- fl icts. (Many people, including the author, were surprised that, when the United States attacked Iraq, terrorist actions did not take place within the United States as part of the Iraqi military response.) Such terrorist actions can be initiated — at the national level and at the small-scale, individual level — with signifi cant effects,
particularly with weapons of mass destruction. In many cases, it may be diffi cult to trace the actions back to their origin. This was the case with the anthrax attacks in the Post Offi ce of the Congress of the United States.
Terrorists cannot be defeated by traditional military means. As Secretary Gates stated, the risk is that “ smaller, irregular forces — insurgents, guerrillas, terrorists — will fi nd ways, as they always have, to frustrate and neutralize the advantages of larger, regular militaries. ” 12 It is impossible to prevent all acts of terrorism. None- theless, their effects must be minimized — whether in terms of homeland defense or in terms of actions abroad (against our military, our citizens, or our allies); and we cannot continue to treat the activities of the Department of Defense and of the Department of Homeland Security as separate issues since they are intimately interrelated.
2. The Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) include a range of potential threats, including, in order of priority, biological, nuclear, radiological, and chemical. These can easily have as much of an effect in a disruptive fashion as they can in terms of their destructive capability since the psychological aspects associated with these weapons can be signifi cant.
A well-thought-out biological attack has the potential to be, by far, the most destructive form of attack in terms of casualties and adverse economic and fi nancial effects. An attack conducted with a contagious agent, such as smallpox or plague, could kill tens of millions worldwide and effectively shut down global trade for a signifi cant period of time. Such an attack could involve the near-simultaneous release of an agent or volunteers infected with the agent in major population centers worldwide. Under such a scenario, the use of a contagious agent, combined with the high mobility of today ’ s society, would ensure the spread of the disease over most of the globe before the symptoms were identifi ed. 13 Documents captured in 2003 revealed that al-Qaeda was close to producing anthrax bacteria in labs in Afghanistan. 14 In fact, the best defense in this case is mitigation (for example, through a stockpile of vaccines that can counter the attack). The increasing use of bioengineered techniques to create totally new pathogens makes it diffi cult to miti- gate the effect of such an attack, however. Thus, this area of defense against bioter- rorism is receiving greatly increased funding at the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security. Researchers are developing vaccines and drugs to mitigate the effects of whatever pathogen is utilized.
The next most dangerous type of WMD attack is a nuclear one in a heavily populated urban area. This could result in hundreds of thousands of casualties, the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people, and billions of dollars of
economic loss (including the high cost of the medical coverage for those exposed but not killed). The cost of building such a nuclear device is high and would, most likely, be sponsored by a country. However, there has been a large proliferation of nuclear weapons capability in recent years (for example, from Pakistan), and many countries around the world now either have or are likely to acquire nuclear weapons capability. Some of these (such as North Korea and Iran) might not be as susceptible to deterrence through mutual assured destruction as the Soviet Union was. In addi- tion, because there are large numbers of nuclear weapons in Russia and elsewhere, a weapon purchased or stolen from those stockpiles could easily achieve the same objective. For that reason, the United States has been emphasizing the desirability of helping (through funding) the protection or destruction of those weapons and their delivery vehicles. But many countries are also developing the capability for missile, aircraft, or even ship-based delivery of such weapons. Graham Allison, in Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe , has documented the case of weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable material in Russia that could be stolen and sold to terrorists or to hostile nation states and used against American troops abroad or citizens at home. 15
The third category of WMD threats is radiological weapons. The yield is sig- nifi cantly lower than with nuclear weapons, but it is much easier to gain access to the material needed to combine a conventional, high-energy explosive with radiological material to make a dirty bomb. The materials can be stolen (for example, from a hospital) and then set off in a concentrated, urban area. In this case, the primary damage effects (beyond the initial destruction to structures and people) are primarily psychological concerns about having been irradiated and the lingering effects of the long-term radiation in the area involved. Nonetheless, a few such explosive dirty bombs set off in a number of cities around the country could certainly cause signifi cant panic for millions of people in the local areas.
The fi nal category in this WMD area is chemical weapons. Here the potential physical damage (from high explosives alone) has been shown to be signifi cant, and the chemical damage (for example, from the spreading of mustard gas) can be widespread and extremely dangerous. When an initial attack occurs, it is important to know whether it is a chemical or a biological attack. In the case of a biological attack, people need to stay in the area so that they don ’ t spread it. In the case of a chemical attack, people need to get out of the area as quickly as possible so that they are not infected. Because the form of attack must be detected, sensors need to be located in most major urban areas.
