Charting A Course PDF

Strategic Choices for a New Administration
Edited by R.D. Hooker, Jr.

Strategic Choices for a New Administration
Edited by R.D. Hooker, Jr.
National Defense University Press

Washington, D.C.
December 2016
Published in the United States by National Defense University Press.
Portions of this book may be quoted or reprinted without permission,
provided that a standard source credit line is included. NDU Press
would appreciate a courtesy copy of reprints or reviews.
Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied

within are solely those of the contributors and do not necessarily rep-
resent the views of the Department of State, Department of Defense, or
any other agency of the Federal Government. Cleared for public release;
distribution unlimited.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record of this publication may be found at the

Library of Congress.
National Defense University Press

260 Fifth Avenue (Building 64) Suite 2500
Fort Lesley J. McNair Washington, DC 20319
NDU Press publications are sold by the U.S. Government Printing

Office. For ordering information, call (202) 512-1800 or write to the
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash-
ington, DC, 20402. For GPO publications online, access its Web site at:
http://bookstore.gpo.gov.
Book design by Marco Marchegiani, U.S. Government Printing Office
Cover photo: Unarmed Minuteman III ICBM accelerates toward test

range near Guam after launching from Vandenberg Air Force Base,
March 27, 2015 (DOD)
• iv •
Contents
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . vii 9
Asia Pacific . . . . . . . . . . 171
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . xiii James J. Przystup and
Phillip C. Saunders
1
American Grand Strategy . . . . 1 10
R.D. Hooker, Jr. The North Atlantic Treaty
Organization and Europe . . . 203
2 Charles L. Barry and
The Future of Conflict . . . . . 17 Julian Lindley-French
T.X. Hammes
11
3 Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
U.S. Defense Policy Peter B. Zwack
and Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . 37
F.G. Hoffman 12
The Middle East . . . . . . . . 249
4 Denise Natali
The American Defense Budget
2017–2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 13
Michael J. Meese South Asia . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Thomas F. Lynch III
5
National Security Reform . . . . 83 14
Christopher J. Lamb Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
Hilary Matfess
6
Weapons of 15
Mass Destruction . . . . . . . 101 Latin America . . . . . . . . . 315
John P. Caves, Jr. Craig A. Deare
7 16
Countering Terrorism . . . . . 133 Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . 337
R. Kim Cragin Theresa Sabonis-Helf
8 17
Cyber Policy . . . . . . . . . . 149 The High North . . . . . . . . 355
Janice M. Hamby and David Auerswald
Thomas C. Wingfield
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . 377
• v •
Foreword
T he new administration takes office in a time of great complexity.

Our new President faces a national security environment shaped
by strong currents: globalization; the proliferation of new, poor, and
weak states, as well as nonstate actors; an enduring landscape of violent
extremist organizations; slow economic growth; the rise of China and
a revanchist Russia; a collapsing Middle East; and a domestic politics
wracked by division and mistrust. While in absolute terms the Nation
and the world are safer than in the last century, today the United States
finds itself almost on a permanent war footing, engaged in military oper-
ations around the world.
We tend to think first of the military when pondering national security,
but our political system and economic strength are its true wellsprings.
Whatever our internal political disputes may have been, in former times
a consensus on how best to address the most formidable security threats
obtained. Against great threats we were able to come together. That con-
sensus was shattered by the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal, a 24-
hour news cycle, and the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Our polarized domes-
tic politics represents a clear challenge to our national security. Political
fissures will always exist in our constitutional system. But without broad
coherence and accommodation, sensible and sustained national security
and defense policy is gravely impaired.
A parallel threat is our inability to rise above local and partisan po-
litical considerations to more effectively manage the defense budget,
programming, and acquisition processes. The U.S. defense budget ap-
proaches $600 billion per year, dwarfing China’s $150 billion defense
budget and Russia’s $70 billion. Yet we get far less capability than the
numbers suggest. Political opposition to base closures, rising person-
nel and program costs, and excessive influence by defense industries on
defense acquisition limits decision space. Our inability to pass defense
budgets on time further complicates programming and budget execu-
tion. More broadly, continued growth in nondiscretionary spending on
entitlements and debt service will, in the next generation or so, begin
• vii •
Foreword
to seriously crowd out defense spending if not brought under control.

Meanwhile, expanding staffs and organizations sap resources from the
fighting forces. Defense spending matches the height of the buildup by
Ronald Reagan but can only support a force two-thirds the size. New
systems feature exquisite technology but are so costly that we can afford
far fewer of them, while cost overruns, delayed fielding, and system flaws
are endemic. These are serious issues that cannot be solved without con-
gressional action and determined Presidential leadership.
In a similar vein, the interagency process employed in national secu-
rity decisionmaking increasingly faces criticism. Some see an inability to
overcome parochialism on the part of departments and agencies in the
interests of optimum policy development. Others see dramatic growth in
the National Security Council staff leading to operationalizing the White
House and curtailing the prerogatives of Cabinet officers and combat-
ant commanders. In this view the excessive centralization of power in
nonconfirmed White House staff marginalizes the expertise and statu-
tory authority of the departments and degrades congressional oversight.
The net effect is held to be suboptimal interagency performance that
demands reform.
Turning to national security strategy, perhaps the key question for the
new administration is whether to remain engaged as the guarantor of
the international economic and political order. For the previous 8 years,
caution was seen as the order of the day; military interventions have
been few and limited essentially to airpower and trainers or infrequent
special operations and drone strikes. In the heated 2016 political season,
calls for “offshore balancing” and even withdrawal from overseas com-
mitments were heard more loudly than in many decades. In the best of
times, breaking crises and unforecasted events will tend to crowd senior
leader agendas and decision space. Yet a broad strategic framework, em-
phasizing alliances, forward basing, active diplomacy, and military and
economic preponderance, has characterized U.S. national security for
almost a century. It is difficult to see how continued disengagement from
world affairs will redound to improved national security. As we have
seen, a proliferation of failed and failing states and the rise of nonstate
actors have created political vacuums around the periphery of the former
Soviet Union, eastern Congo, South Sudan, large parts of northern Afri-
ca, and the Middle East (among others), leading to massive population
displacement, loss of life, security threats, terrorism, and instability.
A holistic approach to dealing with this security environment will not
be easy to contrive but will be needed if America’s security posture is to
improve. For some years, defense leaders have used a “4+1” construct as
shorthand for the most serious threats: China, Iran, North Korea, and
• viii •
Foreword
Russia, and violent extremist organizations like Daesh and al Qaeda.

Though the rebalance to Asia specifically highlighted that region as a pri-
ority, in all likelihood the national security establishment will continue
to orient on all these in the near and midterm. In this regard, containing
and deterring adversary states will be called for. Armed conflict with any
would represent a failure of both policy and strategy of the first order.
Thus, U.S. approaches should seek to create the perception in the minds
of adversary decisionmakers that the costs of any challenge to core U.S.
interests will outweigh any benefits.
Peaceful economic and diplomatic engagement will remain import-
ant, but we should not be under any illusions. The temptation to treat
these nations as simultaneously benign partners and aggressive adver-
saries may hamper effective strategy. Russia in particular has repeatedly
demonstrated a willingness to use force to overturn or set aside inter-
national norms, while China’s muscular assertion of sovereignty in the
South China Sea has roiled our traditional partners and allies in the re-
gion and called into question U.S. leadership in the Asia-Pacific region.
Iran pursues a hegemonic agenda deeply rooted in a strategic culture that
is many centuries old, exacerbated by a militant Shia impulse directly at
odds with the Sunni world. On the Korean Peninsula, an unstable and
erratic nuclear regime threatens an increasingly fragile peace. Through-
out the Middle East—and indeed the world—terrorist organizations like
Daesh and al Qaeda remain potent threats that demand serious attention.
Other regions such as Latin America and Africa have traditionally en-
joyed lower priority but cannot be ignored. In both the rise of more
globalized transnational criminal organizations has eroded state control,
increased corruption, and provoked mass immigration. Pandemics orig-
inating in these regions must also concern strategists and policymakers.
Terrorist groups have gained a growing foothold, while stable and func-
tioning democracy remains elusive in some quarters. Neither region will
assume top priority in U.S. national security policy anytime soon, but
both will require sustained engagement going forward.
When today’s most senior military leaders entered the force, space
and cyber began to emerge as distinct domains. Today they are crucial
to our military success and to national security writ large. Our military
is dependent on space for navigation, targeting, communications, and
strategic intelligence gathering and early warning. Protection of our in-
formation networks (private and public, civilian and military) is a first
order priority as is an offensive capability to target adversary networks
in time of war or confrontation. Loss or degradation of these key capa-
bilities offers war-winning advantages to China and Russia in particular.
Amid many competing priorities these must be championed.
• ix •
Foreword
On many of these fronts, diplomatic, informational, and economic

instruments will matter greatly, but hard military power will count most.
How much is enough? On the nuclear front, the deterrent force is aging,
and large investments will be needed if the intent is to preserve the nu-
clear triad going forward. A survivable capability to deliver unacceptable
levels of destruction is the sine qua non of deterrence. Yet the projected
costs of replacement systems such as the Long Range Strategic Bomb-
er, Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine, modernized intercontinental
ballistic missiles, and nuclear-armed cruise missiles may approach $1
trillion, forcing hard choices on the Department of Defense.
Conventionally, the U.S. military finds itself repeating a familiar pat-
tern, with land forces declining following more than a decade of ex-
hausting deployments. As noted in the most recent Quadrennial Defense
Review, this factor poses a high risk. At sea and in the air, U.S. forces
remain clearly preponderant—particularly when the forces of close allies
are factored in. As a force-sizing construct, this volume argues that the
force should be balanced among land, sea, and air forces and sized to
conduct two major conventional campaigns simultaneously. (Since the
end of the Cold War this construct has been progressively relaxed as the
size of the force has declined.) The compelling argument is that a “one
major war at a time” force reduces the United States from a global to a
regional power, impairing deterrence and reassurance of key allies. Post–
Cold War trends have also seen the force come home from many of its
forward bases. Projecting force from the homeland to distant locations is
now the norm, and airlift and sealift as well as prepositioned stocks will
remain essential building blocks of American grand strategy.
If all these capabilities are important, what are our true strategic prior-
ities? Effective nuclear deterrence must top the list, along with modern-
ized space, cyber, and command, control, communications, computers,
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems and communities.
With the majority of our combat forces no longer forward deployed,
power projection in the form of sealift and airlift as well as prepositioned
stocks must be resourced. Given our strong preponderance in seapower
and airpower, the next administration has an opportunity to revisit pro-
gram acquisition decisions in these domains, though ground forces are
far less dominant or modernized and will need help.
No formal document describes a grand strategy for the United States,
and indeed, many academics deny that one exists. Yet a close look at
our history as a world power suggests that core interests and how we
secure them have remained generally consistent over time. If grand
strategy “rises above particular strategies intended to secure particular
objectives,” many decades of focusing on nuclear deterrence, power pro-
• x •
Foreword
jection, alliances and partnerships, and military and economic strength

probably constitute the underpinnings of a coherent grand strategy. How
we employ and leverage these instruments of national power to pro-
tect, defend, and advance the national interest is, after all, the essence of
grand strategy. In a dangerous world, these pillars have provided a strong
foundation for national security. If our domestic politics can achieve con-
sensus on future threats and solutions, America is well positioned to lead
and prosper in a world that will remain both dangerous and uncertain.
R.D. Hooker, Jr.

Director, Institute for National Strategic Studies
National Defense University
Washington, D.C.
• xi •
Acknowledgments
T his volume represents a year-long effort by some of the best scholars

at the National Defense University (NDU). No editor could be more
fortunate than I have been to work with these talented writers. Their
backgrounds are varied, combining high-level government service with
sterling academic credentials, along with brilliant work by some superb
young researchers who will make their mark in the coming years. I wish
to express my deep appreciation to all who contributed to this effort.
Special praise is due to the outstanding staff at NDU Press, whose hard
work has been instrumental in bringing this volume to completion.
Directly or indirectly, our efforts have been supported by our many
friends and colleagues at NDU, the Joint Staff, Service and combatant
command staffs, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Their sup-
port of NDU research makes our contributions possible. Special thanks
are due to NDU President Major General Frederick M. Padilla, USMC;
Lieutenant General Thomas D. Waldhauser, USMC, director for Joint
Force Development/J7 on the Joint Staff; his successor, Vice Admiral
Kevin D. Scott, USN; and, of course, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr. NDU takes great pride in being
“The Chairman’s University,” and the strong support of these key senior
leaders has been essential to bringing this project to fruition.
Our intention is to offer useful policy advice and strategic recommen-
dations to those senior leaders who will staff and lead the new adminis-
tration in national security affairs. Only they can determine whether we
have succeeded. Their task is not an easy one, and we offer our insights
and reflections not with certainty, but with an ample dose of humility.
We see no silver bullets, no elegant solutions to the complex problems
we face. If we have helped to provide context and understanding to those
who bear the heaviest responsibilities, we will have been well rewarded.
• xiii •
1
American Grand Strategy
R.D. Hooker, Jr.
Senior policymakers are often asked, “Does the United States have a grand
strategy?” This chapter argues that a clearly definable American grand
strategy exists and is set on firm foundations such as economic strength,
nuclear deterrence, alliances and partnerships, and full-spectrum dominance
in all warfighting domains. U.S. grand strategy is tied directly to enduring
core interests that do not change over time, though the means employed to
secure them are constantly evolving as technology and our national security
institutions evolve.
F rom before the American Revolution, the outlines of an evolving

grand strategy have been evident in our foreign and domestic pol-
icies.1 Much of that history continues to inform our strategic conduct,
and U.S. grand strategy therefore rests today on traditional foundations.
Despite a welter of theory and debate, grand strategy as a practical mat-
ter is remarkably consistent from decade to decade, its means altering
as technology advances and institutions evolve, but its ends and ways
showing marked continuity.
Grand strategy can be understood simply as the use of all instruments
of national power to secure the state.2 Thus it exists at a level above
particular strategies intended to secure particular ends, and above the
use of military power alone to achieve political objectives. One way to
comprehend grand strategy is to look for long-term state behavior as
defined by enduring, core security interests and how the state secures
and advances these over time. In a way, this means that what the state
does matters more than what the state says. Grand strategy is therefore
related to, but not synonymous with, national security strategies, nation-
al military strategies, quadrennial defense reviews, or defense strategic
guidance. True grand strategy transcends the security pronouncements
of political parties or individual administrations. Viewed in this light,
• 1 •
Hooker
U.S. grand strategy shows great persistence over time, orienting on those
things deemed most important—those interests for which virtually any
administration will spend, legislate, threaten, or fight to defend.
At the conclusion of more than a decade of counterinsurgency opera-
tions, the United States finds itself repeating a familiar historical pattern.
In the fiscal retrenchment that accompanies the end of every conflict (ex-
acerbated by the economic collapse of 2008 and the Budget Control Act
of 2011), military forces (particularly land forces) are being drawn down.3
Most U.S. ground and air forces have been repositioned to the continental
United States, while defense spending (absent remedial legislation) will
decline over the next 10 years by approximately 10 percent per year.
At the same time, emerging nontraditional threats such as cyber attacks,
weapons of mass destruction (whether chemical, biological, or radiolog-
ical) wielded by nonstate actors, and international terrorism now crowd
the security agenda. Increasingly, other threats such as narco-trafficking,
illegal immigration, environmental degradation, shifting and unstable de-
mographics, organized crime, and even climate change are also cast as
national security threats. What does this portend for U.S. grand strategy?
The Ends of Grand Strategy

First, it is important not to confuse enduring core strategic interests with
others that are less central. The current security environment, described
in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review as “rapidly changing,” “vola-
tile,” “unpredictable,” and “in some cases more threatening,” is certainly
all those. Yet addressing this environment in fact aligns comfortably with
U.S. grand strategy over time. Broadly speaking, vital or core national in-
terests remain remarkably consistent. These include the defense of U.S.
territory and its citizens and that of our allies, supporting and defending
our constitutional values and forms of government, and promoting and
securing the U.S. economy and standard of living. Virtually every stra-
tegic dynamic and dimension are encompassed in these. Grand strategy
is by no means confined to our military forces and institutions but is far
broader, encompassing all forms of national power. That said, we must
beware of attempts to define everything in terms of national security. Any
discussion of grand strategy quickly loses coherence and utility when
we do.4 Grand strategy is fundamentally about security in its more tra-
ditional sense.5
Any assessment must begin with looking first at our security envi-
ronment, and then at threats to our core or vital interests, without ei-
ther overestimating or undervaluing them. The international security
environment is by now well understood and familiar. Raymond Aron’s
• 2 •
view of “a multiplicity of autonomous centers of decision and therefore

a risk of war” holds true today.6 The bipolar and traditionally Westpha-
lian state system of the Cold War has given way to a more multipo-
lar system featuring a militarily and economically dominant, but not
all-powerful, United States; a rising China and India; a resurgent Russia;
an economically potent but militarily declining Europe; an unstable and
violence-prone Middle East, wracked by the Sunni-Shia divide, econom-
ic and governance underperformance, and the Arab-Israeli problem; a
proliferation of weak and failed states, particularly in Africa, the Middle
East, and the Russian periphery; and empowered international and non-
governmental organizations and nonstate actors.7 Terrorist organizations
and international organized crime are far more significant than in the
past, enabled by global communications and information flows. In abso-
lute terms the world is safer, as the prospect of nuclear mutually assured
destruction and world war costing millions of lives seems relegated to
the past. Yet most societies feel threatened and insecure, while conflict, if
more low-level, remains endemic.
The broad threats that confront us have deep roots but have also
evolved over time. In order of importance, they can be summarized as:
• Use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against the homeland.

These could be nuclear, biological, chemical, cyber, or explosive/
kinetic in nature (such as the 9/11 attacks) delivered by either state
or nonstate actors. Single or multiple attacks causing mass casual-
ties could lead to partial or complete economic collapse and loss of
confidence in our governance structures, imperiling our standard of
living and way of life in addition to causing loss of life.8
• Economic disruption from without. The crash of 2008 was largely

self-induced, but the health and stability of the U.S. economy could
also be affected by the actions of foreign powers. Any major dis-
ruption to the global economy, which depends upon investor con-
fidence as much as the free flow of goods and energy, could have
catastrophic consequences for the United States, and Presidents
have repeatedly shown a willingness to use force to ensure access to
markets, free trade, and economic stability.
• The rise of a hostile peer competitor. For centuries, Great Britain

aligned against the rise of any power able to dominate the European
landmass and upset the balance of power. The United States did the
same in opposing Germany in World War I, Germany and Japan in
World War II, and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The U.S.
• 3 •
Hooker
“rebalance” to Asia and opposition to Chinese territorial moves in

the East and South China seas can be seen as an attempt to count-
er the rise of China in a manner consistent with longstanding U.S.
grand strategy.
• Direct challenges to key allies. Alliances such as the North Atlan-

tic Treaty Organization (NATO) and bilateral security arrangements
with close allies such as Japan and South Korea constitute solemn
commitments that extend American power and influence globally.
To preserve international stability and deter conflict, they must be
honored. U.S. leaders can be expected to act decisively when close
allies are directly threatened.
There are, of course, other threats of concern to national security

practitioners that fall below this threshold. For example, promoting
democracy and human rights abroad are sometimes touted as foreign
policy “imperatives.”9 While consistent with American political culture
and ideology, in practice, these are highly case specific. When consonant
with the framework and principles of its grand strategy, the United States
may act, but more often a pragmatic realism governs.10 The long night-
mare in Syria, with its tragic loss of life, accelerating regional instabili-
ty, mounting extremism and terrorist involvement, and massive human
rights violations on all sides, would seem to be a classic case calling for
military intervention. Yet there is no United Nations or NATO mandate,
no strong reservoir of public support for military action, no appetite for
intervention among our allies and partners, and no desire to dispute the
agendas of Russia, China, and Iran in Syria, at least for the time being.
With no direct threat to the homeland, U.S. citizens or allies, or the U.S.
economy, the prospects for large-scale military intervention at present
seem low, despite the humanitarian tragedy unfolding.
The crisis in Ukraine presents a different case study. The North Atlan-
tic Council voted to defer NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine
and did not station NATO troops in the new member states, largely
out of deference to Russian security concerns. These confidence-build-
ing measures notwithstanding, Russia in recent years sent troops into
Georgia, Crimea, eastern Ukraine, and Syria.11 The concerns of NATO
members, especially the newer ones located in Eastern Europe and the
Baltic States, are mounting as Russian leaders assert the right to “protect”
ethnic Russian minorities in neighboring countries.
This scenario presents a different challenge to U.S. grand strategy.
Should Russia seize more Ukrainian territory, NATO’s Baltic members
could possibly come under threat.12 Direct confrontation with Russia,
• 4 •
still a major nuclear and conventional power, may seem unthinkable. Yet
failure to honor our treaty obligations to NATO would mean the virtual
collapse not only of the Alliance but also of our security relationships
around the world. Such a loss of global reach and influence would negate
U.S. grand strategy altogether. For that reason, however much against
its will, the United States will in all likelihood confront Russia should a
NATO member be attacked or directly threatened.
The unfolding collapse of Iraq and Syria may fall somewhere in be-
tween. Across the United States and in both political parties, there re-
mains a strong aversion to reintroducing a large ground presence into
the Middle East. A direct threat to the homeland has not yet emerged
(though “lone-wolf attacks” are mounting), and the prospect of lending
military and material aid to the Shia regime in Baghdad, itself both sup-
ported and at least partially controlled by Tehran, is unpalatable. On the
other hand, major human rights violations and the prospect of spillover
and accelerating destabilization of the region could compel strong ac-
tion against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and its Sunni
confederates. Should ISIL successfully establish a safe haven and launch
major attacks against Europe and the United States, decisive U.S. and
coalition military action would probably follow. Major disruption to the
free flow of oil through the Arabian Gulf and attendant economic shocks
could also compel a powerful military response.
These and similar examples raise the question of whether the Unit-
ed States consciously pursues an imperial or hegemonic grand strategy.
Many scholars, both domestic and foreign, explicitly or implicitly assert
that it does.13 On the one hand, the United States, along with other great
powers, seeks to provide for its own security by maximizing its power
relative to potential and actual adversaries, within limits imposed by its
domestic politics. Its political and military leaders are constrained in at-
tempting to balance what Aron called an ethics of responsibility—the
pragmatic reality of an international politics that cannot and does not
ignore the role of force—and an ethics of conviction, which is norma-
tive and classically liberal in seeking accommodation and an absence of
conflict where possible.14 It is thus true that U.S. power, and particularly
military power, is often employed to secure and advance American inter-
ests. On the other hand, U.S. interventions are marked by an absence of
territorial aggrandizement or forced extraction of natural resources. Typ-
ically, huge sums are spent on development and infrastructure improve-
ments. On its own or when asked (as in the Balkans, Somalia, Haiti,
Panama, and Iraq), the United States usually withdraws and goes home.
Even close allies remain free to opt out of military ventures, as seen in the
invasion of Iraq in 2003 and in Libya in 2011.
• 5 •
Hooker
The net effect has been to bring into being, largely if not entirely
through America’s own efforts, a rules-based international and economic
order that has widely benefited much of the world:
It falls to the dominant state to create the conditions under

which economic interdependence can take hold (by provid-
ing security, rules of the game, and a reserve currency, and
by acting as the global economy’s banker and lender of last
resort). Without a dominant power to perform these tasks,
economic interdependence does not happen. Indeed, free
trade and interdependence have occurred in the modern
international system only during the hegemonies of Victo-
rian Britain and postwar America.15
These are the actions of a preponderant power but hardly of a classically

imperialist one. If the United States is imperialist, it appears to be so in a
historically benign way; if hegemonic, in a heavily qualified one.
The Means of Grand Strategy

The means of grand strategy are similarly enduring over time. Foster-
ing strong alliances and bilateral security arrangements, maintaining a
strong and survivable nuclear deterrent, fielding balanced, powerful, and
capable military forces that are dominant in each warfighting domain
and that can project and sustain military power globally and prevail in
armed conflict, and providing intelligence services that can ensure glob-
al situational awareness and provide strategic early warning are basic
components.16 They are intrinsically linked to a powerful economy and
industrial base, advanced technology, an extensive military reserve com-
ponent, an educated and technically skilled population fit for military
service,17 and a political system based on classically liberal democratic
values and able to make clear and sustainable policy and resource deci-
sions.18
America’s traditional reliance on forward presence and forward-de-
ployed forces, another strategic linchpin, has declined since the end of
the Cold War. Few combat forces remain in Europe (the last tank was
removed in 2012, though rotational forces have returned in brigade
strength), only a single ground combat brigade is based on the Korea
Peninsula, and there are no ground combat troops based in the Middle
East. Naval forward presence has also been scaled back in the post–Cold
War era as the size of the fleet has declined.19 On the alliance front, re-
lations with NATO Allies have been damaged by the rebalance to Asia,
• 6 •
widely perceived by Allies as a devaluation of Europe by U.S. leaders,

and by Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s stern speech in June 2011 that
castigated European Allies for failing to meet targets for defense spend-
ing.20 President Barack Obama’s “leading from behind” stance in Libya,
the pullout from Iraq, and inaction in Syria are interpreted by some as
evidence of a disinclination to engage globally in the interests of interna-
tional stability, though others see prudent and measured restraint.
The use of soft power also deserves consideration in this discussion.21
Described by its progenitor as “the ability to influence the behavior of oth-
ers to get the outcomes you want,”22 soft power is concerned with devel-
opment aid, cultural influence, the power of example (Coca-Cola, Amer-
ican blue jeans, and MTV are often cited), and other forms of suasion
that are not coercive or easily directed. Theorists disagree on whether soft
power should be considered part of the strategist’s arsenal. Diplomacy, for
instance, may lack utility when divorced from the military and economic
power of the state; the artfulness of the discussion may be useful but will
not be decisive absent hard power. On balance, though, the ability of
soft power to influence adversary behavior for good or ill is probably in-
controvertible, albeit not easily deployable or even controllable.23 To that
extent, it is an important factor that nevertheless falls outside the realm of
grand strategy as traditionally understood and practiced.
While U.S. determination to act forcefully in support of the interna-
tional order may be more open to question, and while U.S. economic and
military power may not be as dominant as in the past, in absolute terms
the United States remains by far the preponderant power in the world.
Possessed of great actual and potential strengths, the United States is
unequalled in hard power. Nevertheless, coherent and effective politi-
cal direction is the essential precondition to strategic success. Since the
end of the Vietnam War, mounting conflict between the legislative and
executive branches, spurred by a fractious polarization of American pol-
itics, has reached alarming proportions. Repeated wars have led to a con-
centration of the war power in the executive branch, arguably resulting
in more frequent uses of force that may not command public support.
Unquestionably, a healthy and stable set of political arrangements that
provides for effective sharing of power, while ensuring popular backing,
is essential.24 When lacking, successful strategic execution is at risk.
The Ways of Grand Strategy

How the United States addresses direct threats to its core or vital interests
over time is the essence of grand strategy. Typically, America’s solutions
are not new, although the technologies employed often are.
• 7 •
Hooker
U.S. grand strategy since 1945 has been based first and foremost on
nuclear deterrence. The ability to deter other nuclear powers dominated
strategic thought at least through the end of the Cold War. This meant a
survivable nuclear arsenal able to deliver sufficient damage great enough
to render any first strike by an adversary unimaginable. Originally, early
technology meant bombers attacking cities with nuclear bombs. Even-
tually this gave way to land- and sea-launched ballistic missiles, whose
improved accuracy allowed for targeting of enemy nuclear systems di-
rectly. The modern triad of strategic bombers, intercontinental ballistic
missiles, and nuclear ballistic submarines dates from this time. Though
smaller than during the Cold War, the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal to-
day is survivable, redundant, and accurate, providing an absolute nucle-
ar deterrent against any adversary.25
For the purposes of statecraft and strategy-making, deterrence is best
understood in simple terms. Deterrence is the art of instilling in the mind
of one’s adversary the belief that the costs of a contemplated course of
action outweigh the benefits. Here, both capability and credibility are
essential. The capability to deliver the threat must exist, or at least the
enemy must think so. But one’s willingness to deliver the threat must also
be seen and believed. Ambiguity, not certainty, is allowed if the threat-
ened costs are high; rational decisionmakers are deterred if the price of
miscalculation is unacceptably severe, as with nuclear weapons. But if
the threatened costs are not seen as unacceptably high, or if there is gen-
uine doubt as to whether the threat will be delivered, deterrence can fail.
This key dynamic explains why deterrence, especially the conven-
tional kind, so often falls short. In Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Iraq,
and Afghanistan, U.S. military power was immeasurably superior. In
each case, our opponent was not deterred. Why? In each, the U.S. use
of nuclear weapons was correctly discounted. In each, our opponents
calculated, again correctly, that we would not bring the full weight of
American power to bear. And in each, our adversaries assessed our will-
ingness to accept casualties and to persist over the long term as low. In
short, we lacked the credibility to effectively deter. Military fiascos such
as the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon and the “Black Hawk
Down” debacle in Somalia, which were followed by precipitate with-
drawal, encouraged potential enemies to believe that high casualties to
U.S. forces might cause America to quit.
Finally, the tendency to regard deterrence as a mission rather than an
effect should be squarely addressed. Military forces cannot train to deter.
They can only prepare to fight. If perceived as superior to one’s adver-
sary, and if directed by credible leaders, then effective deterrence can
be achieved. The mere existence of forces is not enough. They must be
• 8 •
trained, equipped, supplied, and led, in numbers and with capabilities

enough to overawe one’s likely opponent. As Wallace Thies argued in a
classic essay:
The value of military forces is often better measured in

terms of what does not happen rather than what does. The
most capable armed forces are those that prevent trouble
from arising because they exist in sufficient number and
quality to dissuade troublemakers from threatening Amer-
ican interests. . . . [T]he debate over deterrence versus war-
fighting is one of those rare cases where both sides have
managed to miss the point. Winning wars is wonderful,
preventing them is even better, but to prevent wars it is first
necessary to be able to fight them.26
Effective grand strategy must recognize this simple truth: It is far better
to avoid a war than to fight one. But avoiding war cannot rest on good
intentions. Hard military power and the will to use it are the coins of
the realm.
In the conventional realm, the first principle is to meet the threat as
far from the homeland as possible. Thus, since the end of World War
II, the United States has established bases, positioned forces, and stock-
piled weapons and munitions around the globe, buttressed by econom-
ic and development assistance, exercises, formal treaties, coalitions of
the willing, and alliances.27 (Counterproliferation may also be viewed
in this light.) While U.S. ground forces have largely come home, Amer-
ica’s network of overseas bases, airfields, and alliances as well as for-
ward-deployed air and naval forces is still extensive. The Nation’s ability
to project power globally and sustain its forces almost indefinitely re-
mains unmatched. U.S. satellites survey the globe and monitor adversary
communications continuously.
Next, the United States prefers to meet serious threats using different
tools at once, in theory reserving military force for last and relying on
intelligence, diplomacy, forward presence, and its economic power to
forestall, deflect, or defuse security challenges.28 Still, U.S. military pow-
er is awesome. Its strength across the warfighting domains, supported
by an unmatched ability to project and sustain military forces far from
the homeland, remains far ahead of the rest of the world.29 Whenev-
er possible, the United States prefers to address threats in tandem with
allies, partners, or like-minded states, working through internation-
al organizations such as the United Nations or NATO and conducting
preconflict engagement and “shaping” operations on a large scale. Yet
• 9 •
Hooker
when vital interests are engaged, the United States will act unilaterally if
necessary.30 Preemption to disrupt or prevent imminent threats falls well
within America’s grand strategic calculus.31 Prevention—the use of force
to defeat threats before they become imminent—has, on the other hand,
far less provenance.
As the preponderant global power, the United States attempts to
shape the international security environment to prevent or ward off se-
curity challenges where it can.32 When it cannot, and when significant
or vital interests are engaged, military force often comes into play. Since
the end of World War II, the United States has used military force many
times, with varying degrees of success, to protect, secure, or advance
its security interests.33 When military force was used, the record of suc-
cess or failure is illustrative when viewed in light of the grand strategic
framework described above. In the previous century, the United States
experienced clear success when the threats to vital interests were un-
ambiguous; when the response enjoyed strong support from the public
and Congress; when overwhelming force was applied; when strong allies
participated; and when the strategic objective was well understood.34
Both World War I and II, the Cold War, and the Gulf War are examples.
In cases where the direct threat to U.S. vital interests was less clear, over-
whelming force was not applied, public and congressional support was
not strong or sustained, and the strategic objective was unclear, defeat
or stalemate ensued. Korea, Vietnam, Beirut, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghan-
istan are the relevant examples here. In some cases (the Dominican Re-
public, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Kosovo), the desiderata listed above did
not fully apply, but weak opposition and overmatching force led to early
success, forestalling loss of public support or stagnation of the conflict.35
These historical lessons are compelling. American political leaders
have not always recognized these principles and have certainly not always
applied them. Their apparent jettisoning by both Republican and Dem-
ocratic administrations following the Gulf War has come with a heavy
price. America’s successes in war, and in deterring war, have resulted at
least as much from an industrial and technological superiority, employed
en masse by competent political and military institutions, as from any
other factor.36 This superiority is best translated into battlefield and cam-
paign success by synergistically applying land, sea, air, space, and cyber
power to achieve decisive objectives that see through and beyond the end
of combat operations. Single-Service or one-dimensional applications of
force have repeatedly failed of their promise to deliver strategic victory.
Relatedly, political leaders and strategists should be mindful of strategic
culture, that mélange of history, tradition, custom, world view, economy,
sociology, political systems, and mores that largely shapes how and why
• 10 •
nations fight. There may be no agreed upon American theory of war, but
an “American way of war” surely obtains, based on concepts of joint and
combined warfare, mass, firepower, technology, strong popular support,
and a focus on decisive and clear-cut outcomes.37 “Good wars” have his-
torically followed this pattern. “Bad wars” have not. While the analogy
can be taken too far, it captures central truths that should inform our
strategic calculations.38 Strategic culture is real and powerful, whether or
not it is acknowledged.39
The Way Ahead

As U.S. leaders assess a complex security environment, historical experi-
ence provides useful and helpful context and guideposts to understand-
ing the present—even when security threats are harder to define and
address, as in the case of cyber attacks.40 U.S. forces are also held to
standards increasingly difficult to guarantee; the prospect of even mini-
mal casualties to our own forces or to civilians (however unintentional)
or unintended environmental damage now colors every decision in the
age of the 24-hour news cycle. On balance, traditional military security
concerns often seem less paramount. Absent a clear and present danger,
humanitarian considerations, environmental issues, and resource im-
pacts and scarcities compete strongly with military factors in policy de-
liberations. In the meantime, nonstate actors are increasing their power
and influence to effect policy changes across a wide spectrum of issues,
many of which directly affect the ability of U.S. military forces to carry
out their missions.41
In the last generation we have often seen the face of the future re-
flected in the bitter divisions of the past, in failed states, in emerging de-
mocracies, and in nations stuck in transition between authoritarian and
democratic systems. A persistently uncertain and unstable international
security environment places a premium on U.S. leadership. As the only
remaining global power and as a coalition leader in organizations such
as NATO, the United States is uniquely positioned to influence world
affairs in ways that benefit not only the Nation, but also the international
community as a whole.42 The prudent use of American military power,
in concert with the economic, political, and diplomatic instruments of
national power, remains central to attempts to shape the international
environment and encourage peace and stability wherever important U.S.
interests are at stake.43
It is also useful to note that the formerly sharp distinction between
the military instrument and others has become blurred. The definition
of national security is now more expansive, encompassing a great domain
• 11 •
Hooker
of “homeland defense,” with dozens of civilian agencies and large mili-

tary organizations (such as U.S. Northern Command) intimately linked
with and often working in subordination to other civilian entities. Even
in conflict zones, tactical formations engaged in daily combat can find
themselves with scores of embedded civilians representing civilian de-
partments.44 Informational technologies and a more globalized threat,
able to strike from remote and underdeveloped locations with great ef-
fect, now force a greater degree of synergy and interoperability between
military and nonmilitary organizations than ever before. These trends
will continue on a trajectory toward ever greater civil-military integra-
tion, particularly in the intelligence, cyber, acquisition, logistics, and
consequence management realms.
Taking the long view, and acknowledging the strong impact of new
technologies and threats, the framework of U.S. grand strategy as de-
scribed here will remain relevant and current for decades to come. The
international security environment will remain anarchic and uncertain,
with the state mattering more than supranational organizations, even as
nonstate actors of many kinds proliferate. Conflict will remain endemic,
and state-on-state conflict will recur. WMD attacks against the homeland
will be attempted and may be successful. Pressures to intervene—in the
Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe, and perhaps even East Asia—will
persist or surface anew. Strategic shocks—unanticipated crises requiring
strategic responses—will be more the norm than not.45 None of this is
new, unique, or even more dangerous than in the past.
Strategists must accordingly consider and refine the ways and means
by which our traditional and enduring interests may best be defended.
Along the way, a certain humility is helpful; as Henry Kissinger wrote,
“The gods are offended by hubris. They resent the presumption that
events can be totally predicted and managed.”46 At its best, grand strat-
egy is not always or fundamentally about fighting or the military appli-
cation of force, but rather an appreciation of its potential, along with the
other instruments of power, in the mind of the adversary. President Ron-
ald Reagan’s role in bringing about an end to the Cold War is the classic
example. In this sense, effective grand strategy may often preclude the
need to resort to force. To achieve this, the involvement of society in its
own national defense, a strong, stable, and globally networked economy,
an effective domestic politics that can make rational decisions over time
in support of national security, and the promotion of values that invite
support and consensus at home and abroad will count for much. So
too will balanced and capable military forces, sized and able to operate
globally and in concert with civilian counterparts, international organi-
zations, allies, and partners. The decision when and if to use force should
• 12 •
never be approached casually, emotionally, or halfheartedly, but, rather,

soberly, analytically, and with a whole-of-government and whole-of-so-
ciety intention to prevail. There should never be doubt that when core
interests are engaged, the United States will bring the full weight of its
power to bear and will persist until success is achieved. On these founda-
tions will rest an effective U.S. grand strategy far into the future.
Notes
1
Defining grand strategy is admittedly onerous. Colin Gray defines it as the “purpose-
ful employment of all instruments of power available to a security community.” Robert
J. Art excludes nonmilitary instruments from grand strategy, while Christopher Layne
simply calls it “the process by which the state matches ends and means in the pursuit
of security.” Sir Hew Strachan sees grand strategy as forward looking, aspirational, and
oriented on preventing or managing great power decline. Edward Luttwak is particularly
opaque: “Grand strategy may be seen as a confluence of the military interactions that
flow up and down level by level . . . with the varied external relations that form strategy’s
horizontal dimension at its highest level.” See Colin Gray, War, Peace and International
Relations: An Introduction to Strategic History (Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge,
2007), 283; Robert J. Art, “A Defensible Defense,” International Security 15, no. 4 (Spring
1991), 7; Christophe Layne, “Rethinking American Grand Strategy: Hegemony or Balance
of Power in the 21st Century,” World Policy Journal 15, no. 2 (November 1998), 8; Hew
Strachan, “Strategy and Contingency,” International Affairs 87, no. 6 (2011), 1281–1296;
and Edward Luttwak, Strategy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press), 179.
2
Strategy is more properly limited to “the deployment and use of armed forces to
attain a given political objective.” See Michael Howard, “The Forgotten Dimensions of
Strategy,” Foreign Affairs (Summer 1979), 975.
3
Active Army forces, according to Pentagon sources, will fall to 420,000, the lowest
level since before World War II. See Quadrennial Defense Review 2014 (Washington, DC:
Department of Defense, 2013), ix.
4
As one example of this tendency toward incoherence, Paul Doherty discusses the
importance of “walkabout communities” as part of a “new grand strategic construct” in “A
New U.S. Grand Strategy,” Foreign Policy, January 9, 2013.
5
This trend is driven in part by a desire to access defense budgets to fund programs
not traditionally considered as defense-related. Stanley Hoffman put it succinctly as far
back as 1987: “There has been a trend towards indefinite extension of U.S. interests.
‘National security’ is considered to be everywhere and constantly at stake.” See Janus and
Minerva: Essays in the Theory and Practice of International Politics (Boulder, CO: Westview
Press, 1987), 316.
6
Raymond Aron, Peace and War (Paris: Calmann-Levy, 1962), 28.
7
As recently as 2002, William C. Wohlforth argued that “the balancing imperative . . .
will not soon dominate great powers’ strategic choices in today’s novel unipolar system.”
In fact, although the United States remains unquestionably the preponderant world
power, great powers such as Russia, Iran, and China often combine to limit or deflect
U.S. strategic choices in a classic balance of power formulation. See “U.S. Strategy in a
Unipolar World,” in America Unrivaled: The Future of the Balance of Power, ed. G. John
Ikenberry (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002), 117.
8
The official Department of Defense definition of weapons of mass destruction includes
nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons only. The term is used more
• 13 •
Hooker
broadly here to include events such as the Oklahoma City bombing and the 9/11 attacks
on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, as well as potential cyber events that could
cause large-scale loss of life. See Seth Carus, Defining Weapons of Mass Destruction, Center
for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction Occasional Paper 8 (Washington, DC:
NDU Press, January 2012).
9
Quadrennial Defense Review 2014 lists “respect for universal values at home and
around the world” as one of four “core national interests,” 11.
10
See R.D. Hooker, Jr., “U.S. Policy Choices During the Rwandan Genocide,” unpub-
lished paper, National War College, 2003.
11
In addition to troop deployments to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, “breakaway”
regions that remain part of sovereign Georgian territory, Russia maintains 5,000 troops in-
side Armenia to ensure that neighboring Azerbaijan does not reclaim Nagorno-Karabakh,
sovereign Azerbaijan territory occupied by ethnic Armenians.
12
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are 100 percent dependent on Russian natural gas
and have large ethnic Russian populations. Without the North Atlantic Treaty Organiza-
tion (NATO), their continued independence is probably unlikely. See Theresa Sabo-
nis-Helf, “Energy Security: Strategic Questions and Emerging Trends,” presentation to
NATO national representatives, National Defense University, April 11, 2014.
13
Andrew Bacevich is a leading critic of American “imperialism.” See American
Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 2002).
14
Kenneth Thompson, Masters of International Thought (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State
University Press, 1980), 153.
15
Layne, 15.
16
“The United States leads a global alliance system of more than 60 partner states that
collectively account for almost 80 percent of global [gross domestic product] and more
than 80 percent of global military spending between them.” See Michael E. O’Hanlon,
Budgeting for Hard Power: Defense and Security Spending Under Barack Obama (Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution, 2009), 24.
17
The General Accounting Office reports that 16.2 million males aged 18 to 25 are
registered for Selective Service. However, only one in four are eligible for military service,
severely limiting the pool of prospective recruits. The rest are disqualified for obesity,
other physical issues, lack of a high school diploma, or criminal records. See the prepared
statement of Curtis Gilroy, Director for Accessions Policy, Office of the Undersecretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, before the House Armed Services Subcommittee,
“Recruiting, Retention, and End Strength Overview,” March 9, 2009.
18
The U.S. industrial base remains a world leader, second only to China as of 2014,
according to the United Nations Statistics Division. Ship-building remains a strong
industry: “Currently there are 117 shipyards in the United States, spread across 26 states,
that are classified as active shipbuilders.” See “The Economic Importance of the U.S.
Shipbuilding and Repairing Industry,” Maritime Administration, May 30, 2013, 3. U.S.
steel production has declined as a percentage of global market share since 1947, when
the United States produced 60 percent of the world’s steel, but remains a world leader.
The United States produced 87 million tons of steel in 2013, ranking fourth in the world.
(This contrasts with 40 million tons dedicated to military production in 1943, the year
of greatest manufacturing output in World War II.) See World Steel Statistics Data 2013,
World Steel Association, January 23, 2014; and Alan Gropman, ed., The Big L: American
Logistics in World War II (Washington, DC: NDU Press, 1997), 137. For a contrary view,
see Michael E. O’Hanlon, The National Security Industrial Base: A Crucial Asset of the United
States Whose Future May Be in Jeopardy (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2011).
• 14 •
19
Currently, 36 percent of the Navy’s operational assets are classed as “globally
deployed,” including 2 of the Navy’s 11 fleet carriers, with a third based in Japan. At
least two Amphibious Ready Groups with embarked Marines are also always at sea. See
Admiral Jonathan Greenert, USN, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee
on the Fiscal Year 2015 Navy Posture, March 12, 2014.
20
Thom Shanker and Steve Erlanger, “Blunt U.S. Warning Reveals Deep Strains in
NATO,” New York Times, June 10, 2011.
21
“Soft power is not about influence or persuasion—it attracts.” See Harry R. Yarger,
Strategy and the National Security Professional (London: Praeger, 2008), 74.
22
See Joseph Nye, Soft Power: The Means to Succeed in World Politics (New York: Public
Affairs, 2004).
23
Chris Schnaubelt, “The Illusions and Delusions of Smart Power,” in Towards a
Comprehensive Approach: Integrating Civilian and Military Concepts of Strategy (Rome, Italy:
NATO Defense College Forum Paper, March 2011), 24.
24
Effective civil-military relations is also a sine qua non of successful strategy. Despite
much hyperbolic academic criticism, the United States is well equipped in this sphere.
See R.J. Hooker, Jr., “Soldiers of the State: Reconsidering American Civil-Military Rela-
tions,” Parameters (Winter 2003/2004).
25
The most recent arms control agreement with Russia, signed by President Obama
and Russian President Dmitrii Medvedev on April 8, 2010, agreed to reduce the number
of active nuclear weapons from 2,200 to 1,550.
26
Wallace J. Thies, “A Twenty-First Century Army,” Parameters (Spring 1991), 68.
27
The Department of Defense maintains prepositioned stocks both ashore and afloat
in strategic locations worldwide to support the deployment of forces for contingency
operations. Key sites are Japan, Korea, Italy, Qatar, Kuwait, and Diego Garcia.
28
Quadrennial Defense Review 2014, 11.
29
For example, in seapower alone the U.S. lead is staggering. The U.S. Navy operates
10 large aircraft carriers, all nuclear powered; no other country has even one. The United
States has 57 nuclear-powered attack and cruise-missile submarines—again, more than
the rest of the world combined. Seventy-nine Aegis-equipped surface combatants carry
roughly 8,000 vertical-launch missile cells, outmatching the next 20 largest navies. All
told, the displacement of the U.S. battle fleet exceeds the next 13 navies combined, of
which 11 are allies or partners. Cited in Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’s prepared
remarks to the Navy League, National Harbor, MD, May 3, 2010. The U.S. Marine Corps
alone is larger and more capable than the ground and air forces of all but a few nations.
See The Military Balance (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, March
2014).
30
“The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core
interests demand it—when our people are threatened; when our livelihoods are at stake;
when the security of our allies is in danger.” See President Barack Obama, Commence-
ment Address at the United States Military Academy, May 28, 2014.
31
The National Security Strategy of the United States (Washington, DC: The White
House, September 17, 2002), 15.
32
For a more detailed discussion of American preponderance and its strategic impli-
cations, see Layne, 9.
33
The list of large-scale combat or “peace enforcement” actions alone is extensive
and includes Korea (1950), Lebanon (1958), the Dominican Republic (1965), Vietnam
(1955–1975), Beirut (1981), Grenada (1981), Panama (1989), the Gulf War (1991),
Somalia (1992), Bosnia (1996), Kosovo (1999), Afghanistan (2001), and Iraq (2003).
• 15 •
Hooker
On average, the United States has deployed a division or larger force every 6 years since
1950.
34
Both Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
General Colin Powell promoted similar views on when and how to use force, espousing
a conservative “last resort” philosophy stressing overwhelming force and clear objectives
and emphasizing decisive results. Weinberger explained his in a speech titled “The Uses
of Military Power,” delivered before the National Press Club in Washington, DC, on
November 28, 1984.
35
Max Boot attempted to argue in 2002 that “small wars” fought for less precise
objectives could advance important, if not vital, interests and represented something of a
future trend. On the whole, such thinking has been discredited by Iraq and Afghanistan.
See Boot, Savage Wars of Peace (New York: Basic Books, 2002).
36
“By and large, the virtues of American civilization have not been the military virtues
and this has been reflected in American military performance.” See Samuel P. Huntington,
“Playing to Win,” The National Interest (Spring 1986), 10.
37
Russell Weigley is the principal exponent of this view. For a contrasting view, see
Antulio Echevarria II, Toward an American Way of War (Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic
Studies Institute, March 2004).
38
“We make war the way we make wealth.” See Alvin Toffler and Heidi Toffler, War
and Anti-War: Survival at the Dawn of the 21st Century (New York: Little, Brown and Com-
pany, 1993), 2.
39
See R.D. Hooker, Jr., “The Strange Voyage: A Short Précis on Strategy,” Parameters
(Winter/Spring 2013), 62.
40
“I believe the most pressing threat facing our country is the threat from cyber
attacks. The daily occurrences of attacks are damaging on a variety of levels and they
are not only persistent and dangerous, the likelihood of serious damage to our national
security is very real.” See Lieutenant General Mike Flynn, USA, Director of the Defense
Intelligence Agency, statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate,
April 18, 2013.
41
The international treaty banning landmines in 1999 and the International Criminal
Court, established in 2002, are apposite examples. The United States is not a party to
either.
42
As the only state able to project and sustain military forces globally, the United
States retains this status today; the rise of China will not see an equivalent capability
for years to come. See Andrew J. Nathan and Andrew Scobell, China’s Search for Security
(New York: Columbia University Press, 2012), 312–315.
43
Theorists sometimes cite the maxim that “everybody’s strategy depends on everyone
else’s.” This must be the case for weaker or comparable powers. In its current position of
preponderance, though its power has definite limits, the United States seeks whenever
possible to impose its strategy on adversaries, and not to be imposed upon. All states
would behave so if they could. See Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State and War (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1954), 201.
44
For example, Regional Command–East in Afghanistan in 2010 included a Senior
Civilian Representative from the U.S. Agency for International Development, of equal
rank to the division commander and empowered to co-sign his operational orders. She
was supported by more than 100 civilian staff.
45
Strachan, 1285.
46
Cited in Hal Brands, What Good Is Grand Strategy? Power and Purpose in American
Statecraft from Harry S. Truman to George W. Bush (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2014),
100.
• 16 •
2
The Future of Conflict
T.X. Hammes
Despite assertions to the contrary, war is not disappearing. If anything, it is

increasing in frequency and duration. Armed conflict will remain central to
relations among states and nonstate actors. It will remain a contest of human
wills and thus the domain of uncertainty, compounded by human passions,
friction, and fog. Technology will not bring clarity or brevity. Century after
century, political and military leaders have embarked on wars they “knew”
would be short and decisive—and subsequently paid the price for ignoring the
true nature of war.
W ar is unlikely to disappear from human relations.1 In contrast to

the unchanging nature of war, its character—how it is fought—
will change continually. How people fight wars is based on the social,
economic, political, and technical aspects of their societies. Furthermore,
it is not based solely on those aspects of one society but on those aspects
of all societies in the conflict—and how they interact. One of the great
challenges is to anticipate the changing character of war well enough to
adapt rapidly when conflict reveals those changes. Perhaps the most im-
portant change to the character of war today is the proliferation of smart,
small, and cheap weapons. These allow small states and even nonstate
actors to acquire capabilities that previously were the exclusive preserve
of major powers, such as space systems, long-range precision strike, and
massed short-range autonomous weapons.
Creating further friction for policymakers is the fact that military plan-
ners are trained to ask for clear-cut objectives and a defined “endstate.”
Planners do so because it apparently simplifies the military planning for
the conflict. Too often the desire for a defined endstate is a false hope.2
A clear military endstate has been a rarity since World War II and will
remain so in the future. While the armed conflict may end, the political
entities involved in the conflict will remain, and the United States will
• 17 •
Hammes
have to maintain a relationship with them. A badly executed war may in

fact greatly complicate those continuing relationships. The real goal of a
military operation is not to reach a military endstate per se but rather to
set the conditions for an acceptable, continued political relationship—
the desired “better peace.” Such relationships have historically required
continuing military support as seen in the cases of Germany, Japan, Ko-
rea, the Balkans, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
What policymakers do owe military commanders is a description of
the desired continuing state and the policy parameters for a particular
effort. Policymakers must also understand that this guidance should be
just the beginning of an ongoing dialogue between civilian and military
leaders that will evolve into the plan for the conflict. Furthermore, the
past 50 years have clearly demonstrated that both political and military
objectives will change over the course of a conflict. Thus dialogue must
continue throughout the conflict and the subsequent peace. As always,
the most important task for policymakers is to understand both the na-
ture and character of the conflict they are engaged in—“neither mistak-
ing it for, nor trying to turn it into something that is alien to its nature.”3
State Actors
Among state actors, China has taken the lead in developing methods to
neutralize U.S. strengths. It has either demonstrated or is developing a
wide range of capabilities that the Pentagon has characterized as being in
the antiaccess/area-denial (A2/AD) arena.4 Many of these A2/AD systems
are already proliferating among large and medium states. Moreover, as
these capabilities become cheaper, smarter, and more numerous, we can
be sure they will migrate to smaller states.
In addition, we will likely see an increase in the number of nucle-
ar powers since nuclear weapons provide a guarantee against externally
driven regime change. Once a regional power gets a nuclear weapon,
its neighbors will seek the same capability as a matter of self-preserva-
tion. Thus proliferation is likely. While proliferation is not a desirable
outcome, it should be noted that the presence of nuclear weapons has
tamped down the level and intensity of conflicts and confrontations be-
tween nuclear-armed states. However, these confrontations have taken
place between relatively stable states (the Soviet Union–China, India-Pa-
kistan, and the United States–Soviet Union). The prospect of politically
unstable states developing nuclear weapons remains a great concern. As
unstable states acquire nuclear weapons, we have to plan for not only the
potential collapse of a nuclear state but also the potential for a civil war
with nuclear weapons.
• 18 •
States will also employ surrogates to keep their own forces off the
battlefield. We have seen Iran use Hizballah and Pakistan use the Taliban
to pursue their strategic interests without committing their own forces to
the conflicts. More recently, the Russians made extensive use of so-called
little green men as surrogates in Ukraine. Contractors are another form
of surrogate that states have used in numerous conflicts for a variety of
reasons. Even criminal organizations have been employed to execute a
range of activities from cyber to propaganda to kinetic attacks. This trend
will continue. In summation, states will use a wide variety of methods
and resources to neutralize conventional U.S. military power to achieve
their strategic goals.
Nonstate Actors
Nonstate actors fall into three major categories: insurgents, terrorists/
super-empowered small groups, and transnational criminal organiza-
tions. The United States has extensive experience in conflict with each
type, yet each provides a unique challenge based on the political, eco-
nomic, and social conditions of the conflict. Each has also been steadily
evolving and has been greatly empowered by the information revolution.
The first category, insurgents, will be driven by different goals than
in the past. Such efforts will still be about self-governance but now will
add a desire to change borders. Since World War II, insurgencies have
been primarily driven by a desire to throw off an imperial power. Once
the colonial powers had withdrawn, the driving force became deter-
mining which local group would control the new nation. The People’s
Movement for the Liberation of Angola’s long war against the National
Union for the Total Independence of Angola is a prime example. After a
multi-decade conflict, the People’s Movement won. It now rules over a
nation with essentially the same boundaries as existed when the country
was a Portuguese colony. More recently, insurgents are fighting to re-
draw boundaries to align with social/cultural/religious boundaries that
preceded the colonial era. This has been accomplished in places such as
the former Yugoslavia and Sudan. Somalia, while not de jure separated,
is de facto three separate political entities today. In the Middle East, the
Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is fighting hard to redraw
boundaries and has plans to change boundaries far beyond. The Baluch
and Kurds fight to create new states without regard to existing borders.
The mismatch between the borders drawn by imperial powers and those
needed to create functioning states is most acute in the Middle East and
Africa and will increasingly be sources of conflict. It will reinforce other
• 19 •
Hammes
drivers of insurgency—corruption, government incapacity, failure to ad-

dress minority needs, and resource scarcity.
This desire to change borders will have a significant impact on U.S.
counterinsurgency efforts. Current U.S. doctrine calls for supporting the
host-nation government against the insurgents. If an insurgent movement
crosses international borders, such as the Pashtuns who straddle the Af-
ghan-Pakistan border, there is no single host nation. Thus the United
States will have to work with two or more nations in most counterinsur-
gency efforts. The problem will come when the contending nations have
irreconcilable strategic objectives. The fundamental differences between
the strategic goals of Pakistan and Afghanistan have prevented effective
cooperation against the insurgents. A variety of insurgent and terrorist
groups based in the Pashtun regions have taken advantage of this fact.
We must expect this to be the norm in insurgencies that strive to redraw
international borders.
We are seeing the same issue in our conflict with ISIL. Iraq, Syria,
and various insurgent groups have different strategic objectives, and
each draws external support from several actors. Today’s insurgencies
are often a mix of the angry, who seek redress of a perceived injustice,
and the opportunistic, who simply seek wealth. Thus U.S. doctrine for
and experience with both counterinsurgency and unconventional war-
fare (support to an insurgent) are inadequate to these circumstances. In-
surgencies that focus on creating new states—either across international
boundaries or within an existing state—present a much more complex
challenge than insurgencies focused on maintaining current boundaries.
Historically, such efforts at state formation have taken from decades to
centuries. Achieving relative political stability in these cases will be a
much longer and more difficult process. An understanding of the long
timelines must inform any decision to become involved and then must
guide the subsequent commitment. Decisionmakers must understand
that they are getting involved in a decades-long struggle and only make
commitments that can be sustained for that extended period.
For their part, terrorists will continue to act in the name of various
causes. While high-profile attacks such as the September 11 and Paris
attacks will continue, it is essential to keep risk in perspective. With over
32,000 deaths per year in auto accidents, roughly as many Americans are
killed every month on our highways as died in the Twin Towers.5 Thus,
while the violent loss of life by terrorism is heinous, our response should
be appropriate. That said, we should be concerned about terrorists’ po-
tential to use society’s destructive power against itself. Accidents like the
one at the Bhopal, India, chemical plant that killed 15,000 people in
1984 and the 1947 ammonium nitrate explosion that leveled Texas City,
• 20 •
Texas, show that a terrorist can create mass casualties and catastrophic
damage using material we keep in our cities. The easiest way for a ter-
rorist to create mass casualties is to “bring the detonator.” It is difficult, if
not impossible, to acquire and transport massive amounts of explosives
or chemicals. It is much easier to detonate or release materials already in
place. Terrorists will also benefit from new technology that will provide
easier, cheaper ways to deliver the detonator to a wide variety of targets.
Criminal organizations across the globe will continue to challenge
governments for control of territory. These organizations take various
forms—from street gangs to drug cartels to transnational criminal net-
works—and will deal in a variety of commodities, from guns to drugs
to people to counterfeits. With the exception of first-generation street
gangs, these criminal organizations have a common motivation: profit.
While some commentators dismiss them as a law enforcement problem,
criminal organizations have demonstrated the ability to ally with both
insurgents (Colombia) and terrorists as well as to seize and rule territory
within a state (Mexico). Thus they can have an impact on the security
of the United States, and our response may well go beyond law enforce-
ment.
Hybrid Warfare
As if these challenges were not enough, we will also see the merging
of state and nonstate actors in hybrid war. With Russia’s occupation of
Crimea and eastern Ukraine, the concept of hybrid warfare became a
major topic of discussion. Unfortunately, it also led to major confusion
on what hybrid warfare is. In 2007, Frank Hoffman provided a clear
definition:
Hybrid threats incorporate a full range of different modes

of warfare including conventional capabilities, irregular
tactics and formations, terrorist acts including indiscrim-
inate violence and coercion, and criminal disorder. Hybrid
Wars can be conducted by both states and a variety of non-
state actors. These multi-modal activities can be conducted
by separate units, or even by the same unit, but are gener-
ally operationally and tactically directed and coordinated
within the main battlespace to achieve synergistic effects in
the physical and psychological dimensions of conflict. The
effects can be gained at all levels of war.6
• 21 •
Hammes
In short, the military cannot focus on a single aspect of war but must
be prepared to meet the full range of challenges at the same time in the
same battlespace. Recent events in the Middle East and Eastern Europe
have led to much discussion about hybrid war, gray zone conflict, and
ambiguous actions. The discussion has done little to clarify the chal-
lenges the Department of Defense (DOD) faces. If one uses Hoffman’s
definition, the military aspects of each of these concepts are covered.
In fact, hybrid warfare is not new. The participants on all sides in the
Napoleonic and world wars used mixes of conventional operations, ir-
regular operations, terrorism, and crime to achieve their goals. But while
not new, the hybrid warfare concept as expressed by Hoffman is useful;
it highlights for policymakers the range of challenges that must be met
simultaneously in most conflicts.
Technology Converges, Power Diffuses

This does not mean technological changes are irrelevant to warfare. The
convergence of dramatic improvements in electronic miniaturization, ad-
ditive manufacturing, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, space-like
capabilities, and unmanned systems (drones) will significantly change
the character of conflict in all domains. Of particular concern, this con-
vergence is creating a massive increase in capabilities available to smaller
political entities, extending even to the individual. Power is diffusing as
capabilities that used to be the preserve of superpowers are becoming
widely distributed among states and even some nonstate actors.
Electronic Miniaturization
We have watched electronic miniaturization transform almost every as-
pect of our lives. The cell phone combines the functions of dozens of
stand-alone systems at a fraction of the weight and volume. Miniaturiza-
tion is revolutionizing command and control and intelligence, surveil-
lance, and reconnaissance systems as well as bringing smart technology
to smaller weapons systems. Today even cheap miniature drones are ca-
pable of limited autonomous navigation and target selection.
Additive Manufacturing
Additive manufacturing (AM) is over 30 years old. It has been a useful
tool for rapid prototyping to allow designers to see their final product
in three dimensions. It also sparked a collection of hobbyists who were
making a range of plastic items. However, in the last few years, AM, also
known as three-dimensional (3D) printing, has exploded. It has gone
from an interesting hobby to an industry producing a range of products
• 22 •
from a growing list of materials. AM is dramatically increasing the com-

plexity of objects that it can produce while simultaneously improving
speed and precision. It is progressing from a niche capability that pro-
duced prototypes to a manufacturing industry. United Parcel Service has
created a factory of 100 printers with room to grow to 1,000.7 It accepts
orders, prices them, prints them, and ships them the same day from the
adjacent shipping facility. Recently Dr. Joseph Simone has demonstrat-
ed the ability to make 3D printing 100 times faster and has set a goal
of making it 1,000 times faster, all while providing higher quality than
current methods.8 Only three decades old, AM is rapidly encroaching on
a wide range of traditional manufacturing. Soon it will allow small states
and insurgent groups to print thousands of cheap drones.
Nanotechnology
Nanotechnology is science, engineering, and technology conducted at
the nanoscale, which is about 1 to 100 nanometers. For comparison, a
sheet of newspaper is about 100,000 nanometers thick. It was only in
1981 that nanotechnology was established.9 At the nanoscale, materials
act very differently and thus provide opportunities in chemistry, biology,
physics, material science, and engineering.
For the purpose of this discussion, nanotechnology is advancing in
two areas of particular interest: energetics and materials. As early as
2002, nano-energetics (explosives) could generate twice the power of
conventional explosives.10 Since research in this field is now close hold,
it is difficult to say what progress has been made since then. Even if twice
the power is as good as it gets, a 100-percent increase in destructive
power of the same size weapon is a massive increase. Continued major
improvements in the power of explosives steadily reduce the delivery
system requirements—and thus favor the smaller state. If they come in
to commercial use, they will also be available to nonstate actors.
The second area of interest is that of nanomaterials. This field has
not advanced as far as nano-energetics, but numerous firms are apply-
ing nanomaterials to batteries and increasing their storage capacity.11 In
fact, a recent accidental discovery may triple battery power storage and
increase battery life by a factor of four.12 At the University of Califor-
nia, San Diego, researchers have found a cheap way to coat products
with a super-thin, nonmetal material that manipulates radar waves and
thus may lead to inexpensive stealth coatings for missiles and aircraft.13
Various experiments have demonstrated that the use of nanomaterials
can greatly improve the strength of a given weight of material. These
improvements in energy storage, materials, and explosives will lead to
• 23 •
Hammes
increases in range, payload, and stealth for a wide variety of vehicles to

include cheap drones.
Space and Space-Like Capabilities

Until recently cost and technology requirements limited the number of
nations that could venture into space. This provided a great advantage
to those few countries that could do so. The addition of cheap persistent
space-based and air-breathing surveillance will soon provide small states
and even nonstate actors access to a full suite of space and space-like
capabilities. They will be able to surveil, communicate, and perhaps even
attack in space. DOD has acknowledged the threat and is taking steps to
protect U.S. space infrastructure.14
While states, particularly China, are steadily improving their own
space capabilities, the democratization of space is being driven by pri-
vate companies. Several companies are deploying cube satellites today.
One, Skybox Imaging, has a goal of selling half-meter-resolution imagery
with a revisit rate of several times a day—to include interpretation of
what the buyer is seeing.15 The company’s recent purchase by Google
gives it the depth of resources necessary to bring this idea to fruition. Us-
ing this service, a buyer could track port, airfield, road, and rail system
activity in near real time. Also, New Zealand’s Rocket Lab is proposing
to conduct weekly launches specifically for cube satellites to provide a
rapid, cheap launch capability.16
Other companies are duplicating space capabilities with systems that
remain in the atmosphere. Balloons like those of Google’s Project Loon17
and drones such as the Global Observer drone18 and solar-powered fol-
low-ons19 will provide space-like communications and surveillance ca-
pabilities at much lower costs.
Artificial Intelligence
Two areas of artificial intelligence are of particular importance in the evo-
lution of small, smart, and cheap weapons: navigation and target identi-
fication. In fact, widely available systems have attained limited autonomy
based on these capabilities. The U.S. Global Positioning System (GPS)
has proven satisfactory for basic autonomous drone applications such as
the Marine Corps KMAX logistics helo-drone in Afghanistan.20 Howev-
er, GPS will be insufficient for operations in narrow outdoor or indoor
environments, dense urban areas, and areas in which it is jammed. Aca-
demic21 and commercial22 institutions are working hard to overcome the
limitations of GPS to provide truly autonomous navigation for drones.
Inertial and visual navigation are advancing rapidly and are already
cheap enough to use in small agricultural drones.23 The commercial ap-
• 24 •
plications for navigating in agricultural areas and inspecting buildings

in urban areas clearly could be adapted for military uses. Such a system
would serve to get a drone to the target area but would not ensure that
it could hit a specific target. To select a specific target, there are already
commercially available optical and multispectral recognition technolo-
gies in use that allow autonomous drones to attack specific classes of
targets and perhaps specific targets.24 And they are cheap.
Autonomy means drones will be highly resistant to jamming and will
be able to operate in very large numbers. They can also be programmed
to wait patiently prior to launch or even proceed to the area of the target
but hide until a specified time or a specified target is identified.
Drones
Drone usage has spread widely. Most discussions of drones have focused
on large, highly capable, and expensive drones such as the Predator or
the Navy’s X-47B. Too little discussion has considered the impact of
small drones in all combat domains. While small drones can carry only a
limited payload, this limitation can be overcome with three approaches.
First is to think in terms of “bringing the detonator.” The second is the
use of explosively formed penetrators (EFPs).25 The third is to employ
swarms of small drones to magnify impact.
In “bringing the detonator,” the objective is to simply detonate the
large supply of explosive material provided at the target site by aircraft,
vehicles, fuel, chemical facilities, and ammunition dumps. Against these
targets (such as a parked airliner’s wing root), even a few ounces of explo-
sives delivered directly could initiate a much larger secondary explosion.
EFPs, weighing as little as a few ounces to a few pounds, will allow
even small drones to damage or destroy armored and protected targets.
In Iraq, coalition forces found EFPs in a variety of sizes, some powerful
enough to destroy an Abrams tank. Others were small enough to fit in
the hand—or on a small drone.26 And of course nano-explosives can at
least double the destructive power of the weapons. The primary limita-
tion on EFP production was the requirement for the high-quality curved
copper disks that form the penetrator when the charge is detonated. It
required a skilled machinist with high-quality machine tools. Today, ad-
ditive manufacturing can print copper.27 Anyone with a 3D printer capa-
ble of using copper will be able to print an EFP disk. Thus we can expect
small- and medium-sized drones to pack a significant punch against pro-
tected targets. The improvised explosive device (IED) of the future will
be not merely “improvised” but also intelligent, inexpensive, long-range,
and active hunters.
• 25 •
Hammes
One can argue that such long-range autonomous drones will be dif-
ficult for nonstate actors to obtain for the next few years. That may be
true. But today Aerovel sells the Flexrotor drone that has a maximum
range of 3,400 kilometers (km).28 For shorter range missions, there is a
variety of commercially available cheap drones that are already capable
of hitting U.S. facilities such as Bagram, Afghanistan, or Taji, Iraq, when
launched from within 20 to 40 km of the target. Given the Taliban’s
demonstrated ability to move within a few kilometers of Bagram, could
we keep the airfield open against a threat like this? Would the benefits of
doing so outweigh the costs?
The U.S. military is actively exploring the use of swarms for both
naval and air applications.29 While these programs are vague about how
many drones they envision being able to employ, recent dramatic cost
reductions in each of the needed technologies will increase the num-
ber by orders of magnitude. Researchers are using old 3D techniques to
print a complex drone in a single day, then adding an Android phone
to produce a $2,500 autonomous drone.30 Thus, a small factory with
only 100 3D printers using Joseph DiSimone’s process could potentially
produce 10,000 drones a day. The limitation is no longer the printing
but the assembly and shipment of products. How do we protect our air
bases, headquarters, maintenance facilities, and supply centers in theater
against potentially thousands of autonomous drones? Even if we could
protect such fixed sites, how would we protect our vehicles, in particular
soft-skinned vehicles such as fuel and ammunition trucks, when they
are moving?
Nor will cheap drones be limited to the air. In 2010, Rutgers Uni-
versity launched an underwater “glider” drone that crossed the Atlantic
Ocean unrefueled.31 Such drones are being used globally and cost about
$100,000.32 The U.S. Navy recently launched its own underwater glider
that harvests energy from the ocean thermocline. It can patrol for weeks,
surfacing only as needed to report and receive new instructions.33 In
short, small sea platforms have demonstrated the capability of achiev-
ing intercontinental range while producing very little in the way of sig-
natures. Michigan Technological University plans to reduce the cost of
oceanic gliders to about $10,000.34 These could be employed as self-de-
ploying torpedoes or smart naval mines.35 Current versions are launched
by hand from small boats. They could be modified for launch from war-
ships, commercial ships, or even the shore.
The convergence of new technologies discussed above may allow
these small, smart, and cheap weapons based on land, sea, or air to dom-
inate combat in these domains. Over time, the technology has become
cheaper, more reliable, and more widely employed. We are seeing this
• 26 •
with the explosive growth in commercial drones. The Economist predict-

ed 2015 would see the sale of 1 million drones.36 Commercial demand is
driving costs down while dramatically increasing capabilities. Advanced
manufacturing techniques will soon make them cheap enough for small
companies or even individuals to own a large swarm of simple and au-
tonomous but powerful drones. For the first time since the Korean War,
American forces will be subject to air attack.
Strategic Implications
Technological convergence will evolve over the next decade or two. It
will have direct strategic impact on the United States in four principle
ways: the loss of immunity to attack, the tactical dominance of defense,
the return of mass, and a requirement to mobilize.
Loss of Immunity to Attack