3. Cyberwarfare and Cyberterrorism Perhaps the newest of the twenty-fi rst- century threats is the result of the technologically wired society in which we now live. Military systems are increasingly being designed to be protected (as much as
possible) against cyberattacks, but the most vulnerable areas are the civil infrastruc- tures, where attacks can be enormously destructive. These vulnerable systems include the central banking systems, hospital computers (interchanging blood types), and central power systems (causing massive blackouts). This form of twenty-fi rst- century threat is the most common. It is seen in attacks on personal computers by hackers and others who disrupt or fl ood our systems. But some nations and special- interest groups are working to put together signifi cant attacks, and the number of these against the Pentagon, other countries, and the U.S. infrastructure increase daily. Because the Internet was designed for trusted users (originally for communica- tion among university researchers), adding security into the system is a recent innovation. Most software system suppliers are adding protection (as they introduce new versions of their software), and many software security fi rms are taking advan- tage of this growing problem. This situation is not unique to the United States. The port of Singapore is totally computer-controlled and is the hub of most transit ship- ping in the greater Asian region. In 2007, the country of Estonia was found to be under a cyberattack that was believed to originate in Russia. And before Russia rolled into Georgia with tanks in 2008, 16 it fi rst took out the Georgian government ’ s national communications and information systems with an extensive cyberattack.
Future security operations will combine both cyberattacks and kinetic attacks against both military and nonmilitary targets.
4. Violent Islamic Fundamentalism To Islamic fundamentalists, the United States is a morally corrupt society that embraces materialism and sexual licentiousness at the expense of religious piety. They believe that the country is guilty of the worst possible heresy — the separation of church and state and the maintenance of a secular society. It is considered the “ great Satan, ” not because it threatens military aggres- sion with a new colonialism but because it is capable of being a great seducer and destroyer of Islam ’ s moral purity. Finally, they hate the United States because of its support of Israel, which is viewed as an alien infi del regime and a Middle East outpost of the Western crusade against Islam. This allows the Islamic fundamental- ists to fan hatred of the United States to mobilize the Arab masses in support of their political agenda in the Middle East — to expel the United States, to extinguish Israel, and to restore the entire Middle East to Islamic purity. 17
Unfortunately, modern technology (the Internet, global television, mass com- munication) empowers the modern terrorist, who is already intoxicated with reli- gious hatred, to encourage others to become violent in their actions. Deterrence is of little value in inhibiting these religious extremists because they believe that they enter paradise if they are killed while attacking their enemy. They would use weapons of mass destruction even if it meant retaliation of any form (conventional or even nuclear). This belief in divine approval presents a major barrier to any
inhibition that might otherwise come from the deterrence associated with U.S.
military strength. Unfortunately for the world, radical Islam not only employs terrorism and other acts of violence but strongly opposes what the Middle East needs to cure its ills — modernization, economic prosperity, and democratization.
As Secretary Gates has stated, 18 even after a withdrawal of forces from Iraq, American troops “ will continue to battle violent Jihadist networks ” in other coun- tries. He then went on to say, “ To paraphrase Bolshevik Leon Trotsky, we may not be interested in the long war, but the long war is interested in us. ” For this reason, violent Islamic fundamentalism is of much concern for future U.S. national security.
5. International Narcocriminals In the mid-1990s, when the Defense Department budget was around $350 billion a year, it was estimated that the worldwide nar- cotics kingpins had an annual budget that was comparable. And illicit drug traf- fi cking and smuggling have been steadily growing due to growth in both demand and supply (in opium, cocaine, heroin, and other drugs). In his 2005 book, Illicit:
How Smugglers, Traffi ckers, and Copycats Are High Jacking the Global Economy , 19 Mois é s Na í m observes that international organized crime, empowered by technol- ogy, has risen dramatically in recent years to a point where it has led to the criminalization of politics in several countries and threatens the stability of inter- national politics in many others. He observes that illicit traffi cking — in human beings, weapons, drugs, commercial manufactured products, biological organs, intellectual property rights, art, and money — has soared in the past decade. And there are huge profi ts to be made in these activities. He further observes that globalization has made illicit traffi cking far easier because it has opened national economies, knocked down trade barriers, integrated global markets, and facilitated currency exchange and international fi nancing. Also, given the enormous fi nancial power of these international crime bosses, governments in many countries are powerless to deal with them. Since the end of the cold war, many superfl uous military arsenals are available for sale on the world market; and middlemen are buying arms cheaply (in places such as Eastern Europe) and airlifting them to Africa and the Middle East at high profi ts. So there has been a global prolifera- tion of large quantities of rifl es, machine guns, grenades, mortars, missiles and rocket launchers, and man-portable missile systems that are capable of downing aircraft. 20 What is of increasing concern to America ’ s national security community (particularly those involved with Latin America and Africa) is the growing linkage between the terrorist community and the illicit traffi cking trade. Historically, this has not been a traditional military arena, but in recent years the military has been increasingly involved (for example, in stopping the drug trade from South America into the southern United States). With extensive modern technology (such as small,