The United States will cease to have a monopoly on long-range precision
strike. China and Russia have repeatedly demonstrated this capability.
However, long-range, relatively cheap, autonomous drones will provide
this capability to many states and even to insurgent or terrorist groups.
They will be able to project force at intercontinental range. These ve-
hicles will provide the capability to strike air and sea ports of debarka-
tion—and perhaps even embarkation. The United States will no longer
be able to project power with impunity. This could create major political
problems in sustaining a U.S. effort both domestically and internation-
ally. Domestically, will the American public support distant actions if
they result in a significant threat to the Nation’s security or its economy?
The “small, smart, and many” revolution will not only allow enemies to
attack the United States, but it will also allow them to undermine our
economy. Even a few self-deploying mines in key domestic or overseas
container ports would drive up maritime insurance rates—and, hence,
the cost of imported and exported goods.37
Internationally, opponents could threaten intermediate bases. For in-
stance, a great deal of our support for Iraq flows through Kuwait. Sup-
pose ISIL demonstrates that it can hit an airliner sitting at Kuwait Inter-
national Airport. Then ISIL states it will hold Kuwaiti airliners hostage
until Kuwait withdraws landing and port rights for those nations sup-
porting the Iraqi government. Is the West prepared to provide the level
of defense required to protect key targets across the nations providing
facilities in the Middle East and Europe? Will it expand the protection
to all key targets in those states? Will those states trust our ability to do
• 27 •
Hammes
so? If not, will those states accept risk to commercial assets to support
U.S. actions?
Immunity from air attack is also gone. The Services must develop
those defenses and then ensure they can cover the entire deployment
and employment chains. Technological convergence means there are
powerful, autonomous, stealthy sea and air drones in our immediate fu-
ture. Defending against this threat is possible, but it will be expensive.
Tactically Dominant Defense

While these systems create a genuine threat to all nation-states, they and
their descendants will provide a significant boost to anyone’s defense. In
state-versus-state war, this might create a situation similar to that existing
between 1863 and 1917, when any person in range moving above the
surface of the ground could be cheaply targeted and killed. The result
was static trench warfare. Drone swarms may again make defense the
tactically dominant form of warfare in ground, sea, and air domains and
be able to attack the physical elements of the cyber domain.
As noted earlier, state actors could produce these small, autonomous
drones in the tens of thousands. The Chinese have already demonstrated
how to launch large numbers of drones with minimum force structure.
They have mounted 18 Harpy drones in a launcher on a 20-foot trailer.
The Harpy is a large drone with a 9-foot wingspan, a 500-km range, and
a 32-kilogram payload.38 Using a switchblade-sized system,39 a 20-foot
trailer could be modified to launch 1,500 drones. Thus a single battery
of 6 trucks could launch 9,000 drones. New battery and fuel cell tech-
nology is extending the range of the small drones to 40 km. U.S. forces
must be prepared to face thousands of autonomous short-range drones
and dozens to hundreds of long-range drones. Today’s U.S. forces could
not sustain a ground offensive in the face of such a threat.
For their part, nonstate actors could use these systems to dramatically
increase the cost of maintaining U.S. forces in a combat theater—what
the Pentagon calls the area-denial challenge. The small size of many of
these systems makes them ideal weapons for attacking U.S. airfields and
base camps. Easy to hide, transport, and operate, cheap drones with even
limited autonomy will require massive investment in the protection of
U.S. logistics facilities and lines of communication in a tactical environ-
ment. Proponents of directed energy weapons—lasers and microwave
systems—suggest their systems will defeat such swarms and thus return
offense to the tactical battlefield. These systems will be expensive and
power hungry and subject to defeat by relatively inexpensive counter-
measures. While we must continue to develop these systems, we must
also be aware that they put us on the wrong side of cost competition with
• 28 •
cheap drones. It is imperative that these systems be tested against a think-

ing, reacting red team that employs countermeasures such as autonomy,
smoke, and electromagnetic shielding. Most important is the willingness
to adapt if the testing indicates swarms of small, smart systems can defeat
our current inventory of few but exquisite ones.
Even if such systems become capable of defeating thousands of
drones, they might also be able to defeat the much smaller number
of conventional aircraft, guided bombs, and missiles the United States
could deploy. This would reinforce the dominance of the defense.
At this point it is impossible to tell which will dominate. Thus it is
essential that DOD run rigorous experiments to understand the charac-
ter of such conflicts. If the experiments show the defense will become
tactically dominant, DOD will have to determine how U.S. forces could
exploit this situation to achieve its inherently offensive operational and
strategic missions.
Return of Mass to the Battlefield

Since the 1980s, U.S. forces have bet on precision to defeat mass.40 Pre-
cision helped numerically smaller allied forces defeat Iraq’s much larger
army (twice), as well as initially drive al Qaeda and the Taliban out of Af-
ghanistan. However, technological convergence is pointing to the revival
of mass (in terms of numbers) as a key combat multiplier. Current man-
ufacturing techniques mean states can manufacture thousands of drones.
Advances in additive manufacturing will make them cheaper and may
make tens of thousands available to states and thousands to nonstate ac-
tors. How will our forces, which are dependent on a few, exquisite plat-
forms—particularly sea and air—deal with the small, smart, and many?
Return of Mobilization
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States abandoned the con-
cept of mobilization. A primary driver was the fact that the U.S. defense
industry simply lacked the surge capability to rapidly equip a mobilized
population. Mobilization in World War II was possible because industry
could rapidly convert from civilian to military production. By 1990, the
complexity of modern military weapons systems and limited capacity
to produce them made rapid mobilization difficult if not impossible. As
Richard Danzig has noted, modern manufacturing has been changing
this situation.41 Additive manufacturing may radically change it. AM is
inherently flexible since the product depends only on the materials the
machine can use, the design of the machine, and the software that is
loaded. Thus, as AM assumes a greater role in industry, the possibility of
industrial mobilization will re-emerge. However, successful mobilization
• 29 •
Hammes
is not only about producing the weapons. The Pentagon must also be
prepared to enlist and train new personnel, build them into coherent
units, and then move those units and the weapons to an overseas bat-
tlefield. Eliot Cohen has noted that successful mobilization will require
significant peacetime planning, but the Pentagon is not even thinking
about the issue.42
Policy Implications
This diffusion of military power has implications for U.S. strategy, force
structure, investment, and force posture. Scholars have proposed a range
of U.S. grand strategies from restraint to aggressive interventionism.43
Obviously, the strategy selected will drive our force design and our force
posture. However, that strategy will itself have to deal with myriad risks
posed by the diffusion of power and the kinds of threats we now face.
Fundamental assumptions about traditional military power, including
the viability of projecting force from the United States, become question-
able when almost any enemy can strike selectively from in theater to the
United States. While these attacks may not be militarily significant, they
will be part of the political debate.
We may be entering an era in which small states and even nonstate
actors will attempt to deter the United States through denial or pun-
ishment. They could achieve denial by interrupting the deployment
chain, either by attacking intermediate staging bases or by tactical A2/
AD. While the United States is developing methods for defeating A2
systems, we have made little or no progress on area-denial systems such
as IEDs or even land and sea mines. Tomorrow’s IEDs and mines will be
mobile hunters with at least limited autonomy—and they will be avail-
able to any opponent with access to the Internet and a receiving address.
In 2014, the mothers and friends of a battalion of Ukrainian soldiers
purchased drones to provide the battalion with an aerial observation and
spotting capability.44
Adversaries might also adopt punishment as a way to deter or termi-
nate U.S. involvement in a region. Would U.S. leaders risk even limited
attacks on U.S. aircraft, military or civilian, anywhere on the ground to
intervene in Syria? Would other nations provide flight transit or port
rights if it meant their homelands would be subject to attacks on civil-
ian aircraft or facilities? How much additional combat power would the
United States have to dedicate to protecting both our lines of commu-
nications and allied infrastructure and population? Would our political
willingness to engage decrease due to increased human and fiscal costs?
• 30 •
Would our traditional allies stay aligned with us if our ability to sustain
our access to key regions were imperiled or substantively reduced?
As a power projection nation, our deployment options may become
more limited. We have to think through the implications of forward bas-
ing in theater versus basing in the United States and deploying only for
a crisis. Our enemies and allies see the increasing density of A2/AD sys-
tems globally. It is essential we modify our planning accordingly. Warga-
ming must examine the operational impacts of fighting a variety of ene-
mies with long-range sea and air precision strike. China will not be the
only power to own such systems. Just as importantly, wargaming must
explore the political implications when an enemy can threaten other na-
tions that support our deployment chain. (Japan, for example, is crucial
to any effort to help defend South Korea and could easily be targeted
by the North Korean regime in time of war.) Accordingly, we must seek
methods to attack an opponent’s strategy rather than simply destroying
its forces.
We need wide-ranging research and supporting analysis as well as
wargames to address key questions. Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert
Work’s memorandum on wargaming is a very strong first step.45 Con-
tinuing research is required to answer a wide range of questions:
• Most importantly, how can strategy neutralize potential opponents’

strategies? For instance, how do we counter the perception that Chi-
na may be able to exclude U.S. forces from the region? What steps
can we take to assure allies that in fact we can honor our treaty
obligations?
• How do we protect those nations providing support as we do so—in

particular, the politically sensitive targets that can be attacked with
long-range, precise, but relatively low-explosive-weight weapons?
• If we forward deploy, how dispersed will forward forces have to be

to survive? How much would we have to invest in hardening for-
ward bases versus investing in protecting stateside bases and build-
ing the lift necessary to deploy?
• What are the political/alliance costs if we choose to station fewer

forces forward?
• Are we willing to employ long-range strike from the United States if

we know the enemy can reply in kind?
• 31 •
Hammes
• Once forces are deployed, how do they operate in the presence of

swarms of smart weapons?
• Do we need to deploy more forces forward to ensure they are there

for the fight? Or should we just preposition the equipment and sup-
plies? Or are both supplies and forces safer out of the potential the-
ater of operation?
Whether forward deployed or deployed in a crisis, the increased vul-

nerability of U.S. forces to standoff attack and resultant requirement for
hardening and dispersion will dramatically impact our force structure.
Hardening, to include digging in whenever not moving, will require in-
creased engineering assets, while dispersion will require international
agreements as well as increased logistic, force protection, and command
and control assets.
As the United States develops its strategy and subsequent force pos-
ture, it will also have to rethink its procurement focus. Is the current
plan of purchasing a few extremely capable platforms viable in a world
where cheap, smart weapons in large numbers will actively hunt those
exquisite platforms? Or should the Pentagon move to a concept of large
numbers of much cheaper but individually less-capable platforms? Or is
a mix a better solution?
This will not be an easy process with clear decision points. If the
development of this new generation of weapons mirrors our past expe-
rience, it will take place over a decade or two. The new systems will first
support our legacy systems, then the legacy systems will support them,
and finally the new systems will completely supplant our legacy systems.
Compounding the difficulty of deciding when to shift investment is the
fact that we plan to use the weapons we are buying/developing today for
decades. Will a Ford-class carrier be like the battleships of 1920—dom-
inant at the time of purchase but nearly irrelevant two decades later? If
so, when do we stop investing in carriers? Given the political reality, is it
even possible to stop investing in new carriers? While extremely difficult,
this transition represents one of the critical investment decisions facing
Pentagon planners. Similar questions arise about manned aircraft sys-
tems, along with the attendant political issues of cancelling or reducing
one of these programs.
Perhaps the biggest threat to success lies in our sclerotic development
and acquisition process. The convergence of technologies is leading to
extremely rapid increases in capabilities in all related fields. Clearly our
10-year development and initial fielding cycle cannot compete.
• 32 •
The convergence of technology and the resultant diffusion of power

should force thoughtful consideration of both policy and strategy. Per-
haps the fundamental policy question will be a reconsideration of how
and under what circumstances the United States can use military force
to influence international events. Increasingly, we will have to ask the
question: “Is the strategic benefit of an intervention worth the cost when
the enemy could strike back in and out of theater?”
Summary
The underlying nature of war will not change, but the number and vari-
ety of conflicts will likely continue to increase. Certainly the convergence
of new technologies will alter the character of conflict over time, but no
matter what technology is employed to abet intelligence collection and
human decisionmaking, policymakers will not have a clear understand-
ing about what is happening or what to do about it. In fact, it is almost
certain that the best experts on the subject will disagree on both aspects.
Every administration has had to deal with these “wicked” problems. For-
tunately, there is a growing body of literature articulating various ap-
proaches to do so.46
Technological convergence is already changing the character of war.
It is markedly altering the relative power among states and between state
and nonstate actors. The phenomenon of small states possessing the mil-
itary capabilities and perhaps capacities of large states is a new develop-
ment that will create new challenges. Some of these challenges undercut
key pillars and assumptions of our current defense strategy. However,
they will not change the fact that conflict is driven by the interaction of
the participants’ social, economic, and political structures.47 Policymak-
ers must drive the Pentagon to actively explore the implications of the
changing character of war. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter’s Strategic
Capabilities Office is a great start.48 Furthermore, it must honestly test
legacy systems against emerging capabilities in free-play exercises. But
understanding the impact of technology must be grounded in the reality
that conflict will remain a political competition driven by human inge-
nuity tied to the societies in conflict. If anything is certain, it is that war
will continue to be dominated by this element above all others.
Notes
1
While academics sometimes see warfare disappearing, a chaotic international envi-
ronment gives little credence to this perspective. See Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of
Our Nature (New York: Viking Press, 2011); Frank G. Hoffman and Ryan Neuhard, “No
• 33 •
Hammes
Wake for Ares,” Proceedings 141, no. 12 (December 2015), available at <www.usni.org/
magazines/proceedings/2015-12/no-wake-ares>.
2
Horst W.J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber, “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Plan-
ning,” Policy Sciences 4 (1973), 162, available at <www.uctc.net/mwebber/Rittel+Web-
ber+Dilemmas+General_Theory_of_Planning.pdf>.
3
Carl von Clausewitz, On War, ed. and trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princ-
eton: Princeton University Press, 1976), 88.
4
Department of Defense (DOD), Annual Report to Congress Military and Security
Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2016 (Washington, DC: DOD, April
26, 2015), i–ii, available at <www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2016%20
China%20Military%20Pwer%20Report.pdf>.
5
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Statistics, “Acci-
dents or Unintentional Injuries,” available at <www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.
htm>.
6
Frank G. Hoffman, Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars (Washing-
ton, DC: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, December 2007), 8, available at <www.
potomacinstitute.org/images/stories/publications/potomac_hybridwar_0108.pdf>.
7
Eddie Krassenstein, “CloudDDM—Factory with 100 (Eventually 1,000) 3D Printers
and Just 3 Employees Opens at UPS’s Worldwide Hub,” 3D Printer and 3D Printing
News, May 4, 2015, available at <http://3dprint.com/62642/cloudddm-ups/>.
8
Joseph DeSimone, “What If 3D printing Was 100x Faster?” TED Talks, May 19,
2015, available at <www.ted.com/talks/joe_desimone_what_if_3d_printing_was_25x_
faster?language=en>.
9
“What Is Nanotechnology?” Nano.gov, available at <www.nano.gov/nanotech-101/
what/definition>.
10
Andrzej W. Miziolek, “Nanoenergetics: An Emerging Technology Area of National
Importance,” AMPTIAC Quarterly 6, no. 1 (Spring 2002), 45, available at <http://ammti-
ac.alionscience.com/pdf/AMPQ6_1ART06.pdf>.
11
Wendy Koch, “Tiny Batteries Could Revolutionize Green Energy,” National Geo-
graphic, November 2014, available at <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/ener-
gy/2014/11/141117-nanotechnology-for-better-batteries/>.
12
“Tiny Balls of Fire,” The Economist, August 15, 2015, available at <www.economist.
com/news/science-and-technology/21660963-nanotechnological-accident-may-length-
en-battery-lives-tiny-balls-fire>.
13
Li Yi Hsu, Thomas Lepetit, and Boubacar Kante, “Extremely Thin Dielectric Meta-
surface for Carpet Cloaking,” Progress in Electromagnetic Research 152 (2015), 33–40,
available at <www.jpier.org/PIER/pier152/03.15032005.pdf>.
14
Christian Davenport, “Fearing Hostilities in Space, Pentagon Fortifies Satellites,”
Washington Post, May 10, 2016, 1.
15
Tekla S. Perry, “Start-Up Profile: Skybox Imaging. The Satellite-imaging Company
Plans to Bring Remote Sensing to the Mass Market,” IEEE Spectrum, May 1, 2013, avail-
able at <http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/innovation/startup-profile-skybox-imaging>.
16
“Book a Spot Online to Put Your Satellite into Space,” Popular Mechanics, August 10,
2015, available at <www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/news/a16810/heres-the-
worlds-first-online-rocket-launch-scheduler>.
17
“Project Loon,” MIT Technology Review, available at <www.technologyreview.com/
featuredstory/534986/project-loon>.
• 34 •
18
“Global Observer High Altitude Long Endurance UAV, United States of America,”
AirForce-Technology.com, available at <www.airforce-technology.com/projects/globalob-
serverunmann>.
19
Jonathan Vanian, “Behind the Scenes with Facebook’s New Solar-Powered Internet
Drone and Laser Technology,” Fortune, July 30, 2015, available at <http://fortune.
com/2015/07/30/facebooks-solar-power-drone-internet-earth>.
20
James K. Sanborn, “Beacon Improves UAV’s Cargo-Delivery Accuracy,” Marine Corps
Times, July 8, 2012, available at <http://archive.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20120708/
NEWS/207080314/Beacon-improves-UAV-s-cargo-delivery-accuracy>.
21“Vision-Based
Control and Navigation of Small, Lightweight UAVs,” Congress Center,
Hamburg, Germany, available at <www.seas.upenn.edu/~loiannog/workshopIRO-
S2015uav>.
22
“Drones at CES 2015 Showcase UAV Technology’s Bright Future,” Dronelife.com,
January 14, 2015, available at <http://dronelife.com/2015/01/14/drones-ces-2015-show-
case-uav-technologys-bright-future>.
23
“Crop Falcon—UAV for Autonomous Crop Monitoring and Operations,” February
16, 2015, available at <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1wyWNhvV8Y>.
24
“Surveillance and Tracking of People,” available at <https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=tgULkozh32U>.
25
“Future Weapons: Explosively Formed Penetrator (EFP),” Future Weapons TV, June
24, 2011, available at <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbf7WEVzKcQ>.
26
Bill Roggio, “Troops Find IED Factory in Sadr City,” The Long War Journal, October
30, 2008, available at <www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/10/iraqi_troops_find_
ef.php>.
27
Eddie Krassenstein, “Plus-MFg’s +1000k Multi Material Metal 3D Printer Shows Its
Power,” 3D Printer and 3D Printing News, available at <http://3dprint.com/87236/plus-
mfg-3d-metal-printer>.
28
“Affordable, Reliable Long-Range Imaging,” Aerovelco.com, available at <http://aerov-
elco.com/production/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Aerovel_SingleSheet_1l_digital.pdf>.
29
See Kris Osborn, “Air Force Developing Swarms of Mini-Drones,” DefenseTech.
org, May 27, 2015, available at <http://defensetech.org/2015/05/27/air-force-developing-
swarms-of-mini-drones/>; David Smalley, “LOCUST: Autonomous Swarming UAVs Fly
into the Future,” Office of Naval Research, available at <www.onr.navy.mil/Media-Center/
Press-Releases/2015/LOCUST-low-cost-UAV-swarm-ONR.aspx>.
30
Jordan Golson, “A Military-Grade Drone That Can Be Printed Anywhere,” Wired.
com, September 16, 2014, available at <www.wired.com/2014/09/military-grade-drone-
can-printed-anywhere>.
31
Ari Daniel Shapiro, “Remotely Piloted Underwater Glider Crosses the Atlantic,”
IEEE Spectrum, available at <http://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/industrial-robots/remote-
ly-piloted-underwater-glider-crosses-the-atlantic>.
32
Alix Willimex, “Autonomous Submarine Drones: Cheap, Endless Patrolling,”
CIMSEC.org, June 5, 2014, available at <http://cimsec.org/autonomous-sub-
arine-drones-cheap-endless-patrolling/>.
33
Mark Thompson, “The Navy’s Amazing Ocean-Powered Underwater Drone,” Time,
December 22, 2013, available at <http://swampland.time.com/2013/12/22/navy-under-
water-drone/>.
34
Daniel Kelly, “Michigan Tech’s ROUGHIE Gliders Will Follow Their Own Path,” The
Environmental Monitor, June 17, 2014, available at <www.fondriest.com/news/michigan-
techs-roughie-gliders-will-follow-path.htm>.
• 35 •
Hammes
35
Timothy McGeehan and Douglas Wahl, “Flash Mob in the Shipping Lane!” Proceed-
ings 142, no. 1 (January 2016).
36
“Welcome to the World of Drones,” The Economist, September 25, 2015, available
at <www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21666118-miniature-pilotless-air-
craft-are-verge-becoming-commonplace-welcome>.
37
Despite the fact there had been no attacks or even threat of attacks on Syrian ports,
London’s Maritime Insurance Market added Syria to a list of high-risk ports and raised
rates. To date, there have still been no attacks on Syrian ports, but traffic is down more
than 50 percent. It is impossible to tell what the impact of a ship hitting a mine would
be, but one can assume it would be more than the mere threat of potential action has had
in Syria.
38
See Chinese Military Aviation, “UAV/UCAV,” available at <http://chinese-mili-
tary-aviation.blogspot.com/p/uav.html>.
39
See Aerovironment, “Proceed with Certainty,” video presentation, available at
<www.avinc.com/downloads/Switchblade_Datasheet_032712.pdf>.
40
Robert O. Work, “The Third U.S. Offset Strategy and its Implications for Partners
and Allies,” as delivered at the Willard Hotel, Washington, DC, January 28, 2015, avail-
able at <www.defense.gov/News/Speeches/Speech-View/Article/606641/the-third-us-off-
set-strategy-and-its-implications-for-partners-and-allies>.
41
Richard Danzig, Driving in the Dark: The Propositions About Prediction and National
Security (Washington, DC: Center for New American Security, October 2011), available at
<www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Prediction_Danzig.pdf>.
42
Eliot A. Cohen, “Global Challenges, U.S. National Security Strategy, and Defense
Organization,” testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, October 22,
2015, available at <www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Cohen_10-22-15.
pdf>.
43
Frank G. Hoffman, “Forward Partnership: A Sustainable U.S. Strategy,” Or-
bis 57, no. 1 (Winter 2013), 20–40, available at <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.or-
bis.2012.10.003>.
44
“Poor Man’s Drone Warfare in Eastern Ukraine,” Vocativ, August 28, 2104, available
at <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHo7x2Vcjjg>.
45
Robert O. Work, “Wargaming and Innovation,” memorandum, February 9, 2015,
available at <https://news.usni.org/2015/03/18/document-memo-to-pentagon-leader-
ship-on-wargaming>.
46
This Google Scholar page lists some of the growing body of recent academic
literature on the subject: <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=wicked+problems+liter-
ature&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjv7v2AoNLMAh-
VBcz4KHQ_jCSYQgQMIGjAA>.
47
Clausewitz, 6.
48
Ashton Carter, “Remarks Previewing the FY 2017 Defense Budget,” February 2,
2016, available at <www.defense.gov/News/Speeches/Speech-View/Article/648466/re-
marks-previewing-the-fy-2017-defense-budget>.
• 36 •
3
U.S. Defense Policy and Strategy
F.G. Hoffman
To guide the development of the Armed Forces, the new team at the Pentagon
will need an updated force design mechanism to size and shape that force. This
chapter offers options and guidance for two major components of U.S. defense
policy: alternative force design constructs and design principles. These force
constructs are not the strategy itself, but they are the requisite building blocks and
guidance that defense policymakers use to shape the desired force and explain
that force in its requests for the funding required from the American people.
T he need for a well-crafted U.S. defense strategy has never been great-
er since the end of the Cold War.1 Today the United States confronts
revisionist powers in three different regions (Russia in Europe, China in
Asia, and Iran in the Middle East) that impinge on its vital interests and
close allies. North Korea remains in a class by itself, an isolated but dan-
gerous threat to two U.S. allies. In different ways, each of these powers
is undermining and seeking to alter a U.S.-led, rules-based international
system that enabled a lengthy era of stability and shared economic pros-
perity. The scale of the challenge they pose substantially exceeds that of
the failed states and violent extremist organizations that have occupied
policy during the past 15 years.
Any new administration will face a host of challenges, arguably with
instruments and tools that, at least initially, are not well suited to the
complex tasks at hand.2 Currently our defense enterprise is facing an
expanding mission range and increasingly constrained resources. Our
present strategy hinges on sustaining deterrence but without the same
degree of military dominance enjoyed in the past and with an admitted
declining margin of technological superiority, producing appreciably in-
creased risk.3 As Andrew Krepinevich has noted, “All other factors being
equal, the decline in resources projected to be devoted to defense rela-
tive to those being invested by the revisionist powers suggest the United
• 37 •
Hoffman
States is accumulating risk to its ability to preserve security interests at

an alarming rate, one that even a well-designed strategy may be unable
to offset.”4
U.S. defense policy and strategy, of necessity, must account for many
factors and incorporate many competing elements. They must incorpo-
rate the Nation’s defined interests, its geographical realities and territori-
al security, overarching grand strategy, alliance structure, and war plans
and existing doctrine. Just as important, our strategy must account for
potential challengers to U.S. interests, as well as the opportunities pre-
sented by ever-evolving technology trends. Finally, policymakers must
be cognizant of the strategic planning, acquisition, and personnel sys-
tems that shape the fundamental outputs of policy and defense strategy.
At present, there is a growing deficit between our strategic aspirations
and the resources allocated to obtain them.5 The outlook on future re-
quirements that shapes today’s force planning is framed less by a realistic
view of the challenges looming ahead and more by current fiscal con-
straints. Though defense resources appear high relative to past periods,
a closer look shows less real capability due to rising personnel costs and
unsustainable trends in our acquisition plans.6 Additionally, the U.S. de-
fense budget supports a substantial overhead in terms of staffs, bases,
and infrastructure. The result is that American taxpayers are spending
in constant dollars as much as they were at the height of the Ronald
Reagan–era buildup, but for a force structure at least 30 percent smaller.7
While many elements are more capable than previous platforms and for-
mations, quantity counts for something, too. Moreover, the relative pow-
er advantage that the United States has enjoyed is steadily declining, and
defense leaders have publicly recognized the need to address the erosion
of the technological edge that undergirds U.S. military superiority.8
Effective strategy is the result of carefully aligning policy goals to re-
alistic objectives with the resources necessary to obtain them.9 This stra-
tegic coherence, achieving the right balance between ends, ways, and
means, is the most critical consideration in strategy. At the same time,
resource constraints—limited means—are a constant reality in modern
force planning and are more acute during periods of downsizing.10 This
conundrum is driving the search for more innovative “ways” in U.S. de-
fense strategy.
To guide the development of the force of the future, the Pentagon
will need an updated force design mechanism to size and shape that
force. Accordingly, this chapter focuses on two major components of
U.S. defense policy: force design (sizing/shaping) constructs and de-
sign principles. In the context of these two elements, this chapter offers
alternatives to our existing strategic framework and evaluates each of
• 38 •
them. These force constructs are not the strategy itself, but they are the
requisite building blocks and guidance that defense policymakers use
to shape the desired force and explain that force in its requests for the
funding required from the American people.11
Strategy and Force Design

Ever since the Berlin Wall fell, U.S. defense policy has had to continu-
ously adapt its strategy and force planning mechanisms both to better
define the size of the force needed to execute our strategy and to de-
termine what kind of forces were best suited for an evolving security
environment. Both the overall size of the force and its shape are important
outputs of defense policy. Force planners speak of the capabilities (the
kind of force in terms of land, sea, air, or space power) we can bring to
bear and the overall capacity (how much) of each. To assess the risk in-
volved in force design, policymakers employ various force planning con-
structs that usually center on the number and scale of conflicts (major
regional wars or lesser contingencies) plausibly expected to be deterred
or responded to. They must also make assumptions and estimates about
the length of such wars and whether they might occur simultaneously.
During the Cold War, there was a general consensus about force size
and threats. But after the devolution of the Soviet Union, new constructs
became the critical building blocks of any defense strategy going back
to the Base Force designed by General Colin Powell, USA, after Opera-
tion Desert Storm and the subsequent Bottom-Up Review of the early Bill
Clinton administration.12 These both employed a “two war” construct in
defining a post–Cold War American military.13
The “two-war” model was criticized for its emphasis on maintaining
force capacity without consideration of a larger strategy to prevent wars.14
A desire for a “peace dividend” generated a brief adoption of a win-hold-
win framework that reduced the need for large forces by dropping the
requirement for two overlapping campaigns. Criticism of this motivated
Congress to establish a commission in 1997 to assess post–Cold War
defense planning. This commission concluded that the “the two-theater
construct has been a useful mechanism for determining what forces to
retain as the Cold War came to a close, [and] to some degree, it remains
a useful mechanism today.”15
Around the same time, the Hart-Rudman Commission criticized the
two major theater war (MTW) yardstick for “not producing the capabil-
ities needed for the varied and complex contingencies now occurring
and likely to increase in the years ahead.” It called for forces for stability
operations and homeland security, different from those designed for ma-
• 39 •
Hoffman
jor theater war.16 The Pentagon established a working group to explore

force-sizing yardsticks and risk assessment techniques prior to the 2001
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).17
The George W. Bush administration’s approach, called the “4-2-1
strategy,” emphasized forward deterrence in four defined regions: Eu-
rope, Mideast and Southwest Asia, Northeast Asia, and East Asia.18 This
framework defined a force required to be able to “swiftly defeat” two dif-
ferent opponents but “win decisively” in one of those conflicts. Winning
“decisively” included the capacity to enforce a regime change instead of
simply defeating the adversary’s military.
The Barack Obama administration’s first effort in this area was the
2010 QDR, which employed a sophisticated framework for shaping and
sizing the future force.19 Department of Defense (DOD) planners em-
ployed several scenario combinations to represent the range of likely
and/or significant challenges and tested its force capacity against them.
The QDR concluded that it was “no longer appropriate to speak of ‘major
regional conflicts’ as the sole or even the primary template for sizing and
shaping U.S. forces.”20
The Pentagon’s Defense Strategic Guidance (DSG) of 2012 attempt-
ed to square defense planning with major reductions mandated by the
Budget Control Act.21 The DSG altered the “win two wars” framework by
defining a force that could conduct a large-scale operation in one region,
“capable of denying the objectives of—or imposing unacceptable costs on—an
opportunistic aggressor in a second region.”22 This “win/deny” framework
has been the major shaping tool for several budget cycles.23
However, the likelihood that the United States would find itself in two
significant wars at once is not really the question that many strategists
and defense policymakers actually consider. Instead, their focus is on
deterring and preventing conflict. Both the international order and our
alliance system are predicated upon U.S. core capabilities and their cred-
ibility. America’s treaty commitments and alliance systems, and a project-
ed environment of great power tension, augur clearly for the capacity to
successfully engage in more than one conflict.24 There is no shortage of
possible combinations of crises in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East that
would directly impact our core interests and require a response.25
Constrained by reduced forces, the United States will find it diffi-
cult to play its historical role as a guarantor of a stable global system,
a rules-based international and economic order that has widely bene-
fited much of the world. The various regional chapters in this volume
give additional credence to foreseeable demands for U.S. engagement
and support. Given that conflict in the 21st century appears to be both
increasing in frequency and lethality (compared to the last 25 years),
• 40 •
demand for U.S. forces is increasing, and the potential exists for longer
duration conflicts.26 Our policy and force design should recognize and
strive to resolve this demand signal.
Force Design Options

Having established the evolution of past U.S. force designs, this sec-
tion turns to the future. The option set explored here is framed by an
assumption about resources that should be explicitly laid out. While
the evolving strategic environment poses rising tensions between re-
gional powers and revanchist regimes, U.S. domestic political forces
will constrain the allocation of resources for security. The U.S. debt
load is approaching 100 percent of gross domestic product, and the
national interest payments will at some point rival our defense budget.
U.S. demographics will continue to exert upward pressure on domestic
spending for social security and medical insurance. Moreover, the recent
electoral campaign gave scant evidence that the U.S. taxpayer is will-
ing to sacrifice existing entitlement programs in support of protracted
policing of the world or global hegemony. Hence, defense policymak-
ers should not expect significant additional funding and will need to
ruthlessly attack inefficiencies in overhead, acquisition, and personnel
practices to preserve force levels and readiness as a matter of priority.
Table 1. Alternative Strategies and Force Sizing/Shaping Constructs

Selected Enduring Forward
Partnership: Engagement: Cooperative Decisive Force:
“Win + Deny” “1 + 2” Security “Win 2 MTW”
Limited to naval
Reassurance Reduced Reduced further Enhanced
force
Reduced to a
Deterrence Moderate Reduced Enhanced
degree
Higher for naval
Warfighting Reduced to Maximized for
Unbalanced expeditionary
Capacity enhance stability joint operations
forces
Forward- Forward naval Adapted to
Deployed Reduced Forward forces in three better support
Posture hubs NATO
Operational Less reliant on Operational Strategic
Role of Reserve
Reserve Guard Reserve Reserve
Ground forces
Naval forces
but add building- Naval forces, Balanced in
Investment and aerospace
partner capacity submarines, three major
Priorities power
and nonmilitary unmanned ISR domains
projection, BMD
skills
Total Costs (in
$535–$550 $500 $550 $600
USD billions)
• 41 •
Hoffman
Table 2. Illustrative U.S. Military Force Composition

Selected Enduring Forward
Partnership: Engagement: Cooperative Decisive Force:
“Win + Deny” “1 + 2” Partnership “Win 2 MTW”
Navy Ships 346
282 240–250 308
Carriers 9 Ford-class, 3
11 9 12
Attack Submarines America-class
40 Less than 40 55
Surface Combatants/ 48
88/29 78/18 120/38
Amphibious 118/33
Air Force Fighter/
1,050 915 721 1,150
Attack (4th- and 5th-
(648/402) (568/347) (440/281) (748/402)
Generation Planes)
Army Divisions
8 10 6 12
Active/Reserve End
440/530 490/430 <400/450 540/490
Strength (thousands)
Marine Regiments
7 7 6 9
Active Strength
175 167 180 186
(thousands)
Increased 10 Reduced 10 Reduced 15
Special Operations Baseline: 63,000
percent percent percent
Triad, 12
Triad, 12 SSBNs,
Strategic Deterrent Triad, 14 SSBNs Dyad
SSBNs nonstealthy
bomber
Budget (in USD
$535–$550 $535 $550 $600+
billions)
While there is some value in defining a much larger military force that
would allow the United States to be everywhere and fulfill all possible
missions, there is greater value in helping the next team of defense pol-
icymakers with clear priorities about where to apply funding resources.
Resource constraints, uncertainty, and risk are the constants of strategic
planning, and we cannot escape them. Thus the option set of strategy/
force designs examined here range from the Budget Control Acts levels
of around $500 billion to just above $600 billion per year.
The following portion of this chapter evaluates the Obama administra-
tion’s strategy and force levels against three alternative defense strategies
and force design constructs. The outlines of each strategy are detailed
and assessed, a summary of which is presented in table 1. Illustrative
force structure mixes for each of the options are presented in table 2.27
Selective Partnership (Win/Deny)

The Obama administration sought to sustain America’s leadership role,
adapt to strategic competition in Asia, and enhance partnership ca-
pabilities where needed. Its defense strategy has been one of selective
partnership because the regional priorities and resource constraints
imposed on DOD required priorities, and the 2015 National Securi-
• 42 •
ty Strategy details specific regional priorities, and heavily emphasized

partnerships. The planning force construct employed over the last 8
years justified enough ground combat power for forward engagement
and one war, and an Air Force and Navy capable of fully contributing
in one major war while providing the punishing strike assets to deny
an aggressor state in the second scenario. This construct is aimed at
the ability to conduct two nearly simultaneous wars, and it provides a
limited degree of both reassurance to allies and deterrence to opportu-
nistic aggressors. However, it does this to a lesser degree than did U.S.
defense strategies prior to 2010 since it reduces conventional combat
power and forward presence levels in Europe. Additionally, because
it generates a joint force limited to defeating an opponent in only one
theater, U.S. allies/partners are less reassured. They have to be wary of
their position should their region be challenged after the United States
has had to react to another crisis elsewhere. The force structure derived
from this force-sizing construct is displayed in the “Win/Deny” option
in the first column in table 2. This planning construct remains the basis
for U.S. defense policy, but it is somewhat challenged by sequestration
and underfunding.
Enduring Engagement (Win 1+2)

Another option, offered by Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institu-
tion, proposes a revised yardstick for the Pentagon to use to base both
the shape and the size of the Army. O’Hanlon’s framework accounts
for one major war, with two simultaneous prolonged smaller conflicts.
These could be a protracted stabilization mission, a long counterinsur-
gency campaign, or an international response to a major disaster. He
refers to this as a “1+2” planning paradigm. This framework emphasizes
the role of land power in obtaining political objectives and in producing
sustainable results in failed states, postconflict stabilization tasks, and
major disasters.
O’Hanlon estimates the United States would require at least 20
ground maneuver brigades (Army brigades and Marine regiments) for
the major conflict and no less than 18 additional brigade equivalents to
handle each of the two smaller conflicts and their rotation base. Thus,
he calculates a planning force of 56 active brigades. He is not optimistic
about allied partners augmenting U.S. capacity or about the National
Guard responding to the threats/scenarios in a timely manner. O’Hanlon
notes, “The notion that even with a few months of full-time training, they
can reliably be expected to perform as well as active duty units in the
early going of a future military operation is suspect.”28
• 43 •
Hoffman
This planning construct does an excellent job of focusing on the most

likely scenarios that we could face and offers greater specialization for the
full spectrum of conflict.29 The character of the “+2” crises explains the
size and desired capabilities for land forces and would no doubt shape
the required airpower support (a greater emphasis on close air support,
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems, remotely piloted
strike, and logistics) that the joint force has enjoyed from its aerospace
assets in Iraq and Afghanistan. Reduction in short-legged, fifth-genera-
tion fighters could pay for these increases.
This option provides a more robust capacity for a global and pro-
tracted conflict against violent extremist organizations with additive
special operations forces assets for persistent but low footprint forms
of warfare.30 Countering unconventional modes of conflict would be a
principal role for U.S. Special Operations Command in this option.31 It
would include a sizable increase to special forces above the current base-
line of 63,000 Active troops and 12,000 civilians/contractors.32 Using
this alternative planning paradigm, both reassurance and deterrence are
reduced further by the reduction of high-end joint warfighting capacity.
No doubt, some allies would not be convinced that our strategy satisfied
their security concerns.
This force design covers the most likely scenarios but falls short in
generating forces for the most dangerous ones. It would be better bal-
anced between traditional military warfighting and nontraditional con-
flict stabilization tasks, with specialized forces designed, trained, and
equipped for their specific tasks. However, the risk generated by force
specialization is the loss of versatile combat forces. Table 2 illustrates
more specific potential Service end strength and major formation chang-
es to support this option.
Forward Cooperative Security

As its name suggests, this strategy operates forward with alliances and
partners to leverage cooperative and preventive actions to preclude con-
flicts before they occur.33 In direct contrast with the previous option, it
emphasizes forward-deployed naval power to generate and sustain pre-
ventive actions and promote true partnerships. This strategy exploits
command of the commons to both generate and sustain freedom of
action for our alliances and partners.34 Maritime forces would operate
forward, ready to control the global commons and critical international
chokepoints and trade links.35 Given its emphasis on maritime power, a
larger Navy would be the principal element of this strategy—one sized
at roughly 346 ships, per the recommendations of the independent Na-
tional Defense Panel. Both the surface Navy and the attack submarine
• 44 •
force would be our principal instrument of regional deterrence, includ-

ing a robust ballistic missile defense–capable surface force.36
The force design implications of this strategy include:
• prioritization of naval assets to generate both strategic and opera-

tional freedom of action in priority regions and the ability to exploit
the global commons to shift resources flexibly
• exploitation of the undersea warfare competition by increasing our

attack submarine force
• prioritization of long-range maritime and aerospace power projec-

tion platforms to generate and sustain access to critical regions and
flashpoints; carrier-based assets (9 large nuclear Ford-class and 3
smaller America-class carriers) would emphasize long-range un-
manned systems37
• maintenance of a mobile crisis response posture (Marine Expedi-

tionary Units or airborne) exploiting freedom of maneuver and ac-
tion wherever needed
• preservation of strategic mobility to project a decisive joint com-

bined arms force from the continental United States.
This option might be thought of as the “prevent forward/win by

surge” strategy. This strategy focuses on assuring access to key regions
and maintaining the global commons. This option generates deterrence
and reassurance through the routine deployment of credible naval power
projection assets and through increased undersea warfare capacity with
additional strike capabilities.38 Rather than being sized to fight wars, this
strategy is more preventative but still retains a potent and modernized
single MTW capacity. It affords more flexibility in posturing forces in
regions where land forces might be politically or military vulnerable.
But reduced land forces might be perceived as less credible in terms of
commitment and deterrence. The basic building blocks are displayed in
the third column of table 2.
Decisive Force: Win Two MTWs

This option maximizes the joint force’s capacity to conduct high-inten-
sity, sustained, combined arms warfare. It incorporates the assessments
of various think tanks that the U.S. military is undersized.39 This option
is designed to maximize reassurance and conventional deterrence for in-
• 45 •
Hoffman
terstate warfare. It provides for a balanced and conventionally oriented

joint warfighting force with robust capacity. It would be an inherently
versatile force with the proper doctrine and training for full-spectrum
operations.
Capable and balanced joint forces represent the ultimate in conven-
tional deterrence and reassurance of our treaty partners. Land power is
an essential element of that joint force and while not the principal force
in every scenario, it is critical to strategic results in all campaigns waged
on land. While the Pacific may be thought of as a maritime theater, “in
reality, U.S. land forces . . . are vital to the nation’s capabilities in the Pa-
cific.”40 The option does not deny the critical need for potent naval and
air forces but rather emphasizes the value of balance.
This option would reverse recent trends in cutting back on land pow-
er. U.S. defense policy has designed and resourced an Army capable of
fighting one major regional contingency, but it would take months to
generate sufficient forces to win a second.41 If sequestration and current
budget plans hold, the Active Army will be driven to a ceiling of 420,000
and the Marine Corps below 170,000, yielding a land force of some eight
Army and two-and-one-third Marine division equivalents.42 At this level
of manning, most Army divisions will not be full strength. This force
falls far short of what is projected as needed to fight and decisively win
two MTWs.
Many defense analysts have become comfortable with the four to five
Army divisions allocated to an MTW from the 1990s Base Force mod-
els and similar analyses. One should keep in mind that these planning
yardsticks were framed in the early days of the post–Cold War era when
America’s military power was at a zenith and when significant rivals did
not exist. Moreover, these frameworks were developed for opponents
in an age before the diffusion of advanced military capabilities to mid-
dle powers occurred. Both past historical experiences of major wars and
projections into the future suggest that larger ground formations, no less
than six Army divisions and a reinforced Marine expeditionary force per
MTW, would be needed in pacing scenarios in Asia.43
While the current plan reduces the Army from 5 to 3 heavy divi-
sions––and reduces the readiness levels and manning of the Army––this
option builds up to 12 divisions.44 At least five of the Active Army divi-
sions would be “heavy” or armored. This option yields important politi-
cal dividends, reassures allies and partners, and makes conflict less likely.
This force is also better postured to cope with an MTW that persists
beyond 6 months, providing divisions that can be rotated in. Should
either conflict persist beyond 12 months, the Nation’s strategic reserve
in the form of the National Guard can be employed. Land power will
• 46 •
be a component of the force required to win those two conflicts as well

as transition to a sustainable, stable peace. They are an essential part of
our joint warfighting portfolio, completely essential to securing strategic
effects that U.S. policymakers will ultimately require.45
Unlike the first three options, the two-MTW decisive force option
generates sufficient credible combat power forces to reestablish some ad-
ditive forces outside the continental United States. Additional Army end
strength for the two divisions would not necessarily come at the expense
of current major procurement programs. Such an increase is affordable
(at an expense of roughly $6 billion per division). Greater attention to
defense reforms in acquisition, personnel/ compensation, and overhead
reduction could provide the resources to sustain an adequate force struc-
ture of this size.
Principles
A new administration should consider a number of key principles in its
force design and development efforts. These principles are not an exclu-
sive list but offer guidance to steer the U.S. military as it adapts to the
rapidly changing strategic environment.
Embrace Uncertainty
The ability of U.S. strategists to predict the time, place, and character
of wars has been “uniformly dismal.”46 When one considers general
principles about force planning, one cannot escape the conclusions of
Colin Gray:
We will certainly be surprised in the future, so it is our task

now to try to plan against the effects of some deeply unset-
tling surprises. The key to victory here is not the expensive
creation of new conceptual, methodological, or electro-me-
chanical tools of prediction. Rather it is to pursue defense
and security planning on the principles of minimum regrets
and considerable flexibility and adaptability.47
Minimizing regrets is not achieved with better computer-aided pow-

ers of prediction or by maximizing investments in a narrow or specific
warfighting area. We cannot predict the future with consistent accura-
cy, and we should not be tempted to believe there is some wonderful
methodology that enables American planners to gaze deep into the 21st
century with precision.
• 47 •
Hoffman
As Professor Gray noted, “Expect to be surprised. To win as a defense

planner is not to avoid surprise. To win is to have planned in such a man-
ner that the effects of surprise do not inflict lethal damage.”48 Tradeoffs
and resource constraints are crucial to the exercise of strategy, but so is
the recognition of risks and uncertainty.
Prepare for Longer and Harder Wars

Avoiding “lethal damage” by surprise also involves assessment about
the character of future wars. As noted by former Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs General Martin Dempsey in his QDR risk assessment 2 years ago,
we need to prepare for more difficult conventional fights.49 The Chair-
man reinforced that assessment in the National Military Strategy, warn-
ing that “we are more likely to face prolonged campaigns than conflicts
that are resolved quickly . . . that control of escalation is becoming more
difficult and more important.”50 The “Army for the Future” report con-
cluded that under the planning assumptions directed by the Pentagon
and with the current fiscal year 2017 programmed force, “the Army is,
in fact, neither sized nor shaped for conducting any kind of large-scale,
long duration mission at acceptable risk.”51 This confirms other analyses
by RAND.52
Deterring rising competitors will also be harder, and there is more
to deterring a major state such as China than buying a lot of robots or
fifth-generation aircraft.53 Our potential adversaries know our vulnera-
bilities, they are adaptive, and they will construct combinations that will
outmatch some of our own capabilities.54
Emphasize Force Design Versatility

Versatility is based on a breadth of competencies versus a collection of
specialized organizations or players. It is difficult for general purpose
forces to achieve full-spectrum coverage, but having forces prepared for
high-intensity combat is the critical task. Some specialized units that are
ready on day one for unique circumstances may also be required. Versa-
tility is dependent on adequate resources, the time to absorb a wide array
of scenarios, and investments in education and flexible doctrine so that
leaders are both mentally prepared to apply best practices for the scenar-
ios they are expected to be prepared for and have the requisite critical
thinking skills to react to new contexts. Agility is a measurement of how
easily and how quickly an organization can shift between competencies
and execute them equally well.55 In the past, we measured agility across
the conflict spectrum in increments of months. We (and our allies) can-
not afford the luxury of months anymore.
• 48 •
Given that we cannot predict the place or nature of future military

engagements, as former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has noted,
“We must place a premium on acquiring equipment and providing train-
ing that give our forces the most versatile possible capabilities across the
broadest possible spectrum of conflict.”56 Thus versatility is not merely
desirable but essential when enemies are either vague or proliferating,
when the time and place of the contest is uncertain, and when technolo-
gies are in dynamic flux. The core competencies required for high-inten-
sity combined arms warfare are the essential foundation for generating
versatility. This is not “Cold War” thinking, but a sober realization of the
fact that high-intensity, major theater war poses the greatest challenge to
core U.S. interests and thus deserves the highest prioritization.
Ensure Force Balance

One of the principal elements of a sound joint force design is a balanced
force capable of generating options for decisionmakers in many contexts,
and at the operational level, generating dilemmas for our opponents.57
We may no longer have the overall size of the force we need to execute
our national strategy at low risk, but we should be able to preserve a
high-quality and balanced force as our hedge against uncertainty.58
Technology cannot significantly offset the need for a balanced joint
force, nor can it guarantee short wars.59 Our forces have to cover a wide
range of missions and forms of terrain, and they have to be rugged and
reliable instead of exquisite and expensive. Of late we have been suc-
cumbing, almost subconsciously, to buying fewer numbers of more ex-
pensive platforms.60 The end result is a kind of self-defeating approach
in which we generate a smaller force structure unable to sustain desired
forward presence tasks and impose more costs on ourselves than our
adversary.
Certainly advanced forms of technology can benefit U.S. military per-
formance in all domains, enhancing command and control, intelligence,
undersea warfare, missile defense, and so forth. Over the last generation,
America’s prowess in precision strike operations has been materially im-
proved. But rarely have we applied the same level of investment toward
enhancing its land power forces. For example, the U.S. Army’s modern-
ization and research accounts are dramatically lower.61
A survey of the world’s trouble spots suggests that land warfare has
more of a future than many now seem to believe. This does not suggest
that we should not pursue strategic technological breakthroughs; we
should explore innovation in all forms in a dedicated effort to arrest the
erosion of our military edge.62 It just means that we need to pursue more
than one domain in our option set.
• 49 •
Hoffman
Overall, a premium should be placed on forces that can do more than

one thing. Therefore, providing flexibility across all domains should be
foremost among the decision criteria we apply to our future military.63
Airpower, by itself, will again prove effective but not decisive in isola-
tion. U.S. force planning should hedge by providing general capabilities
and organizational agility that allow both strategic and operational ad-
aptations to unanticipated developments.64 We should seek to invest to
ensure that the joint force is as dominant on the ground as our sea and
air Services currently are in their respective domains.65
Recommendations
In order to better shape and size the force of the future, a number of
recommendations are offered.
Reestablish a “Win Two Modern MTW” Force Construct

To reflect the principle of prudence and awareness of the evolving strate-
gic environment, the Pentagon should return to a clearer “win two mod-
ern wars” construct and plan to do so with balanced combined arms
forces. The “modern” in this construct highlights the need, per the Force
of the Future initiative, to build a force for the 21st century that would
include accelerated efforts to develop competitive capabilities that offset
our lost materiel edge in critical domains. In recognition of coalition
contributions and fiscal constraints, the Pentagon should frame its con-
ventional force capacity within a framework that incorporates the roles
of allies in Asia and Europe, or what might be called a “win one unilater-
ally, win one in coalition” yardstick. We should think in terms of our co-
alition partners, yet be honest about what our allies can actually deliver
in terms of hard power.66 This construct matches our strategic interests
but recognizes the limits of our resources and capacity. It also precludes
weak coalition partners from presuming that they do not have to invest
in their own security capacity by relying upon U.S. taxpayers for their
defense. The illustrative force structure to fulfill this option is contrasted
with the current plan in table 3.
The joint force would be balanced for combined arms warfare, includ-
ing 10 carriers and a slightly larger Navy of 290 ships. The Department of
the Navy has plans for a larger fleet but underfunds its own shipbuilding
accounts.67 We should shore up that funding, exploiting long-term con-
tracts to drive increased efficiency into the shipbuilding plans. Consider-
ation should also be given to expanding naval forward presence without
having to invest in so many vessels for rotational deployments.68
• 50 •
Table 3. Comparison of Current Forces with “Win 2 MTW” Design Construct

Current Forces Win 2 MTW
Navy Ships 282 290
Carriers 11 10
Attack Submarines 40 48
Surface Combatants/Amphibious 98/30 100/33
Air Force Fighter/Attack Aircraft 1,050 820
(4th- /5th-Generation) (648/402) (432/388)
Additional UAV
Army Divisions 8 equivalent 10 fully manned
Active/Reserve End Strength 440/530 490/460
(thousands)
Marines Regiments 7 7
Active End Strength (thousands) 176 182
Special Operations Baseline Baseline military but 20
percent fewer contractors
Strategic Deterrent Triad, 14 SSBNs Dyad, 10 Ohio-class
replacement submarines;
nonstealthy bomber with long-
range standoff weapon
Defense Budget (in USD billions) $535 $550
The illustrative force would sustain a robust and unsurpassed Air

Force with both fourth- and fifth-generation fighters. There are argu-
ments that our technology edge is eroding and that we are facing the re-
ceding frontiers of U.S. dominance in comparison to rising competitors.69
Yet any holistic analysis of U.S. capabilities and capacity would show
how far ahead we are in terms of aerospace and naval forces, includ-
ing our command and control, human capital, training, experience, and
systems integration. While continued investment in aerospace superior-
ity is needed, greater attention to unmanned systems is warranted over
short-legged manned systems. The notion that further cuts to ground
forces provide the best candidates for savings for offsetting resources for
increase aviation capability is not well grounded when exploring the full
range of scenarios.70
The programmed land combat force structure for 2020 is not ade-
quate to the strategic objectives assigned by the current strategy, and it
incurs higher risk. A modernization bow wave just beyond the current
budget profile reinforces this assessment. Delaying modernization within
DOD is possible. However, we need to manage the industrial base care-
fully and understand that we face the emergence of larger powers with
greater access to modern capabilities. Delayed modernization may not
deter rising powers, reassure friends, or posture us to respond appro-
priately. At present, Army research funding is paltry, and the lack of any
new land combat systems in development that carry the Army forward
against credible opponents in the 21st century is a mounting concern.71
• 51 •
Hoffman
The illustrative force design includes a total of 10 fully manned Ac-

tive-duty Army divisions, including 5 heavy divisions. The costs of in-
creasing our conventional force deterrent could be offset by savings gen-
erated by personnel reforms, base closures, overhead reductions, and
better acquisition decisions. The resources to support additional land
power would come from these reform initiatives. Further savings would
be allocated from more targeted investments in strategic forces.
Reinvigorate Mobilization Planning

Our strategy should not assume short wars, a frequent optimistic flaw
in American planning.72 Several notable scholars and military experts
have recently noted the need to once again think in terms of national
mobilization for manpower, unique civilian skills in cyber security, or in-
dustrial surge.73 There are traditional elements of the U.S. industrial base
that warrant special attention, and there are breakthrough technologies,
particularly additive manufacturing, that should substantially impact
our ability to convert commercial production capacity from domestic to
military applications if properly designed.
Drop the Strategic Triad

Funding the modernization of our strategic deterrent will have to be
carefully managed given the large bow wave of modernization projects
such as the Ohio-class replacement and long-range bombers. Upgrades
to the U.S. strategic deterrent will be nearly $200 billion over the next
decade and could approach $700 billion over the next 25 years.74 The
United States cannot afford to simply rebuild and modernize its nuclear
enterprise on a platform-for-platform basis. Although affordable in a rel-
ative sense, the funding is not available to buy new bombers, modernize
human capital, update testing and warheads, and completely replace the
ballistic missile submarine fleet.75
Some efficiencies are going to have to be gained, and some risk ab-
sorbed. Human capital and warhead reliability are not the places to take
that risk. The redundancy built into the nuclear triad delivery mix is the
more feasible place, probably with land-based missiles.76 Senior former
DOD officials have offered up these as a possible reduction.77
Hedge Risk with National Guard Enhancements

The United States should maximize the use of the Reserves wherever
feasible and suitable.78 An increased reliance on the National Guard is
not without additional costs and higher risks given the time required
to bring Reserve Component assets up to combat standards (large-scale
combined arms maneuver in particular). Assessments of how much risk
• 52 •
we incur by counting on the National Guard should be made with an

eye to defining required response timelines and for considering Guard
readiness investments to meet these timelines.79 Increased use of hybrid
units (comprised of higher levels of full-time personnel), greater access
to advanced training facilities and simulators, and additional paid drill
time may be needed.80 Policymakers should carefully evaluate the read-
iness levels and risks associated with reliance upon the National Guard.
It may be more realistic to assign the Guard as the Nation’s strategic
reserve, with designated units provided to specifically defined mission
sets and adequate equipment/training resources, to meet obtainable and
objective readiness standards.
Demand Challenging Operational Scenarios to

Promote Force Development
Defense planners seek to provide current and future occupants of the
White House with the options and tools needed to respond to multiple
crises and other rising forms of risk. In addition to this accumulating
risk, it should be acknowledged that while the United States arguably
deterred its most demanding tasks, it has never accurately predicted the
character of future conflicts. DOD force design analysis should incorpo-
rate a rigorous evaluation of the potential crises we may face and should
include the contributions of allies. Internal processes should also exam-
ine the key scenarios employed to evaluate risk and shape the force with
equal rigor.81 Efforts to reshape the force should be aggressively pursued,
but they must be grounded in prudent war games and experimentation,
not just aspiration.82
Conclusion
The future is always terra incognita to defense planners; uncertainty
about the specifics of time, place, and adversary are the eternal constants
of security planning.83 Certitude is a chimera, but risk must be prudently
prepared for; it cannot be ignored or wished away. We have only history
and educated thinking to guide our forecasts.
We cannot assert certainty or gamble America’s future security entire-
ly on a single dimension or domain of warfare. Our opponents have a say
in the character, frequency, and intensity of tomorrow’s wars.84 Future
policymakers should not be simplifying potential opponents’ strategic
calculus and allow them to dedicate their preparations for fighting the
U.S. Armed Forces with only a singular approach. This is why strategic
balance is so valuable.85 As our leaders have noted, we cannot invest
in silver bullets.86 In short, some analytical humility is in order as we
• 53 •
Hoffman
face several possible strategic shocks.87 The design of tomorrow’s military

should reflect that reality and rely on strong balanced forces that can
fight and prevail in all warfighting domains in prolonged conflict. Even
more than victory in war, such a force will make conflict less likely in the
first place—an effect well worth the cost.
The author gratefully acknowledges invaluable assistance from Dr. R.D.

Hooker, Jr., and Dr. T.X. Hammes at the National Defense University
(NDU), Dr. David Johnson at RAND, Paul Scharre at the Center for a
New American Security, Bryan McGrath at the Hudson Institute, Colonel
Pat Garrett, USMC (Ret.), and Mark F. Cancian at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies. Alan Dowling, a research associate at NDU
and Colgate University, also made valuable insights.
Notes
1
Andrew F. Krepinevich, statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee,
“Hearing on Defense Strategy,” October 28, 2015.
2
Michèle Flournoy, Nine Lessons for Navigating National Security (Washington, DC:
Center for a New American Security, February 2016), 3.
3
Eric Heginbotham and Jacob Heim, “Deterring Without Dominance: Discouraging
Chinese Adventurism Under Austerity,” The Washington Quarterly 38, no. 1 (Spring 2015),
185–199.
4
Krepinevich.
5
David Ochmanek et al., America’s Security Deficit: Addressing the Imbalance Between
Strategy and Resources in a Turbulent World (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2015).
6
Clark A. Murdock, Kelley Sayler, and Ryan A. Crotty, The Defense Budget’s Double
Whammy: A Drawdown and Hollowing Out from Within (Washington, DC: Center for Strate-
gic and International Studies, October 2012).
7
Arnold Punaro, statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee, November
17, 2015, available at <www.ndia.org/Documents/Punaro_SASC_Written_Statement.
pdf>.
8
Robert Work, “The Third Offset Strategy,” prepared remarks at the Ronald Reagan
Defense Forum, November 17, 2015, available at <www.defense.gov/News/Speeches/
Speech-View/Article/628246/reagan-defense-forum-the-third-offset-strategy>; Frank Ken-
dall, Under Secretary of Defense Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, testimony before
the House Armed Services Committee, January 28, 2015.
9
Clark A. Murdock and Mark F. Cancian, Alternative Defense Strategies (Washington,
DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2016); Clark A. Murdock, Ryan A.
Crotty, and Angela Weaver, Building the 2021 Affordable Military (Washington, DC: Center
for Strategic and International Studies, July 2014).
10
Michael J. Meese, Strategy and Force Planning in a Time of Austerity, INSS Strategic
Forum 287 (Washington, DC: NDU Press, May 2014).
• 54 •
11
Mackubin T. Owens, “Force Planning: The Crossroads of Strategy and the Political
Process,” Orbis 59, no. 3 (Summer 2015), 411–437.
12
Lorna S. Jaffe, The Development of the Base Force, 1989–1992 (Washington, DC:
Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint History Office, 1992); Les Aspin, Report of the Bottom-Up Review
(Washington, DC: Department of Defense, October 1993).
13
Eric V. Larson, David T. Orletsky, and Kristin J. Leuschner, Defense Planning in a
Decade of Change (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2001).
14
For a history, see Steven Metz, ed., The Two MTW Construct: An Alternative Strategy
Project (Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 2001).
15
Transforming Defense: National Security in the 21st Century, Report of the National
Defense Panel (Arlington, VA: National Defense Panel, December 1997), 23.
16
Seeking a National Strategy: A Concert for Preserving Security and Promoting Freedom,
Phase II (Arlington, VA: The United States Commission on National Security/21st Century,
April 15, 2000), 14–15.
17
Michèle A. Flournoy, ed., Quadrennial Defense Review 2001: Strategy-Driven Choices
for America’s Security (Washington, DC: NDU Press, 2001).
18
National Military Strategy of the United States of America 2004: A Strategy for Today,
A Vision for Tomorrow (Washington, DC: The Joint Staff, March 2005); National Defense
Strategy of the United States of America (Washington, DC: Office of the Secretary of De-
fense, March 2005).
19
Kathleen Hicks and Sam Brannen, “Force Planning in the 2010 QDR,” Joint Force
Quarterly 59 (4th Quarter 2010), 136–142.
20
The Quadrennial Defense Review Report 2010 (Washington, DC: Department of
Defense, February 2010), 41–42.
21
Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense (Washington, DC:
Department of Defense, January 2012).
22
Ibid., 4; emphasis in original.
23
The Department of Defense defined its sizing mechanism as follows: “If deterrence
fails at any given time, U.S. forces will be capable of defeating a regional adversary in a
large-scale multi-phased campaign, and denying the objectives of—or imposing unac-
ceptable costs on—a second aggressor in another region.” See Quadrennial Defense Review
2014 (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, March 2014).
24
Richard D. Hooker, Jr., American Landpower and the Two-War Construct, Land War-
fare Paper 106 (Arlington, VA: Association of the U.S. Army, May 2015), 2–3.
25
Russia fields an active army of roughly 300,000, supported by over 500,000 re-
servists. Iran’s military forces total 475,000 active-duty members, and their mobilization
capacity would double that. See IISS Military Balance 2014 (London: Routledge, 2014),
180–191, 215–217, 230–240, 254–256, 318–322.
26
Frank G. Hoffman and Ryan Neuhard, “No Wake for Ares,” Proceedings 141, no. 12
(December 2015). For an opposing argument, see Christopher Preble and John Mueller,
eds., A Dangerous World? Threat Perception and U.S. National Security (Washington, DC:
CATO Institute, 2014).
27
For an update on current force structure and plans, see Mark F. Cancian, U.S.
Military Forces in FY 2017: Stable Plans, Disruptive Threats, and Strategic Inflection Point
(Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, May 2016).
28
Michael E. O’Hanlon, The Future of Land Warfare (Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution, 2014), 175.
• 55 •
Hoffman
29
Frank G. Hoffman, “Thinking About Future Conflict: Preparing for the Full Spec-
trum,” Marine Corps Gazette 98, no. 11 (November 2014).
30
Linda Robinson, The Future of Special Operations. Beyond Kill and Capture, Special
Report No. 66 (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, April 2013); James Thomas and
Chris Dougherty, Beyond the Ramparts: The Future of U.S. Special Operations Forces (Wash-
ington, DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2013).
31
David Maxwell, “Unconventional Warfare Does Not Belong to Special Forces,” War
on the Rocks, August 12, 2013.
32
Cancian, 45.
33
Frank G. Hoffman, “Forward Partnership: A Sustainable American Strategy,” Orbis
57, no. 4 (Winter 2013), 19–37.
34
Abraham Denmark and James Mulvenon, eds., Contested Commons: The Future of
American Power in a Multipolar World (Washington, DC: Center for a New American Secu-
rity, 2010); Patrick Cronin et al., Cooperation from Strength: The United States, China, and
the South China Sea (Washington, DC: Center for a New American Security, 2012).
35
Mark E. Redden and Michael P. Hughes, Global Commons and Domain Interrelation-
ships: Time for a New Conceptual Framework? INSS Strategic Forum 259 (Washington, DC:
NDU Press, October 2010).
36
Bryan Clark, statement before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Sea-
power and Power Projection in Presence, Deterrence, and Warfighting, April 15, 2015.
37
On the merits of this, see Jerry Hendrix, Retreat from Range: The Rise and Fall of Car-
rier Aviation (Washington, DC: Center for a New American Security, October 2016). For
a robust defense of the carrier in the 21st century, see Seth Cropsey, Bryan McGrath, and
Timothy Walton, Sharpening the Spear: The Carrier, the Joint Force, and High-End Conflict
(Washington, DC: Hudson Institute, October 2016).
38
Bryan Clark, The Emerging Era in Undersea Warfare (Washington, DC: Center for
Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, January 2015).
39
Dakota L. Wood, ed., 2016 Index of U.S. Military Strength (Washington, DC: Heritage
Foundation, 2016); Dakota L. Wood, “Alternative Approaches to Defense Strategy and
Force Structure,” testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, October 29,
2015.
40
Michael Green, Kathleen Hicks, and Mark F. Cancian, Asia Pacific Rebalance 2025:
Capabilities, Presence and Partnership (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and Interna-
tional Studies, 2016), 131.
41
2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, ix.
42
Ibid.
43
For force estimates, see Hooker, 6.
44
Thomas Donnelly et al., To Rebuild America’s Military (Washington, DC: American
Enterprise Institute, 2015); Solutions 2016 (Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation, 2016).
45
Colin S. Gray, Always Strategic: Jointly Essential Landpower (Carlisle Barracks, PA:
Strategic Studies Institute, February 2015).
46
Charles Heller and William Stofft, America’s First Battles, 1776–1965 (Lawrence:
University Press of Kansas, 1986), xii.
47
Colin S. Gray, “The 21st Century Security Environment and the Future of War,”
Parameters (Winter 2008/2009), 14–24.
48
Ibid., 16.
49
See the Chairman’s risk assessment in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, 60–65.
• 56 •
50
The National Military Strategy of the United States of America 2015 (Washington, DC:
The Joint Staff, June 2015), i.
51
The Army for the Future (Arlington, VA: National Commission on the Future of the
Army, 2016), 52.
52
Timothy M. Bonds, Michael Johnson, and Paul S. Steinberg, Limiting Regret: Building
the Army We Will Need (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2015).
53
Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr., “How to Deter China,” Foreign Affairs (March/April
2015).
54
David E. Johnson, “The Challenges of the ‘Now’ and Their Implications for the U.S.
Army” (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2016), 10.
55
Complex Warfighting, Future Land Operations Concept (Canberra: Australian Army,
2004).
56
Robert M. Gates, statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee, October
21, 2015, 7.
57
Nathan Freier, Defining and Operationalizing Balance in Defense Strategy (Washington,
DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2009).
58
Mackubin T. Owens, “A Balanced Force Structure to Achieve a Liberal World Or-
der,” Orbis 50, no. 2 (Spring 2006), 307–325.
59
Frank G. Hoffman, “What the QDR Should Say about Landpower,” Parameters 43,
no. 4 (Winter 2013/2014), 7–14.
60
T.X. Hammes, “Cheap Technology Will Challenge U.S. Tactical Dominance,” Joint
Force Quarterly 81 (2nd Quarter, April 2016), 76–85.
61
Rhys McCormick, The Army Modernization Challenge: A Historical Perspective (Wash-
ington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, March 2016).
62
Shawn Brimley, While We Can: Arresting the Erosion of America’s Military Edge (Wash-
ington, DC: Center for a New American Security, December 2015).
63
David Deptula, “Revisiting the Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces,” testimony
before the Senate Armed Services Committee, November 5, 2015, 2.
64
Paul K. Davis, Lessons from RAND’s Work on Planning Under Uncertainty for National
Security (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2012).
65
For ideas, see Robert H. Scales, The Past and Present as Prologue: Future Warfare
Through the Lens of Contemporary Conflicts (Washington, DC: Center for a New American
Security, 2009); Paul Scharre, Uncertain Ground: Emerging Challenges in Land Warfare
(Washington, DC: Center for a New American Security, 2015).
66
On allied contributions, see Gary Schmitt, ed., A Hard Look at Hard Power: Assessing
the Defense Capabilities of Key U.S. Allies and Security Partners (Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S.
Army War College, July 2015).
67
Eric Labs, An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2016 Shipbuilding Plan (Washington,
DC: Congressional Budget Office, October 29, 2015); Eric Labs, “A Fiscal Pearl Harbor,”
Proceedings 142, no. 2 (February 2016). See also Ronald O’Rourke, Navy Force Structure
and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, RL32665 (Washington, DC:
Congressional Research Service, May 23, 2016), as well as his research on the submarine
production challenge: O’Rourke, Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Pro-
curement: Background and Issues for Congress, RL32418 (Washington, DC: Congressional
Research Service, May 20, 2016).
68
Eric Labs, Preserving the Navy’s Forward Presence with a Smaller Fleet (Washington,
DC: Congressional Budget Office, March 2015).
• 57 •
Hoffman
69
Eric Heginbotham et al., The U.S.-China Military Scorecard: Forces, Geography, and
the Evolving Balance of Power, 1996–2017 (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2015); Roger Cliff,
China’s Military Power (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 72–102.
70
Heginbotham, 347–348.
71
Cancian, 22.
72
Donald Chisholm, “The Risk of Optimism in the Conduct of War,” Parameters 33,
no. 4 (Winter 2003–2004), 114–131.
73
Eliot Cohen, testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, October
22, 2015; David Barno and Nora Bensahel, “Preparing for the Next Big War,” War on the
Rocks, January 26, 2016.
74
Aaron Mehta, “Is the Pentagon’s Budget About to Be Nuked?” Defense News, Febru-
ary 8, 2016, 12–17.
75
Todd Harrison and Evan B. Montgomery, The Cost of U.S. Nuclear Forces: From BCA
to Bow Wave and Beyond (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assess-
ments, August 4, 2015); Ronald O’Rourke, Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic
Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress, R41129 (Washington, DC:
Congressional Research Service, May 20, 2016).
76
As suggested by former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and former Vice Chief
of the Joint Staff General James Cartwright in Global Zero U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission
Report, Modernizing U.S. Nuclear Strategy, Force Structure and Posture (Washington, DC:
Global Zero, May 2012), 7.
77
Aaron Mehta, “Former SecDef Perry, U.S. on the ‘Brink’ of New Nuclear Arms
Race,” Defense News, December 3, 2015, available at <www.defensenews.com/story/
defense/policy-budget/2015/12/03/former-secdef-perry-us-brink-new-nuclear-arms-
race/76721640/>.
78
Arnold Punaro, The Commission on the National Guard and Reserves (Washington,
DC: Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, January 31, 2008).
79
Hoffman, “What the QDR Should Say about Landpower,” 13. See also Report on
the Role of the Army (Washington, DC: National Commission on the Force Structure of
the Army, January 28, 2015). For further analysis, see Joshua Klimas et al., Assessing the
Army’s Active-Reserve Component Force Mix (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2014).
80
David Barno and Nora Bensahel, “Beyond the Army Commission: Unifying the
Army’s Components,” War on the Rocks, February 9, 2016.
81
Mark Gunzinger, Shaping America’s Future Military: Toward a New Force Planning
Construct (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, 2013).
82
Michèle A. Flournoy, “The Urgent Need for Defense Reform,” testimony before the
Senate Armed Services Committee, December 8, 2015, 3–4.
83
Colin S. Gray, Defense Planning for National Security: Navigation Aids for the Mystery
Tour (Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, March 2014).
84
H.R. McMaster, “Continuity and Change: The Army Operating Concept and Clear
Thinking about Future War,” Military Review (March–April 2015), 6–14.
85
Mackubin T. Owens on strategic pluralism in Derek S. Reveron, Nikolas K.
Gvosdev, and Mackubin T. Owens, eds., U.S. Foreign Policy and Defense Strategy: The
Evolution of an Incidental Superpower (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press,
2016), 55.
86
Robert O. Work, “The Third U.S. Offset Strategy and Its Implications for Partners
and Allies,” remarks as delivered at the Willard Hotel, Washington, DC, January 28,
• 58 •
2015, available at <www.defense.gov/News/Speeches/Speech-View/Article/606641/the-

third-us-offset-strategy-and-its-implications-for-partners-and-allies>.
87
Nathan P. Freier, Known Unknowns: Unconventional “Strategic Shocks” in Defense Strat-
egy Development (Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 2012).
• 59 •
4
The American Defense Budget 2017–2020
Michael J. Meese
The continued sluggish recovery from the Great Recession of 2008–2009, the
reduction in U.S. employment, and the significant and growing Federal deficit
places increasing pressure on defense spending and threatens future U.S. national
security. The new administration must recognize the importance of and advocate
for policies to improve economic growth, responsibly address America’s fiscal
challenges, and rationalize defense spending. At over $550 billion, defense
spending is the largest discretionary part of the budget, representing 15 percent
of total Federal spending. The Pentagon should continue to address military
compensation reform, tackle the expansion of headquarters staffs, choose research
and development over procurement, and strenuously argue for entitlement
reform and increased fiscal responsibility. This approach can make significant
improvements in defense spending that will enhance U.S. national security.
T he American defense budget for 2017 to 2020 will be one of the first
and most important issues that the new administration must address.
Realistic economic and budgetary policies must be developed and imple-
mented to replace the shortsighted and piecemeal approach that has dom-
inated Federal and defense budgetary decisionmaking for the past several
years. By taking specific steps regarding the defense budget, the new ad-
ministration can maximize the military contribution to national security.
To understand the challenges facing defense budgeting, this chapter
first examines the problems in the underlying economy, including the
implications of the national debt and deficit. It then discusses Federal
spending, including briefly reviewing the patchwork of solutions over
the past decade that has delayed and exacerbated budgetary problems.
With this context established, it identifies the necessary approach to-
ward Federal budgeting in general and defense budgets in particular.
Finally, the chapter discusses areas in which defense spending should be
reformed and improved.
• 61 •
Meese
The Economic Context

Although 8 years have passed since the Great Recession of 2008–2009,
the U.S. economy continues to suffer from the decisions made during
that time. While the average annual nonrecession growth since 1970 has
averaged over 3.5 percent, since the end of the Great Recession, the U.S.
economy has grown at just over 2 percent. The 1.5 percent difference in
economic growth may seem inconsequential, but, when compounded
over the next 10 years, the economy will be $3.4 trillion less than it
would have been with previous, more robust growth levels. That $3.4
trillion in lost output is as large as total annual Federal spending.
Why has growth declined? Well-intentioned programs approved
during and after the Great Recession that were designed to help Amer-
ican citizens have reduced incentives to work. Unlike previous recov-
eries when unemployment fell because more people were employed,
since the Great Recession most of the reduction in unemployment has
been because workers left the workforce. Labor force participation has
fallen from over 66 percent before the recession to 62.5 percent today.1
That is over 8.8 million fewer Americans seeking employment, and
their departure from the labor force reduces the productive potential
of the U.S. economy.
In addition to a decline in economic growth, another lingering ef-
fect of the Great Recession is expanded government spending without
a commensurate increase in tax revenues, which has led to persistently
large annual deficits, reflected in figure 1 as the gap between the top
line (expenditures) and the bottom line (revenues).2 Consequently, the
national debt (which reflects the sum of annual deficits) has grown to
over 100 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) for the first time
since World War II.3
A fundamental question that confronts the Nation is raised on the
right side of figure 1, which projects future deficits. The 2016–2026
lines reflect the Congressional Budget Office projection for the Federal
budget, optimistically assuming no future recession. The shortfall be-
tween 18 percent of GDP in projected revenue and 21 to 23 percent
of GDP in projected spending cannot be sustained indefinitely. Conse-
quently, there is substantial pressure to reduce all forms of spending,
including defense spending.
What does this have to do with defense? Everything. U.S. defense
budgets in the future depend, in part, on economic policies that both
increase incentives for growth of the U.S. economy and address the chal-
lenges of the long-term fiscal debt. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen aptly observed, “The single biggest threat
to national security is our debt.”4 The next administration’s civilian and
• 62 •
Figure 1. Federal Spending, Revenue, and Deficit
25
Spending
24
Tax Revenues
Deficits during Future
23
recession Deficits
22
2016
Percent of GDP
21
2.9%
2021
20
2016 3.9%
19 2.9%
18
17
Surplus 2016–2026
16
CBO Estimates
15
14
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, St. Louis Federal Reserve
military leaders must recognize the importance of and must advocate for
policies to improve economic growth and responsibly address American
fiscal challenges.
Overall Federal Spending

Defense is disproportionately dependent on Federal budget policy be-
cause defense spending represents the largest discretionary portion
of the budget. As indicated in figure 2, most of the Federal budget is
“mandatory spending”—paying interest on the debt and providing en-
titlements established by law. Entitlement spending includes programs
that comprise a social safety net, such as income security, Medicaid, and
healthcare subsidies. Other entitlements are contributions from taxpay-
ers’ and their employers’ paychecks, such as Social Security, Medicare,
and military retirement. Although political leaders are reluctant to re-
duce entitlements, the fact that they represent two-thirds of the Federal
budget requires any meaningful policy solutions to Federal budget chal-
lenges to include entitlement reform.
The defense budget will face increasing pressure in the next 4 years
from other competing requirements for Federal spending, such as higher
interest payments as interest rates rise from their historic low levels, in-
creased Social Security and Medicare payments for retiring baby boom-
ers, and bolstered funding for homeland security and domestic priori-
• 63 •
Meese
Figure 2. Fiscal Year 2017 Federal Spending

(% by Type of Spending)
Mandatory/ Discretionary
Entitlements (72%) Int’l (28%)
Defense 1%
Interest 15%
7%
Domestic
12%
Social Security
23%
Health Care
Income (incl. Medicare)
Security 28%
13%
Source: Economic Report of the President

(Washington, DC: Council of Economic Advisors, 2016)
ties. The best way to more effectively provide for the Nation’s defense
may not be a new weapons system or military unit, but rather support of
comprehensive, long-term entitlement and budget reform.
Budgeting by Crisis
The Federal Government has a comprehensive process for planning,
programming, budgeting, authorizing, appropriating, and executing
the Federal budget. The problem is that for the past several years, the
normal political and budgetary process has failed because of extreme
polarization in Congress and inability to compromise except in crises.
Understanding this history is important so that the next administration
can learn from it and avoid perpetuating budgeting by crisis in 2017 and
beyond.
Most recently in August 2011, the Nation was only days away from
exceeding the debt limit and, absent congressional action, could have
potentially failed to meet obligations to pay entitlement recipients, Fed-
eral workers, holders of U.S. debt, and Federal contractors. Congress
reached a last-minute compromise by raising the debt ceiling and pass-
ing the 2011 Budget Control Act. That act bought time by appointing
a bipartisan Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction (the so-called Super
• 64 •
Committee) that was supposed to solve the budget impasse and provide
a clear, rational way forward. In the absence of a solution by the Su-
per Committee, a process known as sequestration would automatically
implement dramatic and severe reductions of discretionary outlays to
achieve a specified amount of savings.
Even with the threat of automatic sequestration budget cuts, the Su-
per Committee could not achieve compromise. In September 2013 se-
questration was imposed, which slashed $109 billion from discretionary
spending, with half coming from defense spending and the other half
coming from non-defense spending (entitlement spending was exempt
from cuts). Other than military salaries, every defense and non-defense
account was reduced across the board, leading to the involuntary fur-
lough of government workers, curtailment of contracts, and other un-
planned reductions. The next crisis began on October 1, 2013, when
Congress failed to approve the fiscal year 2014 budget and the Feder-
al Government “shut down” for 16 days. To avoid another government
shutdown, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and Representative Paul Ryan
(R-WI) negotiated the Murray-Ryan budget plan, which forestalled any
crises through the 2014 election year but did so by granting $63 billion
in sequester relief through the end of fiscal year 2015.5
With the risk of sequestration reemerging in 2016, the official Depart-
ment of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review concluded:
The return of sequestration-level cuts in FY2016 [the

current law] would significantly reduce the Department’s
ability to fully implement our strategy. . . . Risks associated
with conducting military operations would rise substantial-
ly. Our military would be unbalanced and eventually too
small and insufficiently modern to meet the needs of our
strategy, leading to greater risk of longer wars with higher
casualties. . . . Ultimately, continued sequestration-level
cuts would likely embolden our adversaries and undermine
the confidence of our allies.6
This is extraordinary because it is a statement that following the law,

which is the obligation of all Federal departments, would lead to dev-
astating consequences. When Congress approved the 2016 defense au-
thorization in October 2015, it evaded sequestration limits by counting
some regular spending as “overseas contingency operations” (which was
designed to cover only war costs). President Barack Obama vetoed the
bill, not because it violated the lawful Budget Control Act, but because
domestic spending did not have a similar exception to circumvent se-
• 65 •
Meese
questration.7 After a new budget deal was struck, both domestic and
defense spending were increased for fiscal year 2016, postponing and
increasing the budgetary problem for the next President and Congress.
This budget-by-crisis approach in use since 2011 reflects a dysfunc-
tional Washington environment that has preoccupied defense budgetary
decisionmaking and distracted officials from using the budget process
to make difficult but necessary choices for the good of the Nation. One
of the most important attributes that the next President should bring to
Federal spending is a clear articulation of national priorities and lead-
ership to work with Congress to develop and execute a coherent, long-
term budget strategy to accomplish those priorities. Certainly compro-
mise will be necessary on some issues, but in the absence of leadership
to solve fundamental problems, the resulting budgetary chicanery will
continue to undermine American economic strength and hamper na-
tional security.
Budget Solutions
Budget problems are completely within the Federal Government’s power
to solve. The solutions will entail some kind of realistic long-term entitle-
ment reform, a reduction in discretionary spending, an increase in total
tax revenue raised, or any combination of the three to cause the lines in
figure 1 to move closer together rather than spread farther apart. In 2010
the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, chaired
by former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) and former White House Chief
of Staff Erskine Bowles, developed a plan that would reduce the Fed-
eral deficit by nearly $4 trillion in 10 years, reducing the deficit to 2.3
percent of GDP.8 More recently former Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM)
and former Office of Management and Budget Director Alice Rivlin with
the Bi-Partisan Policy Center have proposed a similar plan. Importantly,
both of these plans, and any that would likely be successful, encourage
incentives for increased employment and economic growth, which are
essential to any long-term solution. With regard to revenues, most bipar-
tisan plans maintain or reduce tax rates while eliminating “tax expendi-
tures” (also known as loopholes) so that the ultimate result is more tax
revenues through greater productive output and less manipulation of the
tax code to favor specific actions, industries, or sectors of the economy.
Defense Spending as Part of the Solution

Reform of the defense budget, representing half of the discretionary bud-
get, must play a significant part in solving the Federal budget challenges.
• 66 •
Figure 3. Defense Spending as a Percent of GDP
10
1968, 9.1%
9
Defense Outlays as Percent of GDP
8
1986, 6%
7
2010, 4.7%
6
4
1979, 4.5%
3
2
2001, 2.9% 2016, 3.3%
1
2021, 2.7%
0
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
Source: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), National Defense
Budget Estimates for FY 2017 (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, March 2016)
A first step for the next administration to address the defense budget is
to understand both the level and composition of U.S. defense spending
and how these have changed over the past 15 years.
Overall Spending
To some extent, the size of the defense budget depends on one’s per-
spective because all of the following facts are true. The current defense
budget:
• projects using the smallest proportion of U.S. national income since

World War II (see figure 3)
• is 21 percent less than peak spending in 2010 (see figure 4)
• is about the same inflation-adjusted amount as was spent in Viet-

nam in the 1960s or during the Ronald Reagan–era military buildup
in the 1980s
• is larger than that of the next eight nations combined, as President

Obama has highlighted.9
• 67 •
Meese
Figure 4. Defense Spending in Constant Dollars
$800
2010, $740
1986, $572
$700
2017 Constant Outlays (USD billions)
1968, $587
2004, $576
$600
$500
2016, $586
$400
2017, $553
$300
1978, $393 1998, $396 2021, $537
$200
$100
$0
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
Source: National Defense Budget Estimates for FY 2017
The size of the defense budget should be a function of national inter-

ests and strategic objectives. The sine qua non of a superpower is that it
must have a military capable of engaging with other nations throughout
the world and the capability to engage in multiple conflicts nearly simul-
taneously. Such engagement with a technology-based all-volunteer force
is inherently expensive, which is why, even after the withdrawal of most
forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. defense budget today remains
similar to spending at the height of the Cold War, after adjusting for
inflation (see figure 4).
Each of the military Services generally responds differently to the
budget, depending on the portion it receives (see figure 5). Although
the Army receives additional funding during wartime, its budget has
now returned to the regular 23 to 25 percent share that was its normal
Cold War–era spending percentage. The Navy and Air Force each com-
prise approximately 30 percent of the budget. Defense-wide agencies
and commands consume a consistently increasing portion of the defense
budget, slowly reducing the shares going to each Service. Defense-wide
spending has grown to about 18 percent of the defense budget today,
which underestimates its proportion of resources because it does not
include any military personnel costs (which are part of the individual
Services’ budgets with military members assigned to the defense agencies
and commands).
• 68 •
Figure 5. Defense Spending by Service
$300
Air Force
$275
Army
Constant 2017 TOA (USD billions)
$250
Navy
$225
Defense Wide
$200 (HQ, Commands, Agencies)
$175
$150
$125
$100
$75
$50
$25
$0
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
Although the total defense budget is similar, the composition of de-

fense spending has changed significantly in the past 15 years, which has
profound implications for the next administration. The four major com-
ponents that drive defense spending are military personnel, civilian pay,
investment (weapons and materiel), and operations. In previous wars
spending in all categories generally increased. For example, during the
Vietnam War (illustrated on the left side of figure 6), each of the lines
rises in roughly the same proportion, with military personnel spending
representing the highest category of expenditure. During Vietnam, total
military personnel expanded from 2.48 million in 1960 to 3.58 million
in 1968, including approximately 2.2 million who were drafted over the
course of the war.10
When the draft ended and the all-volunteer force began in 1973, de-
fense leaders made a conscious decision to scale down to a smaller, more
professional military, which fundamentally changed the way that Ameri-
ca would fight wars from then on. The military shifted to a more efficient
force with significantly fewer personnel using much better equipment.
The personnel shift has been dramatic and has had a corresponding im-
pact on defense spending. On September 11, 2001, the military had 1.45
million in uniform, less than half of the total during the Vietnam era,
and the Army had 480,000 Soldiers, which was less than one-third of
the 1.51 million soldiers during Vietnam.11 Before 9/11, the Nation had
not had to sustain the all-volunteer force during a period of prolonged
conflict. There were very real concerns about whether the Department
• 69 •
Meese
Figure 6. Defense Spending by Category

$260
Investment (weapons & materiel) Operations (non-pay)
$240
Constant 2017 Outlays (USD billions)
Military Personnel Civilian Pay

$220
$200
$180
$160
$140
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
Vietnam Reagan Wars in Iraq
$20 War Build Up & Afghanistan
$0
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
of Defense (DOD) could recruit and retain sufficient personnel during

a long war. Additionally, then–Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
decided against increasing the military’s size, so the wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq were fought with the existing force, albeit with some mobiliza-
tion of the Reserves.12
Effects of the Last 15 Years

With the need to sustain the all-volunteer force as an underlying as-
sumption of the U.S. defense strategy, global operations since 9/11 in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere have had three significant, persistent
budgetary effects. The first effect is that, like previous wars, all categories
of spending increased—military personnel for mobilization and addi-
tional costs, investment to purchase new or replace destroyed equip-
ment, and operations to cover deployment and warfighting costs. These
wars account for some of the increase in all categories of spending on the
right side of figure 6.
The second effect is that operations spending (the red line in figure
6, adjusted for inflation) increased disproportionately from $100 billion
in 1999 to over $250 billion in 2011. With a limited number of troops
available, the DOD strategy concentrated on using the operations budget
rather than uniformed military to accomplish essential tasks whenever
possible. This is not necessarily the wrong approach—just one that is
different from the way that previous wars have been fought. In previous
wars U.S. military logistics, transportation, maintenance, and construc-
• 70 •
Figure 7. Military Personnel Spending

$120,000
$110,000
$100,000
$90,000
Constant 2017 Dollars
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
Total Military Spending per Servicemember
$20,000
Military Pay per Servicemember
$10,000
$0
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
tion units conducted base support and other sustainment operations in

combat theaters. Today the number of military logistics units has been
significantly reduced, and that work is contracted out through increased
operations spending. Similarly some security operations and training of
foreign military forces were outsourced to private military security com-
panies in lieu of committing as many U.S. troops for those tasks. Some
of those operations funds were expended to train and equip the Iraqi,
Afghan, and other foreign armies to rightly carry the burden of defense
in their own nations.
Much of this operational spending was for contracted labor. In both
Iraq and Afghanistan, the number of contractors normally exceeded the
number of U.S. troops deployed. For example, the number of DOD-em-
ployed contractors peaked with 163,591 contractors in Iraq in Decem-
ber 2007 and 112,092 contractors in Afghanistan in March 2010.13 For
every 10 uniformed military deployed in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and
Iraq, there have been 10 to 12 contractors. By contrast, in Vietnam,
World War I, and World War II, for those same 10 uniformed military,
there were fewer than 2 contractors.14 Although costly, using contrac-
tors was probably less expensive than recruiting, training, deploying,
and sustaining military in those positions, even if that would have been
possible in the absence of a draft. And those contractors certainly shared
the risks of combat, with over 3,200 U.S. contractors killed in Iraq and
Afghanistan—representing 32 percent of Americans killed in action.15
• 71 •
Meese
Increases in the operations budget, however, were not limited to

training foreign forces and increasing contractors on the battlefield. Us-
ing contractors for wartime deployments extended to routine operations
as well. Rather than use limited military or government civilian workers,
DOD has increasingly relied on contractors with a commensurate in-
crease in the non-pay operations budget. In fiscal year 2011, for exam-
ple, DOD spent $144.5 billion to purchase 709,879 full-time equivalent
(FTE) years’ worth of contracted services (at an average cost of $203,565
per FTE).16 While expensive, contracting did provide an immediately
responsive workforce to accomplish critical missions, especially during
wartime. However, DOD may have grown overly reliant on contractors
and high operations funding as a wartime exigency and must now re-
adjust back to a new normal for budgeting and operations. The next
administration must recognize this sea change in the way that DOD ac-
complishes its institutional work and determine the best mix of military,
government civilian, and contractor resources to more effectively and
less expensively accomplish operations in the future.
The third effect of the wars of the last 15 years has been the increase
of military personnel spending per person. Measured in constant (infla-
tion-adjusted) dollars, the average basic military pay for Soldiers, Ma-
rines, Sailors, and Airmen has remained relatively constant for the last
three decades, as reflected by the bottom line on figure 7. However, after
9/11, with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, total military personnel
spending per Servicemember significantly increased, primarily through
increases in non-pay military personnel costs to ensure the continued
viability of the all-volunteer force, a trend that has been consistent with
the political need to “take care of the troops.” Previously, non-pay mil-
itary personnel costs primarily consisted of accrual for military retire-
ment. Since 9/11, costs of expanding services, improving the quality of
housing, providing incentive pays, contributing to Medicare for retirees,
paying unemployment compensation, and other obligations have sig-
nificantly increased total military personnel spending in addition to base
pay. This is not to say that increases in total military personnel spending
are not well deserved, but those increases have driven up the cost of
each person in uniform, as reflected by the top line in figure 7. Although
the military has fewer people today than at any time since World War
II, total military personnel costs are 25 percent higher than they were in
2000, after accounting for inflation. The high cost of military personnel
presents a challenge to DOD that is akin to the problem of entitlements
at the Federal level. The benefits are well deserved and were granted for
all of the right reasons, but the rising cost of total compensation is almost
pricing military personnel “out of the market.”
• 72 •
These three effects of the wars of the past 15 years—increased spend-

ing overall, increased contractors and operations spending, and in-
creased per-person personnel costs—have led to a defense budget that is
both large and in need of critical restructuring to provide clear direction
and a path forward for the future national security of the United States.
Recommended Improvements
Given this understanding of the fiscal realities that confront the Nation,
the next administration will need to take four specific steps with re-
gard to the defense budget for 2016–2020. First, the defense budget
for 2016 to 2020 must include ways to “bend the curve” on military
personnel spending but must do so without breaking faith with those
serving, who are truly deserving. In the absence of such reforms, the
only solution that military leaders would have left is to further cut the
number of Servicemembers in uniform. Fortunately in 2015, DOD took
a step toward military compensation reform with the first major change
in military retirement since World War II.17 This reform included adding
a government contribution to a 401(k)-like defined contribution plan,
and reducing military retirement benefits by 20 percent. Ultimately the
change will save about $2 billion per year.18 Further reforms, such as
the one for military retirement, should be coordinated with across-the-
board entitlement reform from other parts of the Federal budget so that
financial sacrifices necessary for the Nation’s long-term fiscal stability
and economic growth are borne by American citizens generally and not
just placed on the shoulders of those who serve.
Making these adjustments in benefits will require courage and lead-
ership, which has already been expressed by senior military leaders. The
Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, Michael Barrett, testified to Con-
gress, “In my 33 years, we’ve never had a better quality of life. . . . We’ve
never had it so good. If we don’t get a hold of slowing the growth [of
personnel spending], we will become an entitlement-based, a healthcare
provider–based Corps and not a war-fighting organization.”19 Barrett was
arguing the point made in figure 7 that the costs are simply too high and
that if they are not contained, funds will be redirected from equipment
and training that are essential to combat readiness. The next administra-
tion would likely find that military leaders would welcome reasonable
reforms of military entitlements to curb cost growth, especially in con-
junction with other Federal entitlement reforms.
Rising personnel costs affect all Services but are especially prominent
in the Army. Although the Army is downsizing, it still has the most uni-
formed personnel; in fiscal year 2017, military personnel costs represent
• 73 •
Meese
Figure 8. Defense Spending by Category by Service

$160
$155
$151
RDT&E 11%
$140
RDT&E 19%
Some Flexibility
$120
FY 2017 TOA (USD billions)
Procurement
28% $123 Limited Flexibility
$100 Procurement RDT&E 6%
26%
Procurement No Flexibility
12%
$80
Operation &
Operation &
Maint. 30%
$60 Maint. 35%
Operation &
Maint. 32%
$40
Military Pay Military Pay

$20 29% Military Pay 45%
23%
$0
Navy Air Force Army
45 percent of its budget (see figure 8). This share is of a smaller budget
and is about 50 percent more than the Navy’s share of personnel costs
(which includes the Marine Corps) and double that of the Air Force.
Consequently, when there is a further call for flexibility within budgets,
especially after reductions in spending for overseas contingency opera-
tions, the Army has severely limited budgetary options.
Second, the next administration should increase efficiency and return
more resources to operational units by using the defense budget process
as a forcing mechanism to discipline and reduce the size of headquar-
ters. Understandably, in the midst of fighting multiple wars, the military
forms additional structures, organizations, and headquarters, frequently
in an ad hoc way. Many of these are effective, such as the Rapid Equip-
ping Force, which was created during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
to harness “current and emerging technologies to provide immediate
challenges of U.S. Army forces deployed globally.”20 However, these in-
novations were often in addition to, rather than instead of, the existing
institutional structure. Now is the time to reduce the previous structures
and to right-size defense institutions proportional to the force that they
are supporting.
One of the most critical areas to examine has been the growth of head-
quarters staff over the past 15 years. Each headquarters in the Pentagon
has increased significantly since 9/11 (see table 1).21 These increases are
only for civilian and military positions and do not include contractor
• 74 •
Table 1. Military and Civilian Positions in DOD Headquarters

2001 2005* 2013 Increase (%)
Office of the Secretary
2,205 2,646 20
of Defense Staff
Joint Staff 1,262 2,599** 105.9
Army 2,272 3,639 60.2
Air Force 2,423 2,584 6.6
Navy 2,061 2,402 16.5
Marine Corps 2,352 2,584 9.9
* The Joint Staff, Navy, and Marine Corps did not have comparable numbers for 2001.
**Joint Staff increase was largely due to disestablishment of U.S. Joint Forces Command in
2011.
Source: Government Accountability Office, DOD Needs to Reassess Personnel Requirements
for the Office of Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, and Military Service Secretariats, GAO-15-10
(Washington, DC: GAO, January 2015), 10–17.
support, which can also be significant. For example, in addition to 2,646

military and civilians, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) staff
employs 3,287 contractor FTEs in support of its operations.22 Similarly,
the combatant commands have grown substantially in personnel and
costs over the past decade. Excluding U.S. Central Command, whose
growth is understandable from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the
other five geographical combatant commands (U.S. Northern Com-
mand, U.S. Southern Command, U.S. European Command, U.S. Pacific
Command, and U.S. Africa Command) have grown from 6,800 in 2001
to 10,100 in 2012, with a similar increase in Service components sup-
porting those commands.23 Although some of that increase was clearly
justified (about 1,100 positions with the creation of U.S. Northern Com-
mand, which had new responsibilities), when U.S. Africa Command was
created in 2009 from U.S. European Command, the latter did not expe-
rience a concomitant decrease in size.
When the Pentagon, Service, and combatant command headquarters
are totaled, there are 55,965 military and civilian personnel assigned to
those staffs, excluding contract support and field operating agencies sup-
porting those staffs.24 Those people, who represent the equivalent of 11
Army brigades or Marine Corps regiments, are certainly working hard
doing important work. However, to constrain the growth of the budget,
increase efficiencies, and prioritize the work being performed, the next
administration should determine what part of the work that has been ac-
cumulated over the past 15 years from Congress, the White House, OSD,
combatant commands, and Service staffs should be reduced or eliminated.
Such a review should also examine the number of DOD senior lead-
ers. Today there are 943 flag officers, including 37 four-star generals and
admirals. That is 8 percent more than the total in 2001, while the size of
• 75 •
Meese
Figure 9. Research and Procurement Spending
$150
$140
$130
Constant 2017 TOA (USD billions)
$120
$110
$100
$90
$80
$70
$60
$50
$40
$30
Procurement
$20
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation
$10
$0
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
the military is 5 percent smaller.25 Leadership in reducing headquarters

and flag officers must come from the top because no Service will “uni-
laterally disarm” by reducing its flag officers so that it is disadvantaged
in inter-Service or interagency discussions. For example, in the past 10
years, the Judge Advocate General of each Service has increased in rank
from major general to lieutenant general. For over 200 years, having a
two-star as the top Service lawyer was sufficient during periods where
there were many more Servicemembers and units needing legal support.
Reducing the rank and prestige of this and any other position will be
difficult, unless such adjustment is coordinated with Congress and im-
posed by DOD. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter’s recent speech calling
for reform and reduction of four-star billets is a step in the right direction
that the next administration should build upon.26
Similarly, the number of civilian leaders in the Pentagon has expanded
even more than their military counterparts. At the height of the Reagan
military buildup in 1985, with 2.2 million military on Active duty and sig-
nificant ongoing procurement, there were only 2 under secretaries of de-
fense and 11 assistant secretaries of defense. Today there are 5 under sec-
retaries of defense, 16 assistant secretaries of defense, and a corresponding
increase of military assistants, principal deputies, deputy assistant secre-
taries, and other staff members.27 If these new OSD positions replaced
work previously done by each of the military Services with a concomitant
reduction of Service staffs, the increase could be justified. In many cases,
• 76 •
however, a bigger, higher-level staff necessitates increases in subordinate

staffs to keep pace with the additional requirements, meetings, coordina-
tion, and oversight. DOD needs a comprehensive right-sizing of the staff,
and the budget process is the appropriate forcing mechanism to begin
that reduction. Budget savings from headquarters reductions can provide
savings that can preserve resources for important DOD priorities.
Third, DOD should accept risk in procurement programs as long as
there is a sufficient way to sustain research and development to spur
technological progress. As shown in figure 9, the rapid drop in procure-
ment from 2010 to 2015 is both understandable and a step in the right
direction. Arguably, however, spending on research and development
(bottom line of figure 9) should continue to be increased—even at the
expense of current procurement.
Although there are certainly technological threats on the horizon, es-
pecially in the area of cyber warfare, it is not clear which weapon systems
will be most effective in the future. It could be a waste of funds to field or
replace massive systems, particularly when the United States is unlikely
to face a technologically superior enemy in the near future. Moreover,
technology is advancing so rapidly that systems procured today may
become obsolete tomorrow. This was the case in both the 1970s and
1990s when DOD shifted investment dollars away from procurement to
research and development, which paid dividends in the following de-
cades when procurement was required and funds were available. Today,
the largest procurement expenditures, such as those reflected in table 2,
focus on ships, aircraft, and submarines, areas in which the United States
already has significant technological superiority.28 The challenge for the
next administration is to develop the budgetary and political support for
research and development in the cases where large-scale procurement is
neither appropriate nor necessary.
Especially since the end of the Cold War, it has been difficult to garner
the political support for significant weapons systems in the absence of
a massive program, even if the Service’s need is to research, support, or
improve existing systems rather than to develop a new one. The Army’s
experience has been painful, as its last three major weapons projects
have been canceled. The Army leveraged the circumstances to “win de-
spite losing,” using reprogrammed funds to support existing programs
in lieu of the failed programs. When the Crusader cannon was canceled,
funds were reprogrammed into Excalibur precision-guided munitions
and other artillery upgrades. When the Comanche helicopter was can-
celed, funds were used for modernization of the existing helicopter fleet.
When the Army’s largest procurement, the Future Combat System (FCS),
was canceled, some of the procurement funds committed to it were re-
• 77 •
Meese
Table 2. Top Weapons System Acquisitions (FY 2017, USD millions)

Research and
Program Development Procurement Total
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 1,801 8,703 10,505
Virginia-class Submarine 209 5,114 5,322
DDG-51 Arleigh Burke–class Destroyer 149 3,349 3,498
KC-46A Tanker Aircraft 262 2,885 3,319
Gerald R. Ford–class Nuclear Carrier 121 2,665 2,786
B-21 Long Range Strike (Bomber) 1,911 287 2,198
P-8A Poseidon Aircraft 57 2,108 2,165
Ohio-class Submarine Replacement 1,091 773 1,864
Evolved Expendable Launch Space Vehicle 297 1,506 1,803
America-class Amphibious Assault Ship 10 1,639 1,648
Littoral Combat Ship 137 1,462 1,599
allocated to further develop some FCS technologies, modernize existing

Army brigades, and begin development of the new Ground Combat Ve-
hicle. Had the Army merely requested relatively smaller scale programs
for artillery, helicopter, or ground combat vehicles, it is unlikely that
such requests would have garnered sufficient institutional or political
support. Defense acquisition could be significantly improved and budget
allocations reduced if funds were prioritized to be spent on equipment
that Services truly need as opposed to programs that are larger than nec-
essary just to obtain political support.
Finally, the ultimate step to addressing the challenge of defense
spending ties back to the ability of the Nation to adequately fund de-
fense. Future defense spending constraints will be largely determined
by the extent of increased overall economic growth, reduced entitlement
spending, and lower deficits. The defense top-line as currently project-
ed (including the 2016 “exception” to the sequestration constraint) is
barely sufficient to sustain defense that is appropriate for a superpower
with global responsibilities. Assuming that U.S. strategic ends remain
unchanged, the only viable budgetary approach to support continued
defense spending of $553 billion (in fiscal year 2017 dollars) is to ag-
gressively support economic and fiscal policies that increase economic
growth and reduce entitlement spending in the long term. Although this
may be perceived to be “out of the lane” of military leaders, it is the only
way to ensure sufficient funding to provide for adequate national secu-
rity in the future. Defense officials should emphasize that military retire-
ment reform was the first major change to Federal entitlement spending
in two decades and should build on that fiscal leadership as a reason to
call for similar reforms in non-defense entitlements as well.
• 78 •
Conclusion
The next administration has an opportunity to set an aggressive agenda
for the Pentagon as it continues to engage globally, sustain the all-vol-
unteer force, prepare for the future, and confront increasing budgetary
pressure. To be successful, defense leaders must understand the reasons
for the current economic and fiscal crises and the accumulated effects
of 15 years of war on the Services, on the level and composition of the
defense budget, and on the military establishment as a whole. The cur-
rent strategy of muddling through from one budget crisis to the next is
inefficient, counterproductive, and unsustainable. In response to these
conditions, the next administration should continue to address mili-
tary compensation reform, tackle the expansion of headquarters staffs,
choose research and development over procurement, and strenuously ar-
gue for entitlement reform and increased fiscal responsibility. The power
to make these changes lies entirely with the leadership in Washington.
The next administration should seize that power and use it to make the
improvements in defense spending to enhance U.S. national security.
Dr. Steven Bloom, Colonel S. Jamie Gayton, USA, and Dr. R.D. Hooker, Jr.,
provided extremely helpful comments on a previous version of this chapter.
Notes
1
Bureau of Labor Statistics, “The Employment Situation—November 2015,” USDL-
15-2292, December 4, 2015, available at <www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/emp-
sit_12042015.pdf>.
2
Calculations based on data from Economic Report of the President (EROP) (Washing-
ton, DC: Council of Economic Advisors, 2016), tables B-17 for fiscal years 1970–2017;
The Budget and Economic Outlook, 2016 to 2026 (Washington, DC: Congressional Budget
Office, January 2016), table 1.
3
See EROP, 2016, table B-18. The 2017 national debt is projected to be $20.1 trillion,
which is 104.4 percent of gross domestic product. Of this total, $14.8 trillion (73.3 per-
cent of gross domestic product) is debt held by the public, and the balance is the portion
of debt that is held by government agencies (such as trust funds).
4
Geoff Colvin, “Adm. Mike Mullen: Debt is Still Biggest Threat to U.S. Security,”
Fortune, May 10, 2012.
5
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Budget, “Murray and Ryan Intro-
duce Bipartisan Budget-Conference Agreement,” press release, December 10, 2013.
6
Quadrennial Defense Review 2014 (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, March
4, 2014), 53.
7
Steven Mufson, “Obama Uses Veto for Only Fifth Time, Rejecting Defense Authori-
zation Bill,” Washington Post, October 22, 2015.
• 79 •
Meese
8
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, The Moment of Truth
(Washington, DC: The White House, December 2010).
9
Barack Obama, “State of the Union Address,” Washington, DC, January 12, 2016,
available at <www.whitehouse.gov/sotu>.
10
Personnel statistics are from Office of the Undersecretary of Defense, National
Defense Budget Estimates for FY 2016 (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, March
2015), table 7-5. Draft estimates are from Bernard Rostker, I Want You: The Evolution of the
All-Volunteer Force (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2006), 44.
11
Moreover, by comparison, the U.S. population in 2001 was 42 percent larger than
it was in 1968. Data on historical size of the military are from Department of Defense,
Selected Manpower Statistics, FY 2005 (Washington, DC: Defense Manpower Data Center,
2005).
12
In 2006, after Secretary Donald Rumsfeld resigned, President George W. Bush
approved an increase in Army and Marine Corps end strength. See Donald Rumsfeld,
Known and Unknown: A Memoir (New York: Sentinel, 2011), 715.
13
Moshe Schwartz and Joyprada Swain, Department of Defense Contractors in Afghani-
stan and Iraq: Background and Analysis, R40764 (Washington, DC: Congressional Research
Service, May 13, 2011).
14
Defense Science Board, Task Force on Contractor Logistics in Support of Contingency
Operations (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, June 2014), 10.
15
As of March 15, 2015, the U.S. contractor deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan were
1,620 and 1,592, respectively. In comparison, U.S. Servicemember deaths were 4,483 in
Iraq and 2,353 in Afghanistan. See Sara Thannhauser and Christoff Luehrs, “The Human
and Financial Costs of Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq,” in Lessons Encountered: Learn-
ing from the Long War, ed. Richard D. Hooker, Jr., and Joseph J. Collins (Washington, DC:
NDU Press, September 2015).
16
Government Accountability Office (GAO), Continued Management Attention Needed
to Enhance Use and Review of DOD’s Inventory of Contracted Services, GAO-13-491 (Wash-
ington, DC: GAO, May 2013), 14–15. It is important to note that $203,565 is the fully
burdened cost of the full-time equivalent (including payments made to the contractor,
which includes recruiting, training, taxes, retirement costs, and other expenses; it is not
just the salary paid to the individual).
17
The Department of Defense (DOD) proposed the change in retirement based on the
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission and was included
in the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act. The military retirement system has not
substantively changed since World War II. There was one change in 1986—a proposal for
“Redux” retirement was passed that would have saved DOD significant retirement costs—
but that was essentially repealed in 1999, before it could save DOD personnel costs.
18
The new retirement plan has many additional details and is outlined in Report of
the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission (Washington, DC:
Department of Defense, January 2015). The $2 billion in forecasted savings is in Tom
Vandenbrook, “Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s Historic Personnel Changes Irk Generals,”
USA Today, December 27, 2015.
19
Michael Barrett, quoted in “Sgt. Maj. of the Marine Corps Barrett: Less Pay Raises
Discipline,” Marine Corps Times, April 9, 2014.
20
“Rapid Equipping Force,” available at <www.ref.army.mil/>.
21
Table 1 is based on GAO, DOD Needs to Reassess Personnel Requirements for the Office
of Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, and Military Service Secretariats, GAO-15-10 (Washing-
ton, DC: GAO, January 2015), 10–17.
22
Ibid., 52.
• 80 •
23
GAO, DOD Needs to Periodically Review and Improve Visibility of Combatant Com-
mand’s Resources, GAO-13-293 (Washington, DC: GAO, May 2013).
24
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness and Force Management,
Defense Manpower Requirements Report, FY 2015 (Washington, DC: Department of De-
fense, June 2014), 18.
25
The number of current flag officers is from Defense Manpower Requirements Report,
Fiscal Year 2015 (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 2014), 73; Selected Manpower
Statistics, Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 2001). The reduc-
tion in the size of the military is from National Defense Budget Estimates for FY 2016.
26
See Ash Carter, “Remarks on ‘Goldwater-Nichols at 30: An Agenda for Updat-
ing,’” April 5, 2016, available at <www.defense.gov/News/Speeches/Speech-View/Arti-
cle/713736/>.
27
The best listing of DOD officials is Department of Defense Key Officials, September
1947–May 2015 (Washington, DC: Historical Office of the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, 2015).
28
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Program Acquisition Cost by
Weapon System (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, February 2016).
• 81 •
5
National Security Reform
Christopher J. Lamb
National security reform is more necessary now than ever, but some critics have
exaggerated the costs and scope of the required changes. Actually, the system’s
most egregious limitations can be inexpensively fixed in three straightforward
steps. These reforms would be politically and bureaucratically challenging and
require knowledgeable and determined leadership, but they are not expensive,
hopelessly complicated, or overly broad in scope or scale.
T he national security system has grown substantially since World War

II, but its ability to handle complex and dynamic problems has not
changed much.1 Therein lies the problem: As the security environment
grows increasingly complex and dynamic, the current system remains
unable to coordinate multiple elements of power and thus cannot con-
tend with multidimensional threats or keep pace as they rapidly evolve.
Consequently, the system performs increasingly poorly, and as a result,
it is now commonplace for national security leaders to support national
security reform. As Congressman Ike Skelton (D-MO) observed in 2010,
“For many years, we’ve repeatedly heard from independent blue-ribbon
panels and bipartisan commissions that . . . our system is inefficient,
ineffective, and often down-right broken.”2 Congressman Skelton was
not exaggerating. One national-level blue-ribbon review after another
has concluded the national security system needs reform,3 and virtually
all published assessments of the system by individual leaders and experts
reach the same conclusion.4
The reasons national security reform has not yet taken place are sur-
veyed elsewhere.5 However, one key impediment to reform is the influ-
ential but false assumption that fixing the system would be too difficult
and costly. In reality, Congress and the President could easily solve the
primary problem bedeviling the system in three straightforward steps:
• 83 •
Lamb
• pass legislation allowing the President to empower “mission man-

agers” to lead intrinsically interagency missions
• make a concerted effort to create the collaborative attitudes and

behaviors among Cabinet officials necessary for mission managers
to succeed
• adopt a new model of a National Security Advisor with responsibility

for system-wide performance.
These reforms would be politically and bureaucratically challenging but

not expensive.
Mission Manager Authority

There is widespread agreement on the number-one problem plaguing
the national security system: executive branch departments and agencies
too often compete instead of collaborate, making it difficult if not impos-
sible to achieve national security objectives. Few collective enterprises
can succeed without unity of effort, and it is widely recognized that our
national security system does a poor job in this regard. Many senior mil-
itary and diplomatic leaders insist that our lack of success in Afghanistan
and Iraq is best explained by just such an absence of unified effort (see
figure). As these leaders argue, such complex, dynamic security prob-
lems are not managed well because no one other than the President has
the authority to direct and integrate the efforts of departments and agen-
cies, and he is too busy to do so. Orchestrating national security missions
requires sustained attention, and Presidents simply do not have the time
to manage even the most important security problems on a continuous
basis. The President is the de jure commander in chief but a de facto
“commander in brief.”6 As Ambassador Richard Holbrooke argued long
ago, Presidents can usually decide on policy for high-priority matters,
and “if it involves few enough agencies and few enough people . . . even
carry it out,” but “the number of issues that can be handled in this per-
sonalized way is very small.”7
The President’s all-encompassing span of control and limited time
also explain why the current mechanisms to help the President generate
unified effort are ineffective. The hierarchy of interagency committees
that are supposed to coordinate policy and strategy and oversee their
consistent implementation can only suggest, not direct, activities. In our
system, “interagency committees, conveners, and lead agencies are basi-
cally organized ways of promoting voluntary cooperation”8 and are thus
• 84 •
Figure. What Really Went Wrong in Iraq and Afghanistan?

“The essential ingredient for victory is . . . a comprehensive strategy that draws together all the
resources of the U.S. Government . . . [but] there are too many bureaucratic impediments,” he
says. It’s too hard, in Abizaid’s view, to balance elements that should be working together but
are instead competing. . . . Abizaid . . . wants to join in a public debate about how to reform a
national security system that hasn’t worked well enough in Iraq.”1
—General John Abizaid, USA (Ret.), 2007
“There is still no effective, consistent mechanism that brings a whole interagency team to focus
on a particular foreign policy issue.”
—Ambassador Ryan Crocker, 2009
“Executive authority below the President is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of contingency
relief and reconstruction operations. The role of executive authority—and the lack thereof—over
interagency coordination lies at the heart of the failures in the Iraq reconstruction program.”2
—Stuart Bowen
Special Inspector General for Iraq, 2009
“The issue to date . . . is that below the President there is no one person, head of a department,
or head of an agency who has been tasked with or is responsible for the strategic direction
and integration of all elements of national power, so the United States can properly execute
a strategy for Iraq. . . . Nobody has the authority and influence needed across the whole U.S.
Government. . . . We need some new constructs.”3
—General Richard Myers, USAF (Ret.)
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2009
“I think that if we look at ourselves hard in the mirror, you can’t do something as difficult as
Afghanistan without one person in charge. And we still don’t have that.”4
—General Stanley A. McChrystal, USA (Ret.), 2015
“[We] know personally most of those involved in leading the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They are to a person—whether military officers or civilian officials—diligent and dedicated
patriots. . . . However, when officials and officers in the field did not get along, the deficiencies
of the system allowed their disputes to bring in-country progress to a halt. What is needed is an
overall system that will make cooperation and integration the norm, not the exception.”5
—Admiral Dennis Blair, USN (Ret.), Ambassador Ronald E. Neumann, and
Admiral Eric Olson, USN (Ret.), 2014
1
David Ignatius, “Abizaid’s Long View,” Washington Post, March 16, 2007.
2
Hard Lessons: The Iraq Reconstruction Experience (Washington, DC: Special Inspector General for Iraq
Reconstruction, 2009), 14.
3
Richard B. Myers with Malcolm McConnell, Eyes on the Horizon: Serving on the Front Lines of National Security
(New York: Threshold, 2009).
4
Stanley A. McChrystal, interview by Joseph J. Collins and Frank G. Hoffman, April 2, 2015.
5
Dennis Blair, Ronald Neumann, and Eric Olson, “Fixing Fragile States,” National Interest, August 27, 2014.
often ineffective if not a waste of time.9 The interagency groups either

come to a stalemate over differences or, as former Secretary of State Dean
Acheson argued, reach “agreement by exhaustion” while “plastering
over” differences.10 Lead agency and other approaches to coordination
also have proved ineffective.11
Seeing the need for better unified effort, Congress has passed laws
that assign a designated individual responsibility for coordinating an is-
sue area. Yet Congress never really empowers these individuals. Statutes
designating coordinators for countering narcotics, countering weapons
of mass destruction, and managing foreign relations all include limits
and loopholes that invite departments and agencies to ignore or bypass
the integrating official.12 Many worry that fully empowering Presidential
• 85 •
Lamb
subordinates to produce unified effort across the executive branch would

confuse lines of authority from the President down through his Cabi-
net officials to their field activities. Yet all organizations with functional
structures like the U.S. national security system have to balance the need
for a clear line of authority down through functional capabilities with
the need to integrate those capabilities to accomplish cross-cutting ob-
jectives. Where this balancing act takes place depends on the extent to
which the organization is centralized. The range of problems that the
organization must manage and how quickly it evolves should deter-
mine the optimal degree of centralization. Less centralization and more
cross-cutting integration is needed to operate effectively in a complex
and dynamic environment. But in the current system, deference to those
in charge of functional capabilities routinely trumps the prerogatives of
anyone charged with coordinating multifunctional missions, forcing is-
sues upward for more centralized control by the President. The President
needs to reverse this flow and delegate the executive authority for inte-
grating the efforts of departments and agencies to a subordinate of his
or her choice: a person sometimes referred to as a “mission manager.”13
It may seem surprising that the President, empowered by the Consti-
tution to act as Chief Executive, cannot currently delegate his authori-
ty for integrating the work of departments and agencies. However, the
stipulated authorities of the Cabinet officials have increased and been
consolidated in law over the past 60 years. The 1947 National Security
Act and its subsequent amendments, including the Goldwater-Nichols
Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, greatly strengthened
the authority of the Secretary of Defense. The 1977 Department of En-
ergy Organization Act created the Department of Energy and rolled up
several agencies’ responsibilities into that new organization, empowering
the Secretary of Energy. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 combined
22 separate organizations into the Department of Homeland Security,
empowering another new Cabinet official. The Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 established the Office of the Direc-
tor of National Intelligence and empowered the director to oversee and
manage the Intelligence Community.
The numerous codified authorities of Cabinet officials often provide a
legal basis for ignoring “czars” charged by the President with overseeing
a cross-cutting mission area. An example is the chain of command for
military operations. Goldwater-Nichols specified that it runs “from the
President to the Secretary of Defense and from the Secretary of Defense
to the commander of a Combatant Command.”14 The Department of De-
fense (DOD) used this provision to claim control of postwar planning
for Iraq and ignore other departments. DOD argued that military forces
• 86 •
would be involved and that the chain of command to those forces went
through the Secretary of Defense, and thus DOD should be in charge of
the entire interagency effort.15
Actually, Goldwater-Nichols gives the President other options because
it includes the caveat “unless otherwise directed by the President.”16
However, for the President to insert anyone else in the military chain of
command, or delegate decision authority over other departments and
agency activities, other legal requirements must be met:
The President may, pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 301, delegate

particular functions to “the head of any department or
agency in the executive branch, or any official thereof” who
is subject to Senate confirmation. To qualify as a delegable
function, a function must be “vested in the President by
law” or vested in another officer who performs the func-
tion “subject to the approval, ratification, or other action
of the President.” [Furthermore,] “Any individual in the
interagency space who exercises meaningful authority to
compel departments to act” would have to be an “officer of
the United States,” and officers of the United States must
have their positions established by statute as required by
the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.17
Czars informally tapped by the President to coordinate an issue area

do not meet these requirements. Thus we need new legislation for this
purpose. It should empower the President to appoint and empower mis-
sion managers to lead cross-functional teams irrespective of pre-existing
statutes. Only then could the President effectively delegate his authority
for directing the efforts of the executive branch in a particular mission
area involving capabilities “owned” by multiple Cabinet officials. Some-
thing like the following language suggests what is needed:
The President may designate individuals, subject to Senate

confirmation, to lead interagency teams to manage clearly
defined missions with responsibility for and presumptive
authority to direct and coordinate the activities and oper-
ations of all of U.S. Government organizations in so far
as their support is required to ensure the successful imple-
mentation of a Presidentially approved strategy for accom-
plishing the mission. The designated individual’s presump-
tive authority will not extend beyond the requirements for
successful strategy implementation, and department and
• 87 •
Lamb
agency heads may appeal any of the designated individu-

al’s decisions to the President if they believe there is a com-
pelling case that executing the decision would contravene
public law or do grave harm to other missions of national
importance.18
Another reason for codifying the authorities in statute is the need to

secure resources for the President’s mission manager:
“The President may create structures and processes and

fund them temporarily by transferring resources, but ulti-
mately it is Congress that provides resources on a sustained
basis. Without Congress’s input and resources, a presiden-
tially imposed solution to interagency integration may
wither for lack of funding.” Thus, the statute . . . would
likely also require a mechanism for funding their activities
and associated congressional oversight.19
Resource requirements vary greatly by mission. Countering disinfor-

mation may require nothing more than a compelling forensic case to
discredit disinformation, whereas arming and training foreign forces re-
quire funds to purchase weapons and training. Whatever the resources
required, ultimately Congress provides them to the executive branch,
and a mission manager would need to keep Congress apprised of his or
her activities. Given the authorities invested in each mission manager,
Congress would want these officials to be subject to Senate confirmation.
Collaborative Cabinet
Legislation allowing the President to empower selected subordinates to
direct executive branch activities is the key prerequisite for successful
national security reform.20 However, it is not sufficient. Structural ad-
justments in authorities must be accompanied by less visible but equally
important elements of organizational performance.21 When senior lead-
ers in the private sector impose hasty reforms without sufficient support
and follow-up, the usual result is failure. A President imposing mission
managers on his Cabinet officials and National Security Council (NSC)
staff without supporting measures would also fail.22 To succeed, the Pres-
ident will have to personally lead a concerted effort to shape leadership
attitudes and behavior, staff skills, and the organizational culture of the
NSC staff.
• 88 •
The place to begin is Cabinet officials and their expectations. The

President would have to explain the need to use mission managers rather
than the traditional interagency committees for high-priority, intrinsical-
ly interagency missions. Leaders of functional departments who want
to protect their turf and fear losing control of their own operations and
agendas are the greatest threat to the success of such cross-functional
teams.23 A case in point is U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM).
One commander of USNORTHCOM established cross-directorate Focus
Area Synchronization Teams to improve overall organizational effective-
ness and collaboration on key mission areas in 2010, and they produced
good results. The teams also irritated the leaders of USNORTHCOM’s
functional staff directorates, who convinced a new incoming command-
er to dismantle them.24 The same thing apparently happened to similar
efforts to reform Marine Corps headquarters.25 Functional leaders argue
cross-cutting teams lack sufficient expertise, confuse lines of authority,
and are inefficient. If they sense the senior leader (in this case the Presi-
dent) is not fully committed, they typically exert control over their repre-
sentatives on teams by reminding them pointedly to “remember who you
work for.” Under this kind of pressure, team members stalemate over the
way forward or compromise to the point of incomprehension. The group
becomes a committee whose members protect their parent organizations’
equities rather than a team focused on accomplishing the mission. In
such cases the poor results seem to justify the observation that the team
is just another layer of useless bureaucracy.
When teams are allowed to perform, their results demonstrate their
worth and, over time, resistance fades. However, resistance from func-
tional departments often cripples the teams before they can demonstrate
their potential.26 Despite everyone’s interest in serving the Nation and
safeguarding its security, similar issues will arise when a President de-
cides to use mission managers leading interagency teams. To ensure
mission managers have a chance to succeed, the President would have
to personally communicate support for them and allay the concerns of
Cabinet officials. The President should make the following points to his
Cabinet:
• Mission managers are necessary. An abundance of historical cases

illustrates the inadequacy of our existing mechanisms. As experi-
ence also teaches, our mechanism for managing complex problems
must mirror the complexity of the security problem it tackles.27 It
must be a truly multifunctional, interagency team empowered to
formulate, consider, and pursue fully integrated approaches. As
President, I need to hear more than competing military, diplomat-
• 89 •
Lamb
ic, and intelligence perspectives. I need alternative but fully inte-

grated interagency approaches. Past examples of such teams clearly
demonstrate they perform with much greater proficiency than czars
or lead agencies.28
• Mission managers will not dilute your authority. If we have learned

anything since 9/11, and arguably since World War II, it is that no
one Cabinet official can direct another Cabinet official to do any-
thing.29 Thus, none of you, no matter how talented, dedicated, or
insightful on a particular issue, can lead and control an integrated,
interagency approach to solving inherently interagency problems.
Because you do not currently have this authority, you are not losing
it to mission managers when we empower them to lead a well-de-
fined mission. If the problem is largely a diplomatic, military, or in-
telligence problem, it will be managed by the Secretary of State, Sec-
retary of Defense, or Director of National Intelligence, respectively.
When we assign an interagency problem to a mission manager, it is
because none of you are in a position to manage the problem well
yourselves.
• Mission managers will manage the problem “end to end.” The mis-
sion manager will assess the evolution of his or her mission; develop
policy; propose and execute a strategy for dealing with the issue;
conduct or oversee all requisite planning for associated operations;
oversee implementation of policy, strategy, and plans; and evaluate
progress, solving problems as they arise and adjusting as necessary.
When mission managers discover an impediment to progress, I ex-
pect them to intervene selectively but decisively to ensure mission
success. They will drill down to whatever level of detail is necessary
to identify the origin of suboptimal performance and remove it, and
I will encourage their doing so within the bounds of the procedures
outlined below.
• Mission managers may impact your equities. If this occurs, you have
two remedies: one advantage of mission managers is that they are
singularly focused on and held accountable for outcomes. The dis-
advantage is that their mission focus inclines them to ignore other
legitimate concerns. They may take actions that complicate other
national security objectives or that complicate your ability to man-
age your departments and agencies to best effect. We will prevent
that from happening in two ways.
• 90 •
• The first way is through strategy concurrence. After being assigned

a mission, the mission manager will conduct a review of the sit-
uation and, after due deliberation with his or her team, propose
strategy alternatives with associated resource implications. We will
meet and agree upon the best strategy. Any concerns of yours will be
noted and addressed at that time. My staff will codify our decisions
in a directive that clarifies the mission manager’s mission, strate-
gy, authorities, and resources. The mission manager’s authority will
only extend to the parameters of the assigned mission, consistent
with the strategy we discuss and I approve. If the strategy requires
amendment, we will meet to consider its revision. However, once
we agree upon these elements, I expect you to support the mission
manager.
• The second way is through implementation objections. When we select

mission managers and issue them mission directives, we will choose
highly competent senior leaders who understand the importance of
treating your institutions with respect. However, if they transgress
the bounds of their mission directive or inadvertently make deci-
sions with dire consequences for the welfare of your department or
agency, I expect you to raise the issue. We will then quickly meet to
adjudicate the competing objectives, risks, and anticipated benefits.
I expect you to raise principled rather than bureaucratic concerns. I
will not protect perceived prerogatives or respond to exaggerated al-
legations of harm to your organizations or the national interest that
are clearly less important than the mission we are trying to execute.
This right of appeal has worked well elsewhere.30
• Mission managers must succeed. The missions assigned to mission

managers are critical for the security of the Nation. They cannot
be allowed to fail for lack of support. The presumption is that the
mission manager is empowered by me to manage the problem and
direct executive branch activities as they best see fit. The NSC staff
will ensure the mission manager and team have the resources they
need to succeed, including office space, communications, adminis-
trative support, and team members committed for specific periods
of duration. The mission manager will decide what expertise the
team needs, and I expect you to make that kind of expertise avail-
able. I expect those members to be rewarded if the team succeeds,
and above all, I expect your subordinates to avoid the temptation
to control members of the mission team. If the mission manager
concludes a team member is simply representing his or her parent
• 91 •
Lamb
organization’s interests rather than trying their best to accomplish

the mission, that person will be dismissed. If members of your or-
ganization are repeatedly dismissed for lack of collaboration, I will
conclude that you personally do not support these priority national
security efforts.
The President could go on to underscore some major advantages to

doing business this way. In contrast to a Deputies Committee, which
meets periodically and must examine a host of security problems, mis-
sion managers and their teams would be able to pursue their issue full
time, enabling them to better keep abreast of developments. Because
they are empowered they could manage problems end to end. Rather
than simply promulgating broad and often obscure policy and hoping
for the best as departments and agencies implement it, mission man-
ager–led teams would be able to quickly zero in on any impediment to
their success wherever it occurs. Because teams are not hamstrung by the
need for political consensus, and their authority is commensurate with
their responsibilities, they could make clear choices and take decisive
action.
Another advantage is that this approach would make the best use
of the President’s time. Currently, Presidents are often asked to review
briefings from departments and agencies intended to keep them in-
formed and comfortable with general policy and progress on a range of
issues, but seldom are these meetings structured to ensure that the re-
ally contentious issues are highlighted for Presidential attention. In fact,
such issues are often downplayed to avoid confrontation. Using mission
managers, a President could be confident that the full, integrated ca-
pabilities of the U.S. Government are being used to solve high-priority
problems consistent with an approved strategy and that any major prob-
lems hampering the effort would be brought to the President’s attention.
Department heads would not embarrass themselves by raising marginal
concerns, so only the most consequential issues would arise for Presi-
dential decision, which are precisely the kind of hard decisions only the
President has the power to make. An example from recent history was
the Pentagon’s concern that surging forces in Iraq in 2007 ran the risk of
breaking the Army and elevating the risk of war in other theaters where
enemies might seek to take advantage of overextended U.S. ground forc-
es. These were legitimate concerns that the President needed to hear and
rule on, which he did.31
Best of all, mission managers would be accountable. A President can-
not currently hold anyone accountable for failure to manage complex se-
curity threats because no one other than the President has the authority
• 92 •
to orchestrate the multiple lines of effort they require. In this respect the
President faces precisely the same dilemma that the chairman and chief
executive officer of Xerox was dealing with when the chairman observed:
We see attractive markets, and we have superior technol-

ogy. On the other hand, we won’t be able to take advan-
tage of this situation unless we can overcome cumbersome,
functionally driven bureaucracy. . . . we were functional in
nature. So every function . . . all came up the line and, in
the end, reported to me. . . . I was the only one responsible
for anything in its entirety. If a product . . . did not [meet]
success, there was no clear way to see what went wrong.
Finger-pointing and shifting the blame were inevitable. The
only one responsible for the failure of that product, there-
fore, was me.32
Xerox solved its accountability problem by empowering cross-functional

teams, and the President will have to do the same if he wants anyone em-
powered and thus accountable for dealing with similar cross-functional
problems in the national security environment.
Many senior leaders like the idea of a cross-cutting team but believe
it should simply advise the President rather than exercising executive
authority. This would sidetrack the team’s success and must be avoided
at all costs. One reason such teams succeed is their ability to focus full-
time on managing the cross-cutting mission. They make numerous small
decisions that move the effort forward and communicate constantly. If
they are merely advisory and can take no action without appealing to
the President, much of this energy is vitiated and the President will in-
evitably be called upon to rule on innumerable lesser disputes, which
negates the value of the mission manager from the President’s point of
view. Also, if the teams are not empowered they will not behave as if they
are responsible for outcomes. Instead they will concentrate on provid-
ing “good advice.” Instead of being singularly focused on accomplish-
ing their mission, they will worry about what sounds reasonable; what
Cabinet officials and the majority of informed observers will support; or
what they know of the President’s inclinations. Finally, department heads
would take the “advisory” designation as clear evidence the President
is not serious about empowering the group. Accordingly, they would
protect their institution’s narrow equities and support efforts by others
to do the same.
• 93 •
Lamb
New Model of Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs

The third change necessary is a new model of National Security Advi-
sor.33 The current model emphasizes the National Security Advisor as an
honest broker, ensuring the decisionmaking process fairly represents the
positions of the different departments and agencies on any given issue,
resolving conflicts and elevating the most important disagreements to
the President for resolution. The honest broker role is often contrasted
with powerful National Security Advisors such as Henry Kissinger and
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who unabashedly advocated policies and tried to
engineer their implementation.
In reality, all National Security Advisors must balance their roles as
process managers and confidential advisors to the President. As process
managers, they must be trusted by Cabinet officials to articulate their de-
partment’s views fairly. For this reason, high-level interagency commit-
tees have competing department and agency positions to contend with,
not integrated strategy choices for the President’s consideration. If advi-
sors and their staffs took input from the departments and agencies and
redefined it into a set of integrated alternatives, they would be accused of
trying to direct outcomes. Similarly, if National Security Advisors or NSC
staff are too creative in summarizing the results of discussion at meetings
(as they are on occasion), they again risk alienating the Cabinet officials.
In such circumstances, the departments and agencies can be expected to
resist the National Security Advisor during policy implementation.
On the other hand, in their role as policy advisor, National Security
Advisors must retain the confidence of the President by providing in-
sightful advice and orchestrating positive outcomes. There are so many
interdepartmental disagreements that the President cannot possibly
resolve them all, and the differences often reflect bureaucratic equities
rather than honest differences over alternative courses of action, which is
what the President needs and wants. If all the National Security Advisor
does is summarize department positions, he or she will be a disappoint-
ment to the President. For this reason, advisors work hard to forge con-
sensus and integrate alternatives, sometimes at the expense of accurately
replicating department and agency positions, which causes friction with
Cabinet officials.
With the reforms recommended here, much of the tension between
the two advisor roles would disappear. Mission managers would integrate
alternative courses of action for consideration by the President and NSC
and implement the approved strategy. It would be the National Security
Advisor’s job to run the process and ensure that the President hears any
appeals from Cabinet officials to curb or overturn a mission manager’s
decision. For this purpose, the National Security Advisor could truly be
• 94 •
an honest broker, ensuring that the mission manager, who is working the
issue full-time, and the Cabinet officials and their concerns are honestly
summarized for the President.
However, the new model of National Security Advisor also would have
system-wide duties and a system-wide perspective. The advisor would
have to ensure mission managers are set up for success and assess and
keep track of their progress. Finally, with the help of the NSC staff, they
would have to identify areas where mission managers are in conflict with
one another. All this would require a system-wide perspective. Instead
of concentrating on a handful of top Presidential priorities, the new Na-
tional Security Advisor would be responsible for ensuring the system as
a whole was working well and addressing the full range of critical issues.
This new model of National Security Advisor is much more practical.
Currently our expectations of National Security Advisors are altogether
unrealistic. We want them to be master administrators who advance the
multilayered interagency committee process in a timely, transparent, and
comprehensive fashion. But we also want them to be foreign policy and
national security maestros who combine a comprehensive appreciation
of the international system and security environment with a wide range
of subject matter expertise across an incredible array of multifarious,
complex problems that enables them to discreetly offer sagacious advice
when circumstances, or the President, demand it. Furthermore, we insist
that advisors have an exceptionally close and well-recognized personal
relationship with the President, essentially serving as the President’s alter
ego on national security.
National Security Advisors are criticized for not meeting these naive
expectations.34 National Security Advisor General James Jones, USMC
(Ret.), is a case in point. He was relentlessly attacked as inadequate de-
spite a successful career as a Service chief and the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe. Leaks to the press
complained that he did not work himself into a state of utter exhaustion.
He was accused of being “too measured and low-key to keep pace with
the hard chargers working late hours in the West Wing”35 and of falling
behind “a White House on a manic dash to get a lot of top-tier issues
dealt with.”36 He was resented for biking at lunchtime, leaving after a
12-hour day instead of working late into the night,37 for missing key
meetings and, at the same time, not being by the President’s side all day
long.38
Jones was also criticized for managing collaboration rather than en-
suring his voice dominated debate on key issues. People complained
about Jones for “speaking up less in debates than [Secretary of State
Hillary] Clinton and not pushing as hard for decisions.”39 He was not
• 95 •
Lamb
seen as a dominant national security figure, but rather as self-effacing,

collaborative, and generous in meetings.40 He even sent others who were
substantively competent to meetings in his stead. One pundit observed,
“This kind of NSC collaboration always sounds good in principle [but]
when sharp disagreements arise . . . the self-effacing retired general may
have to summon his inner Henry Kissinger.”41 Even his admirers agreed
that “he needs to drive the agenda.”42
Finally, Jones was criticized as insufficiently close to the President.
The lack of a close, personal relationship with the President meant Jones
would not be taken seriously by other senior officials. One critic insisted,
“He has to be first among equals—the fact that Condi [Rice] couldn’t
control [Richard] Cheney and [Donald] Rumsfeld in [George W.] Bush’s
first term was disastrous. A lot depends on what sort of relationship de-
velops between Jones and [Barack] Obama.”43 Another expert worried,
“The National Security Advisor needs to be behind the president,” both
literally and figuratively, but General Jones is not “seen as the guy in the
room.”44 Pundits carped that other Presidential advisors had closer per-
sonal relationships with President Obama, which put Jones at a major
bureaucratic disadvantage.
Critics were looking for an indefatigable subject matter genius and
bureaucratic warrior with close personal ties to the President to run the
national security system because that is just the kind of heroic individ-
ual it would take to make our current system work minimally well. In
a system where only the President has the authority to compel collabo-
ration, critics wanted Jones to be an extension of the President and his
power. In a system where failures quickly gravitate to the White House
for centralized management, critics wanted Jones to be knowledgeable
enough to control the debate on all national security topics that came
his way. This kind of empowered subject matter maestro might improve
cross-departmental collaboration for a few issues, but the vast majority
will necessarily go unattended. This explains the criticism that Jones was
not working frantically enough. Without working around the clock (and
in the process exhausting intellectual capital rather than building it),
even fewer critical issues can be addressed.
The omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent National Security Ad-
visor does not exist and never has, and we should stop expecting one
to materialize. Instead we need someone who promotes collaborative
decisionmaking and less-centralized issue management and who under-
stands the importance of running the overall national security system
well. Jones’s admirers considered him a genius on management struc-
tures and decisionmaking processes,45 and in a reformed system such
as the one advocated here, his approach would work admirably. If the
• 96 •
President had the authority to designate mission managers, and a col-

laborative Cabinet that understood and supported their use, a National
Security Advisor with Jones’s measured pace, attention to system-wide
performance, and collaborative bearing would serve the Nation and the
President well.
Conclusion
The 9/11 Commission’s report did a good job of identifying the major
limitations of the current national security system. It argued that “the
agencies are like a set of specialists in a hospital, each ordering tests,
looking for symptoms, and prescribing medications. What is missing
is the attending physician who makes sure they work as a team.”46 The
report explained this deficiency could not be rectified without adjusting
the authorities of Cabinet officials. However, the report did not recom-
mend circumscribing the authorities of Cabinet officials. Instead, the
commission, which only adopted recommendations with unanimous
support, advised in favor of creating the National Counterterrorism
Center, a new organization that would conduct planning but not make
policy or direct operations. As the Project on National Security Reform
noted, this recommendation was clearly inadequate to solve the problem
the commission identified:
Using the commission’s analogy of the different depart-

ments and agencies acting like a set of specialists in a
hospital without an attending physician, we can say the
commission settled for a specialist who could offer a sec-
ond opinion without providing the attending physician
who directs the operations. Not surprisingly, to date the
departments and agencies have treated the National Coun-
terterrorism Center as a source for second opinions. The
reality is that all priority national security missions—not
just counterterrorism—require an attending physician.47
The recommendations in this chapter correct the shortcoming that

the 9/11 Commission identified but ignored. We do not need large, ex-
pensive, new organizations and complex processes. We need legislation
from Congress, a President with a strong desire to improve national se-
curity system performance, and a National Security Advisor with a col-
laborative bent and organizational and bureaucratic acumen. Once in
place, the mission managers would prove effective and their use would
proliferate, which would require some additional follow-on reforms.
• 97 •
Lamb
Once mission managers demonstrate they can produce better outcomes,

additional reforms to help the system better support their use could be
implemented. The critical thing now—if we want a system capable of
significantly better performance—is to focus on these three indispens-
able steps forward.
The author was the study director for the Project on National Security
Reform and its major report, Forging a New Shield (November 2008). He
would like to thank Jim Kurtz of the Institute for Defense Analyses for
multiple reviews of this chapter.
Notes
1
Douglas Stuart, “Constructing the Iron Cage: The 1947 National Security Act,” in
Affairs of the State: The Interagency and National Security, ed. Gabriel Marcella (Carlisle
Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 2008), 53. See also Forging a New Shield (Wash-
ington, DC: Project on National Security Reform, November 2008).
2
Ike Skelton, comments to the press, September 30, 2010, available at <http://armed-
services.house.gov/pdfs/HR6249/SkeltonStatement.pdf>.
3
Christopher J. Lamb and Joseph C. Bond, National Security Reform and the 2016
Election, INSS Strategic Forum 293 (Washington, DC: NDU Press, April 2016).
4
A survey of over 250 books, articles, and studies on interagency cooperation in the
U.S. Government found only one report that concluded that interagency cooperation is
successful. See Christopher J. Lamb et al., “National Security Reform and the Security
Environment,” in Global Strategic Assessment 2009: America’s Security Role in a Changing
World, ed. Patrick M. Cronin (Washington, DC: NDU Press, 2009), 412–413. See also
Lamb and Bond.
5
Lamb and Bond.
6
Christopher J. Lamb and Edward Marks, Chief of Mission Authority as a Model for
National Security Integration, INSS Strategic Perspectives 2 (Washington, DC: NDU Press,
December 2010).
7
Richard Holbrooke, “The Machine That Fails,” Foreign Affairs, January 1, 1971,
available at <http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/12/14/the-machine-that-fails/>.
8
Harold Seidman, Politics, Position, and Power: The Dynamics of Federal Organization,
5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 219, 224.
9
Lamb and Bond, 2. The ineffectiveness of interagency committees was well ex-
plained in Henry Jackson, Organizing for National Security: Inquiry of the Subcommittee on
National Policy Machinery, Senator Henry M. Jackson, Chairman, for the Committee on Gov-
ernment Operations, United States Senate, 3 vols. (Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office, 1961).
10
Cited in Forging a New Shield, 260.
11
Ibid.
12
Lamb and Marks.
• 98 •
13
The term mission manager has gained some currency, and so it is used here. But as
some reviewers have noted, mission director would be a more appropriate title given the
authorities recommended for the position.
14
Title 10 U.S. Code, Section 162(b), available at <www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
text/10/162>.
15
Douglas J. Feith, War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on
Terrorism (New York: Harper, 2008), 316.
16
Title 10 U.S. Code, Section 162(b).
17
Lamb and Marks, 20.
18
Ibid., 18.
19
Ibid., 20ff. For an extended argument on this topic see Gordon Lederman, “Na-
tional Security Reform for the Twenty-first Century: A New National Security Act and
Reflections on Legislation’s Role in Organizational Change,” Journal of National Security
Law and Policy 3, no. 2 (February 2010).
20
Project for National Security Reform argued such legislation would need to be
accompanied by new Select Committees on National Security in the Senate and House of
Representatives with jurisdiction over all interagency operations and activities.
21
James R. Locher III, statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee, “30
Years of Goldwater-Nichols Reform,” November 10, 2015. Frank Ostroff makes the same
point in The Horizontal Organization: What the Organization of the Future Looks Like and
How It Delivers Value to Customers (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 12.
22
Ostroff, 12–13. Ostroff argues that employing cross-functional teams “without any
sense of how to ensure that the teams are working in an integrated way that advances the
performance of the entire entity, is nothing short of irresponsible.”
23
Ibid., 178.
24
Author conversations with a staff officer from U.S. Northern Command about his
strategy research project at the Army War College.
25
Conversation with a senior official in a Washington, DC–based think tank that
conducted an after-action report on the failed reforms for the U.S. Marine Corps.
26
As Ostroff states, “Performance trumps ideology,” and he provides much evidence
from both the private and public sectors. Ostroff, 159.
27
This is consistent with the organizational principle of “requisite variety.” “If a
business unit or team is to be successful in dealing with the challenges of a complex task,
it is vital that it be allowed to possess sufficient internal complexity.” See Gareth Morgan,
Images of Organization (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997), 113.
28
There are several in-depth case studies of high-performing interagency national
security teams. See Christopher J. Lamb and Evan Munsing, Secret Weapon: High-Value
Target Teams as an Organizational Innovation, INSS Strategic Perspectives 4 (Washington,
DC: NDU Press, March 2011); Evan Munsing and Christopher J. Lamb, Joint Interagency
Task Force–South: The Best Known, Least Understood Interagency Success, INSS Strategic Per-
spectives 5 (Washington, DC: NDU Press, June 2011); Fletcher Schoen and Christopher
J. Lamb, Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency
Group Made a Major Difference, INSS Strategic Perspectives 11 (Washington, DC: NDU
Press, May 2012); and Christopher J. Lamb with Sarah Arkin and Sally Scudder, The
Bosnian Train and Equip Program: A Lesson in Interagency Integration of Hard and Soft Power,
INSS Strategic Perspectives 15 (Washington, DC: NDU Press, March 2014).
29
Numerous examples of this point are offered in Forging a New Shield and its 107
supporting case studies. Forging a New Shield, 160.
• 99 •
Lamb
30
The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 has
such a right of appeal in Section 151, d, 1.
31
Frank G. Hoffman and G. Alexander Crowther, “Strategic Assessment and Adapta-
tion: The Surges in Iraq and Afghanistan,” in Lessons Encountered: Learning from the Long
War, ed. Richard D. Hooker, Jr., and Joseph J. Collins (Washington, DC: NDU Press,
2015).
32
Quoted in Ostroff, 131, 188.
33
For simplicity’s sake we will refer to the Assistant to the President for National
Security Affairs as the National Security Advisor.
34
See the discussion of complaints leveled against Condoleezza Rice in Christopher J.
Lamb with Megan Franco, “National-Level Coordination and Implementation,” in Lessons
Encountered: Learning from the Long War, 188, 198ff, 212ff.
35
Karen DeYoung, “National Security Adviser Jones Says He’s an ‘Outsider’ in Frenetic
White House,” Washington Post, May 7, 2009.
36
Steve Clemons, “Can James Jones Survive a Second Round of Attacks and ‘Longer
Knives’?” The Washington Note, June 12, 2009.
37
Helene Cooper, “Obama to Speak from Egypt in Address to Muslim World,” New
York Times, May 8, 2009.
38
Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin, “Reporters Jonesin’ for NSC Profiles,” Politico, May
8, 2009.
39
Mark Landler, “Her Rival Now Her Boss, Clinton Settles into New Role,” New York
Times, May 1, 2009.
40
Joe Klein, “Sizing Up Obama’s First 100 Days,” Time, April 23, 2009.
41
David Ignatius, “General James Jones’s Outlook as Barack Obama’s National Securi-
ty Adviser,” Washington Post, April 30, 2009.
42
Klein.
43
Ibid.
44
Cooper.
45
Clemons.
46
9/11 Commission Report. Interestingly, McChrystal uses the same analogy in his
recent book on teams. Stanley A. McChrystal, Tantum Collins, and David Silverman,
Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World (New York: Portfolio, 2015),
101–103.
47
Forging a New Shield.
• 100 •
6
Weapons of Mass Destruction
John P. Caves, Jr.
The next U.S. administration faces four pressing WMD challenges. First,
the prospects of a direct clash between the United States and a nuclear-
armed adversary that could escalate to the nuclear level are likely to grow.
Second, the scope of North Korea’s nuclear, chemical, and suspected biological
weapons programs likely will require resources for countering weapons of
mass destruction that exceed those currently available. Third, longstanding
international efforts to prohibit chemical and biological weapons are threatened
by the reemergence of chemical weapons use and potentially by rapid advances
in the life sciences. Finally, concern that the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action may only postpone—rather than prevent—Iran’s acquisition of nuclear
weapons will perpetuate tensions and proliferation pressures in the region.
T he 2015 National Security Strategy identifies the proliferation and/

or use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) among the top stra-
tegic risks to the Nation’s interests.1 This chapter examines four pressing
WMD challenges for the next U.S. administration. First, the prospects of
a direct clash between the United States and a nuclear-armed adversary
that could escalate to the nuclear level are likely to grow. Russia in par-
ticular has become more assertive in challenging U.S. interests and has
developed concepts for the limited use of nuclear weapons in a conflict
with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Second, the scope
of North Korea’s nuclear, chemical, and suspected biological weapons
programs likely will require resources for countering WMD that exceed
those currently available to the United States and South Korea. Third,
longstanding international efforts to prohibit chemical and biological
weapons are threatened by the reemergence of chemical weapons use
and potentially by rapid advances in the life sciences. Finally, concern
that the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action may only postpone—
rather than prevent—Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons will perpet-
• 101 •
Caves
uate tensions and proliferation pressures in the region. To meet these

challenges, the next U.S. administration needs to:
• close gaps in capabilities, plans, and policies that weaken deterrence
• reduce incentives for further proliferation by enhancing monitoring

and verification measures and reassuring allies and partners
• strengthen the Nation’s countering-WMD posture with increased re-

sources and improved organization
• stay on top of and leverage rapid scientific and technological devel-

opments in the life sciences and related fields
• improve the education of military officers, civilian national security

professionals, and the broader public on WMD challenges and the
necessary responses thereto.
Challenges
The next U.S. administration will face numerous challenges in address-
ing the threats arising from WMD, both large and small, but the four
challenges discussed below are expected to be most pressing.
Deterring and Managing Escalation in Conflicts with

Nuclear-Armed Adversaries
The United States is entering a new period of heightened risk of direct
conflict with nuclear-armed regional powers, with the potential to es-
calate to the nuclear level. The nuclear problem is no longer just about
proliferation and global threat reduction, the twin imperatives that char-
acterized post–Cold War policy.2 Today we also confront the challenge of
deterring an adversary’s first use of nuclear weapons and managing the
risks of further escalation.3 Being better prepared for new and complex
escalation situations requires adapting capabilities, plans, policies, exer-
cises, and education.
A number of nuclear-armed states are challenging important U.S. in-
terests through both military and nonmilitary means. Russia has been
most aggressive, invading Georgia, annexing Crimea, enabling separat-
ists in eastern Ukraine, and militarily intervening in Syria. Meanwhile,
China has asserted its claims to disputed territory in the East and South
China seas through more aggressive measures, including armed patrols,4
commercial exploitation activities with armed escorts,5 and physical en-
• 102 •
largement of disputed formations that it controls.6 North Korea frequent-

ly issues threats, including nuclear ones, against Seoul and Washing-
ton, and periodically perpetrates military provocations.7 These activities
threaten the territorial integrity and security of U.S. treaty allies, and
more broadly the rules-based order that the United States views as cen-
tral to global security. As such they carry the possibility of direct conflict
with U.S. forces.
Russia’s and China’s increasing assertiveness may be explained by a
confluence of ambition and opportunity. The ambition is their respective
aspirations for a more powerful role globally and primacy in their own
regions. Both view the United States as the principal obstacle to realizing
such ambitions. The opportunity principally is the mitigation of U.S.
military superiority resulting from their aggressive military moderniza-
tion programs, particularly in antiaccess/area-denial (A2/AD) capabili-
ties, power projection, and other information-centric capabilities.8 That
sense of opportunity may be enhanced by a perceived asymmetry of in-
terests with the United States in regional conflicts and a certain war-wea-
riness among the United States and some of its Western allies after more
than a decade of conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The ability of U.S. forces to prevail in the early stages of convention-
al conflicts with Russia and China in areas close to their borders—and
by extension the ability to deter such conflicts—should no longer be
assumed. Geography and growing deployments of modern A2/AD ca-
pabilities9 increase the vulnerability of U.S. forces in these regions and
complicate U.S. reinforcement efforts.10 This situation makes it more
likely that Russia or China could achieve a rapid fait accompli, such as
seizing territory in the Baltic region or East China Sea, respectively, and
shift the burden of escalation onto the United States if those gains are to
be reversed.
The burden of escalation is heavy in conflicts with nuclear-armed
adversaries.11 To degrade adversary capabilities threatening U.S. and
allied efforts to assemble and employ sufficient force to reverse a fait
accompli, U.S. forces likely would have to strike assets, including mis-
sile, integrated air defense, and command and control sites, on Russian
or Chinese territory.12 Such attacks could be viewed as escalatory and
strategic by those nations and invite retaliatory strikes on U.S. and other
allies’ territories. Some Chinese strategic thinkers have suggested that
conventional attacks on strategic targets would merit a nuclear response,
notwithstanding China’s longstanding nuclear no-first-use policy.13 Of
more direct concern, Russia reportedly has adopted a concept, generally
referred to as “escalate-to-de-escalate,” by which it would resort early
in a conflict to nuclear as well as conventional strikes against critically
• 103 •
Caves
important adversary targets to convince the adversary that the risks of

continuing the conflict outweigh any possible rewards.14 Indeed, Russia
has been keen to impress upon others its readiness to employ nuclear
weapons. It espouses a military doctrine reliant on nuclear weapons to
deter and defeat major conventional as well as nuclear aggression.15 It
also frequently rattles its nuclear saber, as it did to deter intervention in
the Ukraine conflict and to try to dissuade European states from hosting
U.S. missile defense assets.16
U.S. nuclear escalation options currently are more limited than those
available to Russia. Nonstrategic U.S. nuclear weapons based in Europe
and assigned to NATO are an important rung on the escalation ladder:
they can signal resolve and under the right circumstances have real mil-
itary effect, but can also demonstrate restraint by allowing strategic sys-
tems to be held in abeyance. Russia holds a much larger number and
greater variety of nonstrategic nuclear weapons than the United States
does.17 Some Russian delivery systems also are more modern and capa-
ble, for example, the Iskander missile system, which can deliver nuclear-
or conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles that are maneuver-
able and re-targetable in flight.18 This suggests that Russia may accord
greater importance and more roles to nonstrategic nuclear weapons than
does NATO. The Alliance’s land-based nuclear deterrent is limited to ag-
ing gravity bombs delivered by dual-capable tactical aircraft (DCA) that
are vulnerable to Russia’s integrated air defense systems.19 The planned
replacement of most DCA with F-35s and completion of the life exten-
sion program for the B-61 bombs will not occur before the 2020s.20
The threat posed by Russia’s Iskander missile system to NATO is cur-
rently limited by range. The 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces
(INF) Treaty bars Russia and the United States from developing, test-
ing, or deploying ballistic missiles or ground-launched cruise missiles
(GLCM) with ranges between 310 and 3,400 miles.21 The Iskander-M
extended-range ballistic missile system currently deployed with the Rus-
sian army has a range of 250 miles.22 The more recent Iskander-K vari-
ant launches the R-500 cruise missile, which some analysts believe has
an intermediate range but which the United States has not identified as
a treaty violation.23 The United States, however, has accused Russia of
testing a different GLCM in violation of the INF Treaty, though it has not
publicly identified the missile.24
Russia’s development and deployment of intermediate-range nucle-
ar missiles would pose a particular problem for NATO. These missiles
could strike targets across Europe within minutes without threatening
U.S. territory. When the Soviet Union fielded such systems in the 1970s,
NATO governments considered it so serious a threat to Alliance cohesion
• 104 •
that they unanimously agreed, despite widespread public opposition, to

pursue a dual-track approach of deploying a comparable capability in
Europe while seeking to negotiate mutual limits with the Soviets. Only
after those NATO deployments actually began did the Soviet Union agree
to negotiate what would become the INF Treaty. Contemporary Russian
violations would be consistent with dissatisfaction that Russian officials
have expressed with the treaty in recent years for constraining their abil-
ity to counter intermediate-range missiles deployed by countries such
as China and Pakistan or by missile defense and conventional preci-
sion-strike capabilities possessed by the United States.25
China poses its own escalation challenges for the United States. Not
a party to the INF Treaty, it fields a large and growing force of modern,
medium-range, conventionally armed ground-based ballistic missiles.
These MRBMs as well as a variety of land-attack cruise missiles hold U.S.
bases in Japan at risk. There are reports that China is developing a new
advanced intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) that could strike
U.S. bases in Guam.26 China also is fielding an anti-ship ballistic missile
with a range of 900 miles and maneuverable warhead that can attack
ships, including aircraft carriers, in the western Pacific Ocean.27 China’s
growing missile force is part of its expanding A2/AD capabilities that
challenge the U.S. ability to fulfill its security commitments to regional
states.
China also currently deploys nuclear-armed MRBMs and IRBMs as
well as intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched bal-
listic missiles.28 Unlike Russia, China does not have, nor has it sought,
nuclear parity with the United States. It currently maintains only about
200 operational nuclear warheads in support of a long-stated nuclear
doctrine of no-first-use and minimum deterrence.29 China, however, is
modernizing and expanding its nuclear arsenal, which may promote sta-
bility in some regards by making its arsenal more survivable, but also
may afford China greater scope to employ its weapons in counterforce
or nonstrategic roles without compromising the counter-value retaliatory
capacity at the heart of its strategic doctrine.30 Also, unlike Russia, China
does not share a ground border with any U.S. ally, making its military
competition with the United States more focused on the sea and asso-
ciated air and space domains. These domains may be more inviting to
operational use of nuclear weapons since they offer less scope for collat-
eral damage.
North Korea also poses nuclear deterrence and escalation manage-
ment challenges but of a different scale and circumstance from Russia or
China. The long-feared prospect of a massive North Korean invasion of
the South to achieve reunification has receded as the quality of its con-
• 105 •
Caves
ventional forces has deteriorated along with its economy,31 but Pyong-
yang has managed to build a small and growing nuclear arsenal and a
ballistic missile force of increasing range with which to deliver those
weapons.32 The greater risk of conflict now is seen as arising from an es-
calatory spiral initiated by a North Korean provocation or the possibility
of serious unrest in the North that necessitates outside intervention to
address a humanitarian crisis, secure WMD, and/or respond to a related
attack against an external actor.33 Given North Korea’s huge investment
in its nuclear weapons program and the frequency and virulence of its
nuclear threats, it is only prudent to anticipate that it may respond to
such developments with nuclear weapons use.
Preparing for WMD Contingencies on the Korean Peninsula

Beyond deterrence and escalation management risks, North Korea also
poses a major countering WMD (CWMD) challenge.34 In the event of a
collapse of the Pyongyang regime or as the result of a major conflict on
the peninsula, the United States and its allies must be prepared to defend
against the possible use of North Korean chemical and biological as well
as nuclear weapons and to enter North Korea to secure and eliminate
its WMD capabilities. North Korea represents the most comprehensive
CWMD challenge we face, one whose potential scale could exceed the
resources currently available to the United States and South Korea. Being
fully prepared for WMD contingencies on the peninsula and beyond will
require a larger pool of forces with specialized training and equipment
and improved organization.
North Korea may have between 6 and 30 nuclear weapons and could
expand its stockpile, perhaps dramatically, over the coming years.35 Its
growing and increasingly sophisticated ballistic missile force spans from
short- to intercontinental-range missiles.36 According to an unclassified
assessment by South Korea’s Ministry of National Defense (MND), the
North likely possesses between 2,500 and 5,000 metric tons of chemi-
cal warfare agents. This probably includes first- and second-generation
agents, such as mustard and sarin. Less is known about North Korea’s
biological weapons (BW) capabilities, but the MND assesses the North
has the capability to cultivate and weaponize various types of agents,
such as anthrax and smallpox.37
In the event of a major conflict on the peninsula and/or the collapse
of the North Korean regime, it will be a high priority task for U.S. and
South Korean forces to locate, control, defeat, disable, and/or dispose of
North Korean WMD capabilities to prevent their use by North Korean
forces or agents, or their loss to third parties. This task will be compli-
cated by incomplete knowledge of the locations and specific types and
• 106 •
quantities of WMD and related capabilities. WMD programs, especially

chemical and biological ones, are difficult intelligence targets, especially
in North Korea. Parts of North Korea may be difficult to access, and co-
alition forces also may have to accomplish other priority tasks like non-
combatant evacuations, humanitarian operations, and/or conventional
warfighting.
The potential scale of this task exceeds existing coalition resources,
particularly units with specialized training and equipment for CWMD
missions. These units number in the single digits while WMD sites may
number in the hundreds.38 It will not be possible to reach and secure all
or most sites of concern in a timely fashion, except in the most limited
and permissive contingencies. Even with little or no North Korean resis-
tance, the difficult terrain alone is a major obstacle to timely access. The
less warning of a crisis, the longer will be the response time to deploy
forces from home bases. The United States also will have to anticipate
the possibility of some WMD assets proliferating off the peninsula and
devote resources to their interdiction.39
Successful North Korean use of WMD against U.S. and South Korean
forces in the context of a shooting war could seriously complicate oper-
ations. Chemical and biological attacks may not preclude ultimate vic-
tory by the combined forces, but large-scale attacks in particular would
increase the length and costs of the fight and could have unpredictable
political consequences.40 If North Korea also employed nuclear weapons
on the battlefield—which it will have greater scope to do as its arsenal
expands—this would re-introduce a dimension to warfighting for which
U.S. forces have not extensively prepared since the Cold War’s height.41
Holding the Line Against Chemical and Biological Weapons

New chemical and biological weapons threats are emerging. Some on the
chemical side have already manifested. These developments challenge
the integrity and force of international norms and regimes prohibiting
chemical and biological weapons. They also impose new demands on
Department of Defense (DOD) force protection. To hold the line against
a resurgence in the proliferation and use of chemical and biological
weapons, the United States needs to lead international efforts to update
nonproliferation regimes for the new strategic environment and hold ac-
countable those who defy international norms and law in these areas.
The United States also needs a greater understanding of emerging tech-
nologies and the threats and opportunities they pose.
The Biological Weapons and Toxins Convention (BWC) and Chem-
ical Weapons Convention (CWC) came into force in 1972 and 1997,
respectively, to prohibit biological and chemical weapons. Almost all
• 107 •
Caves
states are now party to these agreements.42 No state is known to have

employed biological weapons (BW) since the BWC entered into force.
Nor had any state been known to employ chemical weapons (CW) since
the CWC entered into force—until 2012–2013, when Syria, not then a
CWC state party,43 used sarin on several occasions on its own territory.44
The large-scale sarin attack in eastern Ghouta in August 2013, which
caused at least hundreds of civilian deaths,45 prompted threats of military
action against the Syrian regime by the United States, United Kingdom,
and France. That crisis was resolved when Russia and the United States
brokered Syria’s agreement to join the CWC, declare its CW capabilities,
and submit its declared stocks to destruction (largely accomplished in
2014).46 With this accession to the CWC by one of its most significant
holdouts, the cause of prohibiting CW, initially undermined by Syria’s
sarin use, appeared to be reinforced.
But that moment was short-lived. Even before the most dangerous of
Syria’s declared chemicals were destroyed, reports emerged of the em-
ployment of chlorine-containing chemicals as a weapon of war in Syria.
During 2015 the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
(OPCW) Fact-Finding Mission in Syria (FFM) investigated alleged inci-
dents of CW use and concluded that several uses of chlorine likely had
occurred in Syria’s Idlib Governorate between March 16 and 20, 2015.47
Although the FFM’s mandate proscribes it from attributing responsibility
for these attacks, Secretary of State John Kerry and others expressed high
confidence that at least the preponderance of attacks were perpetrated
by the Syrian regime.48
If the Syrian regime conducted these chlorine attacks, as is widely
believed, it would constitute an unprecedented violation of the CWC
by a state party. The CWC prohibits the use of any toxic chemical as a
method of warfare, whether it is listed in the convention’s Schedules of
Chemicals.49 But in contrast to the explicit Western threats of military
action following the Ghouta attacks, no comparable threat or sanction
was visited upon Syria in the immediate wake of these chlorine uses.
This may reflect several factors. First, the chlorine attacks have caused
few deaths because chlorine is much less lethal than sarin. Second, the
human toll caused by chlorine (or all CW) use in Syria pales in compar-
ison to the mounting carnage there caused by conventional weapons.50
Third, the longer and more complex the Syrian conflict becomes, the less
inclined other countries may be to take strong stands that complicate
achievement of a political settlement. The United States and its allies
chose first to seek an official finding of the Syrian regime’s responsibility
for chlorine use from a cognizant international body. In August 2015 the
United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2235 establishing
• 108 •
a Joint Investigative Mechanism of the United Nations and the OPCW

(JIM) to attribute responsibility for the use of CW in Syria.51 In August
2016 the JIM found the Syrian regime to be responsible for two chemical
attacks during 2014 and was continuing to assess several other cases.52
The United States and its allies now need to decide how to respond.
Unfortunately, the CW use problem extends beyond the Syrian re-
gime’s actions. There is increasing evidence that the Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant (ISIL) also has employed CW in Iraq as well as Syria.53
For example, in its August 2016 report, the JIM found that ISIL was
“the only entity with the ability, capability, motive, and the means to use
sulfur mustard” during an attack in Marea, Syria, on August 21, 2015.54
Like the Syrian regime since 2014, ISIL’s apparent CW use to date has
caused few fatalities, featuring relatively low-lethal toxic industrial
chemicals (TICs) and sulfur mustard.55 The use of mustard suggests ISIL
may be producing chemical agents in addition to commandeering widely
available TICs. ISIL’s conquest of territory in Syria and Iraq, including
the major city of Mosul, has afforded it control of modern scientific fa-
cilities and perhaps also expertise seldom available to terrorist organiza-
tions. This may enable ISIL to develop, produce, and employ more lethal
chemical agents than mustard and perhaps biological weapons, too, but
there also is skepticism about ISIL’s ability to do so.56
It also is noteworthy that ISIL, like the Syrian regime, appears to have
used CW primarily to support military objectives rather than for more
purely terror purposes. While both ISIL and the Syrian regime use chem-
icals against civilians and likely, at least in part, for their psychological
effect, both are doing so in the prosecution of a war in which they are
attempting to defeat an adversary and control territory. But more tradi-
tional forms of terrorism using CW or even BW cannot be ruled out,
considering ISIL has claimed responsibility for recent mass casualty at-
tacks outside the region.57 This has been on the mind of some European
officials.58
CW use in the Middle East points to several limitations of the CW
nonproliferation regime. The Syria case demonstrates the difficulty of
mobilizing sufficiently unified, timely, and strong international action to
deter or sanction a CWC state party that violates its treaty obligations, at
least when its use of CW is killing few people. The ISIL case reminds us
that terrorist organizations are not bound by the norms and agreements
made by states. Both cases show that CW encompass more than the
sophisticated chemical warfare agents that are the monitoring and verifi-
cation focus of the CWC. Widely available TICs also can be employed as
weapons with both military and terror effect.
• 109 •
Caves
No comparable recent instances of BW use have occurred, but this

should not be cause for complacency. There are indications of interest
in BW by both state and nonstate actors. For example, the United States
discovered an al Qaeda BW program when it invaded Afghanistan,59
and more recently a document on BW production was found on an ISIL
member’s captured laptop.60 On the state side, Russian President Vlad-
imir Putin spoke in 2012 about the future emergence of genetic weap-
ons,61 a disturbing reference in light of the Soviet BW program. BW also
is potentially more impactful than CW, generally possessing a far lower
mass-to-effect ratio.62
Technological barriers to BW development, production, and use also
are receding. Dual-use production and dissemination equipment that
was hard to acquire is now widely available.63 Rapid developments in the
life sciences (for example, genetic mapping, “big data” genetic analytic
capability, specific gene editing), other emerging technology areas (nan-
otechnology, additive manufacturing), and the broad dissemination of
the resulting information via the Internet also have made it possible and/
or easier to perform an ever broader range of biological activities. These
include enhancing traditional forms of BW (for example, resistance to
medical countermeasures), recreating agents of past scourges (the 1918
Spanish Influenza), and even creating entirely new organisms.64 It may
even become possible to design BW that target specific individuals or
groups on the basis of their unique genetic profiles.65
These rapid and far-reaching scientific and technological develop-
ments increase the prospects for technological surprise and pose sig-
nificant challenges for the BW nonproliferation regime. The BWC was
drawn broadly enough to prohibit new forms of BW that may emerge
from technological change, but its current processes are hard-pressed to
keep pace with such change. The BWC’s review conferences occur only
every 5 years, a period in which major scientific and technological devel-
opments can transpire. Also, no standing body of experts exists to regu-
larly assess scientific and technological developments and to advise state
parties’ political representatives of their implications for the convention,
as the Scientific Advisory Board and OPCW Technical Secretariat do for
CWC state parties.
The new BW possibilities enabled by these scientific and techno-
logical developments also pose serious challenges for the protection of
forces, populations, and economies, but they could provide means to
counter these threats, too. They already are the source of many positive
improvements in other areas, such as medicine, energy, and agriculture.
The potential impacts of emerging technologies are the subject of in-
creasing interest and activity across the U.S. Government, but the activi-
• 110 •
ty generally lacks structure, integration, and a focus on what needs to be

done, though there are recent efforts to rectify these shortcomings. Gov-
ernment research, development, and acquisition processes in most cases
also lack the dexterity to capitalize quickly on rapidly emerging techno-
logical opportunities to address biodefense and public health needs.66
Containing Nuclear Proliferation Pressures in the Middle East

The 2015 Iran nuclear agreement—the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Ac-
tion (JCPOA)—constrains Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons but
does not eliminate proliferation pressures within the region. Indeed, the
nature of the agreement could heighten such pressures if regional rivals
are concerned that Iran may resume its pursuit of nuclear weapons when
the agreement’s key restrictions on its enrichment capability expire. To
contain these proliferation pressures, the United States will need to reas-
sure its regional partners that together they can keep an aggressive Iran
in check while trying to induce Iran to behave more responsibly.
The JCPOA limits Iran’s ability to produce fissile material through
a set of physical constraints and intrusive monitoring and verification
measures.67 But the JCPOA also allows Iran to retain a substantial nu-
clear infrastructure (including virtually all of the physical infrastructure
associated with its uranium enrichment program) and the capacity to
expand its enrichment program after the physical constraints on fissile
material production and most of the verification and enforcement provi-
sions expire in 10 to 15 years. Assuming that the JCPOA is implemented
and effectively deters Iran from producing fissile material from its de-
clared facilities, there remains concern that Iran will bide its time until
the agreement’s latter years in order to reap the benefits of sanctions
relief and then resume pursuit of nuclear weapons from a stronger eco-
nomic position.68 In addition, there is concern that Iran might cheat on
the margins during the JCPOA by conducting small-scale enrichment or
weaponization work at undeclared facilities, the detection of which will
rely heavily on national intelligence capabilities.69
Iran’s regional rivals could be motivated to pursue their own nucle-
ar hedging strategies to guard against the possibility of a future nucle-
ar-armed Iran. Saudi Arabia, the leader of the Sunni Arab bloc opposed
to Iran, has warned it would have to respond to Iran’s acquisition of
nuclear weapons.70 Hedging strategies could include pressing ahead with
civilian nuclear energy programs (which can provide a foundation for
nuclear weapons development), developing enrichment and/or repro-
cessing capabilities (which is permissible under the Nuclear Non-Prolif-
eration Treaty (NPT) if done openly and with safeguards), covertly inves-
• 111 •
Caves
tigating nuclear weapons technologies, and/or pursuing nuclear security

guarantees from outside powers.
Saudi Arabia was among a number of Arab states that initiated civilian
nuclear energy programs in the mid-2000s.71 It likely was not a coinci-
dence that these initiatives appeared within a few years of revelations of
Iran’s secret enrichment activities and the failure of the initial, European
Union–led negotiations to end those activities. While this may represent
a Saudi hedging strategy for the longer term, some observers believe that
Riyadh might also pursue a nuclear deterrence strategy for the shorter
term, one that presumably would leverage its historic relationship with
Pakistan.72 Alternatively, the Saudis and other Gulf Cooperation Council
(GCC) states could seek a formal security guarantee from the United
States or possibly France.
Lingering questions about Iran’s ultimate nuclear intentions also
could inhibit efforts to resolve or mitigate key sources of regional insta-
bility. Some observers believe the nuclear agreement could motivate both
Iran and its Saudi-led Arab opponents to become more confrontational
toward one another, at least in the short term. Iranian hardliners may
act to heighten tensions to preclude the agreement from serving as a
springboard for wider diplomatic and economic cooperation with the
international community. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Hoseini-Khamenei
may acquiesce to assuage concerns within Iran’s conservative political
establishment while JCPOA implementation proceeds.73 The financial
windfall that Iran expects from sanctions relief under the agreement also
could underwrite increased funding and weapons shipments to Shia mil-
itants and proxies in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and Palestine.74 For
its own part, the Saudi-led Arab coalition states may feel compelled to
stand up more vigorously to Iran to offset any perceived lessening of the
U.S. commitment to their security.75 Arab states are concerned that the
agreement may lead to a closer U.S.-Iran relationship or a progressive
U.S. disengagement from the region.76 Saudi Arabia’s uncharacteristic
commitment of its own forces and prestige to the difficult conflict in
Yemen can be seen as a case in point. The JCPOA, moreover, has not
alleviated Israel’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. Israeli Prime
Minister Binyamin Netanyahu appealed directly to the U.S. Congress to
oppose the agreement.77
Recommendations
The foregoing WMD challenges are serious but surmountable. To meet
them, the next U.S. administration should:
• 112 •
• close gaps in capabilities, plans, and policies that weaken deterrence
• reduce incentives for further proliferation by strengthening moni-

toring and verification measures and reassuring allies and partners
• strengthen the Nation’s countering WMD posture with increased re-

sources and improved organization
• stay on top of and leverage rapid scientific and technological devel-

opments in the life sciences and related fields
• improve the education of military officers, civilian national security

professionals, and the broader public on WMD challenges and the
necessary responses thereto.
Close Gaps that Weaken Deterrence

The United States should strengthen its own and regional allies’ abilities
to resist and thus deter a territorial fait accompli by Russia and China
that would shift the burden of escalation on the United States and its
allies. For Europe, this means implementing the proposed expansion of
the European Reassurance Initiative in DOD’s fiscal year 2017 budget re-
quest to enable a larger rotational force presence on the ground of NATO
Allies most vulnerable to Russian aggression. If Russia acts more aggres-
sively, consider a larger, permanent force presence in those allied states.
If Russia fields MRBMs and IRBMs, accord the U.S. European missile
defense architecture an orientation against such missiles and consider
developing and deploying comparable U.S. missiles. Expand air defense
systems in the theater to protect a larger array of assets against cruise
missile attack. In the Pacific, complete the redeployment of 60 percent
of all U.S. naval and air forces to that theater.78 Continue to expand and
integrate U.S. and East Asian regional allies’ missile defense capabili-
ties. Vigorously pursue the Third Offset Strategy that DOD announced
in 2015 to strengthen U.S. conventional deterrence in the face of both
China’s and Russia’s growing capabilities.79
Modernize U.S. nuclear forces and employment plans to enhance nu-
clear deterrence. Press ahead with the programmed life extension of the
B61 nuclear bombs and the replacement of NATO dual-capable aircraft
with F-35s. Proceed with the planned modernization of the broader U.S.
nuclear force, including development of the long-range standoff nuclear
cruise missile as a replacement for the aging air-launched cruise missile
to provide a more reliable standoff attack capability against modern in-
• 113 •
Caves
tegrated air defenses. The planned modernization effort will require a

significant increase in spending for U.S. nuclear forces, but these costs
will still represent a small portion of the overall U.S. defense budget,80
and there is no substitute for modernizing an aging nuclear force that
is fundamental to U.S. security. The bomber leg of the triad, including
standoff cruise missiles and gravity bombs deliverable by penetrating
bombers, is especially important to the effectiveness and credibility of
U.S. extended deterrence commitments to major allies.81
Expand theater nuclear planning expertise in relevant geographic
combatant commands (GCCMDs) and better integrate conventional and
nuclear force planning at the theater level.82 Because the effective pos-
turing and potential employment of nuclear assets in a theater may be
critical to preventing a regional conflict from escalating to the strategic
level, GCCMDs need to be well-versed and centrally involved in planning
for the nuclear dimensions of regional conflicts. They also must be able
to deconflict their conventional operations with nuclear ones, which may
be directed by U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), so as not to
undermine the conventional campaign. Deterrence and warfighting will
be further strengthened by GCCMDs’ understanding of how to enhance
their forces’ resilience in conducting operations in a nuclear environment.
Review existing doctrine, concepts, and campaign plans for conflicts
with nuclear-armed adversaries to assess their implications for nuclear
escalation and revise them as appropriate to minimize that risk. This
mindset was not necessary for post–Cold War conflicts because U.S. ad-
versaries were not nuclear armed. The United States could and did apply
overwhelming conventional force to rapidly crush those adversaries’ ca-
pacity to wage war wherever it existed and also, in some cases, to over-
throw their regimes. The United States will need to pursue more limited
aims with calibrated applications of force, and associated messaging, in
potential future conflicts with states that are able to wreak nuclear dev-
astation upon U.S. allies, forces, and even populations.83 This mindset
is especially salient to planning for war in Korea, which long assumed a
decisive counteroffensive to reunify the peninsula under South Korea, as
opposed to wars with Russia and China, for which invasion and regime
change have not been war aims.
Hold accountable those who are using CW in the Middle East. If oth-
er actors observe that CW use goes largely unpunished, they may be less
deterred from similar resort in their own conflicts if they perceive advan-
tage in doing so. To deter such use, the United States needs to provide
leadership in holding the Syrian regime accountable for its CWC viola-
tions. The JIM’s continuing efforts to ascribe responsibility for CW use
in Syria must be actively supported. If the ultimate outcome in Syria is
• 114 •
the demise of the Bashar al-Asad regime, members of the regime deemed
responsible for CW use should still be pursued and prosecuted. As con-
cerns ISIL, the United States must continue to pursue aggressively its
comprehensive defeat, including denying it the sanctuary and facilities of
the territory it now controls in Iraq and Syria, which likely contribute to
its ability to produce CW. In the meantime, priority should be accorded
to efforts to understand and disrupt ISIL’s WMD activities, deter use, and
prevent proliferation to affiliate groups.84
Determine why Syria and ISIL have resorted to proscribed chemical
weapons. Do they see these weapons as having unique military advan-
tages, such as the ability to reach opponents within structures that pro-
tect them from bullets and high explosives? Is it because chemical weap-
ons terrorize target populations into fleeing territory that they are trying
to seize? Is it because widely available TICs are cost-effective alternatives
to conventional weapons, such as improvised barrel bombs are to mil-
itary-grade bombs? Understanding their motivations can inform future
efforts to dissuade and deter CW proliferation and use.
Reduce Incentives for WMD Proliferation

Advocate for and contribute to increased funding, inspectors, and intelli-
gence resources for International Atomic Energy Agency monitoring and
verification of Iran’s nuclear program. Confidence in Iran’s essential com-
pliance with the JCPOA will be necessary to achieving the agreement’s
goal of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. These measures
could help allay Israel’s and GCC states’ concerns that Iran will seek to
increase its enrichment capacity during the JCPOA, and eventually make
the decision to build nuclear weapons. The United States also should
begin working as soon as practical with key allies and partners to identify
ways to induce Iran, positively and negatively, to abide by its NPT obli-
gations once the JCPOA’s limitations and enforcement provisions expire.
Planning now for the post-JCPOA period could mitigate a tendency to
assume the JCPOA is only a hiatus in Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear arsenal.
Address the security concerns of U.S. regional allies and partners
arising from the JCPOA to reduce their incentives to pursue courses of
action that could harm U.S. interests or lead to a more proliferated re-
gion. An effort to reassure partners was at the heart of President Barack
Obama’s Camp David summit with GCC states in May 2015, a number
of whom were reported to be dissatisfied with U.S. attention to their
security concerns.85 The resulting joint statement reaffirmed the “un-
equivocal” U.S. commitment to “deter and confront external aggression
against [its] allies and partners” and indicated that the assembled leaders
had discussed “a new U.S.-GCC strategic partnership to enhance their
• 115 •
Caves
work to improve security cooperation, especially on fast-tracking arms

transfers.”86 Conventional arms transfers have gained additional signifi-
cance given concerns that the lifting of sanctions and unfreezing of Ira-
nian assets under the JCPOA will enable Iran to acquire sophisticated
arms from Russia and elsewhere.87 The United States will need to reas-
sure Israel, however, that efforts to strengthen GCC states will not come
at the expense of its qualitative military edge. A new 10-year military
assistance agreement that the United States and Israel signed on Sep-
tember 14, 2016, providing for a substantial increase in U.S. military aid
to Israel, should help in that regard.88 The United States also should be
open to adding an explicit nuclear dimension to its statements intended
to reassure regional partners, albeit short of a nuclear security guarantee
to any particular partner that likely would be politically unsalable.89 For
example, the United States could state publicly that it will never tolerate
the threatened or actual use of nuclear weapons against its vital interests in
the region and that it would be prepared to use all the instruments at its
disposal to defend those interests. At the same time, it should reinforce
privately with its nonnuclear partners that it will not tolerate their pur-
suit of nuclear weapons capabilities.
Increase Resources and Improve Organization for

CWMD Contingencies
Make more effective use of U.S. and South Korean resources to prepare
for countering weapons of mass destruction contingencies on the Korean
Peninsula, the most likely and demanding of current CWMD challenges
facing the United States. DOD should seek to expand CWMD expertise
among Reserve and Guard forces and raise the readiness of such forces to
deploy for CWMD missions. It also should look for ways to broaden and
deepen interagency contributions to CWMD operations, such as by the
Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration, which
has expertise and capabilities relevant to nuclear elimination tasks.90 It
also should encourage South Korea to expand its specialized CWMD
forces and ensure that their training and equipment are comparable to
and interoperable with counterpart U.S. forces, especially to deal with
North Korea’s chemical and biological programs. The United States and
South Korea, a nonnuclear weapons state, further should determine to
what extent South Korean forces can participate in operations associat-
ed with eliminating North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, consistent
with the NPT and U.S. Atomic Energy Act.
Engage other countries with advanced CWMD capabilities to deter-
mine how they might contribute to CWMD operations in Korea. This in-
cludes allies and partners such as the Australia, France, Germany, Japan,
• 116 •
the United Kingdom, and Singapore. China also could bring resources
to bear on this problem. China inescapably will play a major role in any
conflict or crisis in North Korea, possibly with forces on the ground. Chi-
na has its own interest in ensuring that a crisis does not lead to the use
or loss of North Korean WMD, lest it also become a victim of or at least
be seen as culpable in such an eventuality. Still, the obstacles to eliciting
China’s cooperation in matters concerning the possible collapse or defeat
of its North Korean ally are obvious.91 But the need remains, and the
situation is changing as North Korea’s behavior creates more problems
for China and as China bids for influence in South Korea. Efforts should
continue to engage China in discussions about how it can contribute to
preventing the use or loss of North Korean WMD.92
Implement the reassignment of the DOD CWMD mission to U.S.
Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). In 2005, DOD established
CWMD as a distinct military mission and assigned U.S. Strategic Com-
mand responsibility for synchronizing CWMD efforts across the depart-
ment.93 USSTRATCOM made strides toward increasing military focus on
CWMD, including instituting semiannual CWMD Global Synchroniza-
tion Conferences and preparing CWMD Concept Plan 8099. Yet with
an unusually diverse set of missions—also including strategic deter-
rence; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; space; and cyber—
USSTRATCOM could not devote as much effort to the CWMD mission
as it required. The reassignment of CWMD to another command able to
give the mission greater attention should enable stronger leadership, im-
proved planning, and more effective advocacy. USSOCOM is best suited
of the combatant commands to assume the mission given its global scope,
special authorities, existing CWMD roles, and interest in the mission.94
Stay on Top of and Leverage Rapid Scientific and

Technology Developments
Actively encourage ongoing efforts across the U.S. Government to un-
derstand the implications of emerging technologies, but provide them
with more structure, better integration, and a focus on identifying what
can and should be done. Rapid developments in the life sciences and
other relevant fields may lead to new types of biological and chemical
weapons, but also new means for countering these threats. The mindset
needs to be one of leveraging these developments to the maximum ex-
tent possible, such as in achieving better countermeasures and applying
controls only where necessary and practical. Nimbler research and de-
velopment capabilities will be needed to exploit rapid advances that offer
the prospects for developing new kinds of countermeasures to address
existing and emerging biological threats.
• 117 •
Caves
Strengthen the BW nonproliferation regime’s capacity to deal with

rapid scientific and technological change. Create structures and working
methods that allow BWC state parties to tackle issues in a more effective
way, such as by meeting more frequently between review conferences
and delegating more authority to those gatherings. A body of experts also
should be established to regularly assess relevant scientific and technolog-
ical developments and their implications for the purposes of the conven-
tion, and the annual Meeting of Experts should be used as an opportunity
to advise state party representatives on these matters. Recognizing the
limits to controlling the availability and utilization of rapidly developing
technologies, BWC state parties also need to reinforce the international
norm against BW through active outreach to the science and technology
communities to dissuade their involvement in proliferation efforts.
Educate Military Officers, Civilian Officials, and the

Broader Public on WMD Challenges
Make deterrence and escalation management essential elements of the
education and experiential learning of all military officers and civilian
national security officials. The knowledge and skills needed to address
these challenges, once sharpened by the centrality of the Cold War nu-
clear threat, atrophied thereafter as the risk of nuclear war rapidly reced-
ed and attention turned to conventional wars against nonnuclear states,
terrorism, and irregular warfare. But with the increased potential for nu-
clear weapons use today, deterrence and escalation management, includ-
ing a greater understanding of adversary doctrine and the elements of
crisis management, must again figure prominently in the core education-
al curricula for military officers and civilian officials.95 It also is no longer
acceptable to rule out the possibility of nuclear weapons use when de-
signing and conducting exercises involving conflict with nuclear-armed
adversaries; these threats must be faced head on so military and civilian
leaders gain valuable experiential learning in this area.
Improve CWMD education for military officers and civilian national
security professionals with related responsibilities. Many military offi-
cers still arrive at CWMD planning positions with no or little CWMD
background. DOD can improve CWMD planning by expanding CWMD
training and education offerings and making them available earlier in
officers’ careers.96
Inform the broader public, at home and abroad, about the changing
nature of the WMD threat and the circumstances necessitating counter-
measures like those discussed above, particularly as they relate to the
politically difficult subject of nuclear weapons. The President and se-
nior advisors need to acknowledge regularly and forthrightly the essen-
• 118 •
tial contribution that nuclear weapons and other elements of military

strength make to U.S. and international security in the current and fore-
seeable international security environment. At the same time, they need
to reiterate that the United States is no less committed to its NPT Article
VI obligations to pursue negotiations toward nuclear disarmament, and
show it by continuing to attempt to engage Russia, foremost, and oth-
er nuclear weapons states, as and when appropriate, toward that end.
Rebutting the false premise that the dangers posed by nuclear weap-
ons can be eliminated by simply outlawing these phenomena, as some
supporters of the Humanitarian Initiative advocate,97 or by disarmament
by example (unilateral disarmament), is a continuous task from which
responsible national security leaders must not shrink.
Conclusion
Weapons of mass destruction pose diverse, complex, and enduring chal-
lenges for U.S. and international security. The challenges no longer are
predominately about preventing proliferation; they are again increasingly
about deterring and responding to the use of WMD. To surmount the
most pressing WMD challenges it will face, the next U.S. administration
will need to invest in the skills and capabilities required to deter and
manage escalation risks in conventional conflicts with nuclear-armed ad-
versaries, especially Russia and China. It will need to expand the resourc-
es and improve the organization required to meet the countering WMD
problem posed by North Korea. To hold the line against a resurgence in
the proliferation and use of chemical and biological weapons, it will need
to hold accountable those who violate international norms and laws in
these areas and to invest in acquiring a greater understanding of new and
emerging threats and opportunities and how to defeat and exploit them,
respectively. Finally, to contain regional proliferation pressures in the af-
termath of the Iran nuclear agreement, the next U.S. administration will
need to reassure regional partners that together we can keep an aggressive
Iran in check while incentivizing Tehran to adopt a more responsible and
moderate position in the region and around the world.
The author is indebted to the following individuals for their reviews and
insightful comments on earlier drafts of this chapter: Paul Amato, Paul
Bernstein, Seth Carus, Diane DiEuliis, James Finch, Nima Gerami, Hunter
Hustus, Ralph Kerr, Susan Koch, Charles Lutes, Vincent Manzo, Amanda
Moodie, Robert Peters, Shane Smith, Patrick Terrell, and Ling Yung
• 119 •
Caves
Notes
1
National Security Strategy (Washington, DC: The White House, February 2015), 2,
available at <www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strat-
egy.pdf>. Additionally, the National Military Strategic identifies maintaining a secure and
effective nuclear deterrent and countering weapons of mass destruction (WMD) among
the Joint Force Prioritized Missions. See National Military Strategy of the United States of
America 2015 (Washington, DC: The Joint Staff, 2015), 11, available at <www.jcs.mil/
Portals/36/Documents/Publications/2015_National_Military_Strategy.pdf>.
2
The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review states, “changes in the nuclear threat environment
have altered the hierarchy of our nuclear concerns and strategic objectives. In coming
years, we must give top priority to discouraging additional countries from acquiring
nuclear weapons capabilities and stopping terrorist groups from acquiring nuclear bombs
or the materials to build them. At the same time, we must continue to maintain stable
strategic relationships with Russia and China and counter threats posed by any emerging
nuclear-armed states, thereby protecting the United States and our allies and partners
against nuclear threats or intimidation, and reducing any incentives they might have to
seek their own nuclear deterrents.” See Nuclear Posture Review Report (Washington, DC:
Department of Defense, April 2010), v, available at <www.defense.gov/Portals/1/features/
defenseReviews/NPR/2010_Nuclear_Posture_Review_Report.pdf>. This chapter, in
contrast, argues that subsequent developments have altered the Nuclear Posture Review’s
assessment and have elevated the importance of deterring limited nuclear weapons by
state adversaries.
3
For example, see Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, “The Nukes We Need: Pre-
serving the American Deterrent,” Foreign Affairs, November 1, 2009, available at <www.
foreignaffairs.com/articles/2009-11-01/nukes-we-need>.
4
For example, see Christopher Harress, “South China Sea Dispute: Japan Spots
Armed Chinese Ships Patrolling Senkaku Islands,” International Business Times, December
22, 2015, available at <www.ibtimes.com/south-china-sea-dispute-japan-spots-armed-
chinese-ships-patrolling-senkaku-islands-2236290>.
5
For example, see Gerry Mullaney and David Barboza, “Vietnam Squares Off with
China in Disputed Seas,” New York Times, May 7, 2014, available at <www.nytimes.
com/2014/05/08/world/asia/philippines-detains-crew-of-chinese-fishing-vessel.html?_
r=0>.
6
For example, see Derek Watkins, “What China Has Been Building in the South
China Sea,” New York Times, October 27, 2015, available at <www.nytimes.com/interac-
tive/2015/07/30/world/asia/what-china-has-been-building-in-the-south-china-sea.html>.
7
For example, Jethro Mullen, “North Korea Warns U.S. It’s Ready to Use Nu-
clear Weapons ‘Any Time,’” CNN.com, September 15, 2015, available at <www.cnn.
com/2015/09/15/asia/north-korea-nuclear-program/>. North Korean military provoca-
tions are examined in Ken E. Gause, North Korea’s Provocation and Escalation Calculus:
Dealing with the Kim Jong-un Regime (Arlington, VA: Center for Naval Analyses, August
2015), 4–14, available at <www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/COP-2015-U-011060.pdf>.
8
For concise discussions of Russia’s and China’s challenge to U.S. dominance, see
“Why America’s Military Is Losing Its Edge,” The Economist, June 11, 2015, available
at <www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/06/economist-explains-9>;
“The Great Game: America’s Dominance Is Being Challenged,” The Economist, October
17, 2015, available at <www.economist.com/news/leaders/21674699-american-domi-
nance-being-challenged-new-game>.
9
Antiaccess/area-denial capabilities include such systems as advanced integrated air
defense systems, medium-to-intermediate range ballistic and cruise missiles, modern
attack submarines, antisatellite systems, and cyber warfare capabilities. While there is no
official Department of Defense (DOD) definition of the term, at least as reflected in Joint
• 120 •
Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, see, for
example, Nathan Freier, “The Emerging Anti-Access/Area-Denial Challenge,” Center for
Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC, May 17, 2012, available at <https://
csis.org/publication/emerging-anti-accessarea-denial-challenge>.
10
Regarding China’s improving military capabilities vis-à-vis the United States, see
Eric Heginbotham et al., U.S.-China Military Scorecard: Forces, Geography, and the Evolving
Balance of Power, 1996–2017 (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2015), available at <www.rand.
org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR300/RR392/RAND_RR392.pdf>. On Rus-
sia’s military improvements, see Stephen J. Blank, “Imperial Ambitions: Russia’s Military
Buildup,” World Affairs, May/June 2015, available at <www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/
imperial-ambitions-russia%E2%80%99s-military-buildup>.
11
See, for example, Elbridge Colby, “America Must Prepare for Limited War,” The Na-
tional Interest, November–December 2015, available at <http://nationalinterest.org/print/
feature/america-must-prepare-limited-war-14104>.
12
Indeed, strikes against the Chinese mainland are associated with what used to
be known as the U.S. AirSea Battle concept of operations for conflict with China, as
described in Jan Van Tol, AirSea Battle: A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept (Wash-
ington, DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2010), available at <http://
csbaonline.org/publications/2010/05/airsea-battle-concept/>. It also is one of the aspects
of the concept critiqued in T.X. Hammes, “Sorry, Air Sea Battle is No Strategy,” War on
the Rocks, August 7, 2013, available at <http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/sorry-air-
sea-battle-no-strategy-8846>. In January 2015 the AirSea Battle concept was renamed
the Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons. See memorandum
from Lieutenant General David L. Goldstein, director, Joint Staff, “Subject: Joint Concept
for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons,” DSJM 0009-14, January 8, 2015,
available in redacted form at <http://news.usni.org/2015/01/20/document-air-sea-battle-
name-change-memo>.
13
Phillip C. Saunders, “China’s Nuclear Forces and Strategy,” testimony before the
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission Hearing on “Developments in
China’s Cyber and Nuclear Capabilities,” March 26, 2012, 4–5, available at <www.uscc.
gov/sites/default/files/3.26.12saunders.pdf>.
14
Nikolai N. Sokov, “Why Russia Calls a Limited Nuclear Strike ‘De-escalation,’” Bul-
letin of the Atomic Scientists, March 13, 2014, available at <http://thebulletin.org/why-rus-
sia-calls-limited-nuclear-strike-de-escalation>.
15
“The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to
use against it and (or) its allies of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, as well
as in the case of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional
weapons, when under threat [to] the very existence of the state.” See Military Doctrine
of the Russian Federation, 2014, Section II, paragraph 27, available at <www.scribd.com/
doc/251695098/Russia-s-2014-Military-Doctrine#scribd>. Russia’s reliance on nuclear
weapons to offset the conventional military superiority that the United States and its
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Allies now enjoy is not unlike the United
States and NATO’s reliance on nuclear weapons during the Cold War to counter the
assessed conventional military superiority of the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies.
Until circumscribed in 2010, it was also U.S. policy to reserve the right to use nuclear
weapons against those who might employ chemical and biological as well as nuclear
weapons against the United States and its allies. Current U.S. policy is to “only consid-
er the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of
the United States or its allies and partners” and to “not use or threaten to use nuclear
weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compli-
ance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations.” See Nuclear Posture Review Report,
vii–ix. Despite the broad areas of overlap between current Russian policy and the earlier
U.S. one, there are important differences. Russia in recent years has explicitly threat-
• 121 •
Caves
ened other nations with nuclear weapons in evident attempts to intimidate and coerce
them (see following note), whereas the United States and its NATO Allies have issued
no comparable threats and indeed have been generally reluctant to discuss the use of
nuclear weapons at all. Russia also identifies NATO as its main external danger (Military
Doctrine of the Russian Federation), and has been unwilling to negotiate mutual reduc-
tions in nonstrategic nuclear weapons; see Amy E. Woolf, Nonstrategic Nuclear Weap-
ons, RL32572 (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, February 23, 2015),
34–37, available at <www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL32572.pdf>. In contrast, NATO policy
emphasizes that it considers no country to be its adversary, that it views the circumstanc-
es that would merit nuclear weapons use as extremely remote, and that it contemplates
reducing the number of the Alliance’s nonstrategic nuclear weapons. See Deterrence and
Defence Posture Review (Brussels: NATO, May 20, 2012), available at <www.nato.int/cps/
en/natolive/official_texts_87597.htm>. Russia’s caveat that it would use nuclear weapons
against conventional aggression only when such aggression threatens the very existence
of the Russian state also may be less reassuring than it sounds given that some observers
believe that the Putin regime equates its regime survival with the survival of the state. As
such, any conventional aggression that imperils the Putin regime, which may include its
impending defeat in a regional war of its own making if such defeat undermined popular
Russian support for the regime, could justify the regime’s resort to nuclear weapons. See
Kroenig, The Renewed Russian Nuclear Threat and NATO Nuclear Deterrence Posture, Issue
Brief (Washington, DC: Atlantic Council, February 2016), 2; Paul Bernstein and Deborah
Ball, “Putin’s Russia and U.S. Defense Strategy,” workshop report on same subject held at
National Defense University, August 19–20, 2015, 5, available at <http://inss.ndu.edu/
Portals/82/Documents/conference-reports/Putins-Russia-and-US-Defense-Strategy.pdf>.
16
For example, see “NATO Chief Says Russian Nuclear Threats Are ‘Deeply Troubling
and Dangerous,’” The Guardian, May 27, 2015, available at <www.theguardian.com/
world/2015/may/28/nato-chief-says-russian-nuclear-threats-are-deeply-troubling-and-
dangerous>; Adam Withnall, “Russia Threatens Denmark with Nuclear Weapons If It
Tries to Join NATO Defence Shield,” Independent (London), March 22, 2015, available at
<www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-threatens-denmark-with-nuclear-
weapons-if-it-tries-to-join-nato-defence-shield-10125529.html>.
17
Russia possesses approximately 2,000 nonstrategic nuclear weapons, spanning
antiballistic missile, short-range ballistic missile, ground-launched cruise missile,
and a variety of naval systems. All Russian nonstrategic nuclear weapons reported-
ly are in storage. See Hans S. Kristensen and Robert S. Morris, “U.S. Nuclear Forces,
2015,” 115, available at <http://bos.sagepub.com/content/71/2/107.full.pdf+html>;
“Russia Nuclear Forces, 2015,” 1–2, available at <http://bos.sagepub.com/content/
early/2015/04/13/0096340215581363.full.pdf+html>. While the Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists reflects all of Russia’s nonstrategic nuclear weapons in storage, the Congressional
Research Service notes that the status of nonstrategic nuclear weapons in Russia is un-
certain. It notes that some estimates put the number of active Russian nuclear warheads
assigned to nonstrategic delivery vehicles at 2,000. See Woolf, Nonstrategic Nuclear
Weapons, 12.
18
“Iskander Tactical Ballistic Missile System, Russia,” Army-Technology.com, available
at <www.army-technology.com/projects/iksander-system/iksander-system2.html>.
19
For a discussion of the problems that Russia’s modern integrated air defense sys-
tems pose for fourth-generation aircraft, see David Majumdar, “American F-22s and B-2s
Bombers vs. Russia’s S-300 in Syria: Who Wins?” The National Interest, September 22,
2015, available at <http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/american-f-22s-b-2-bombers-
vs-russias-s-300-syria-who-wins-13905>.
20
Current NATO dual-capable aircraft are scheduled for retirement in the 2020s;
see Rachel Oswald, “U.S. Tactical Nuclear Arms Mission Could Shift Among NATO
Jets,” Nuclear Threat Initiative, March 26, 2014, available at <www.nti.org/gsn/article/
aircraft-could-be-given-nato-tactical-nuclear-arms-mission/>. The U.S. National Nuclear
• 122 •
Security Administration (NNSA) aims to have the first production unit of the refurbished
B61 gravity bomb ready by the end of fiscal year 2020. See NNSA, “Life Extension
Programs,” December 23, 2015, available at <http://nnsa.energy.gov/ourmission/manag-
ingthestockpile/lifeextensionprograms>.
21
Treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles,
signed at Washington, DC, December 8, 1987, Articles I, II, available at <www.state.gov/t/
avc/trty/102360.htm#text>.
22
“Iskander Tactical Ballistic Missile System, Russia.”
23
Rod Lyon, “The Great Nuclear Guessing Game: Has Russia Violated the INF Trea-
ty?” The National Interest, September 25, 2015, available at <www.nationalinterest.org/
blog/the-buzz/the-great-nuclear-guessing-game-has-russia-violated-the-inf-13936>.
24
Interfax, interview with Rose Gottemoeller, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms
Control and International Security, June 23, 2015, available at <www.interfax.com/inter-
view.asp?id=600960>.
25
Amy F. Woolf, Russian Compliance with the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF)
Treaty: Background and Issues for Congress, R43832 (Washington, DC: Congressional Re-
search Service, October 13, 2015), 5–8, 16–18, available at <www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/
R43832.pdf>.
26
Annual Report to Congress on Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s
Republic of China 2015 (Washington, DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2015),
34–35, available at <www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2015_China_Mili-
tary_Power_Report.pdf>.
27
Republic of China 2016 (Washington, DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2016), 25,
available at <www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2016%20China%20Mili-
tary%20Power%20Report.pdf>.
28
Republic of China 2015, 32.
29
Saunders, 1.
30
For example, see Daniel Blumenthal and Michael Mazza, “Why China May Want
More Nuclear Weapons,” American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, April 6, 2011,
available at <www.aei.org/publication/why-china-may-want-more-nuclear-weapons/>.
31
See, for example, Institute for International Security Studies (IISS), North Korean
Security Challenges: A Net Assessment (London: IISS, July 21, 2011), chapters 3, 5, 6,
available at <www.iiss.org/en/publications/strategic%20dossiers/issues/north-korean-secu-
rity-challenges-4a8d>; Military and Security Developments Involving the Democratic Republic
of Korea (Washington, DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2015), 9, 10, 13, 14, 21,
available at <www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/Military_and_Security_De-
velopments_Involving_the_Democratic_Peoples_Republic_of_Korea_2015.PDF>; Van
Jackson, “Preparing for the Next Korean War,” The Diplomat, August 24, 2015, available
at <http://thediplomat.com/2015/08/preparing-for-the-next-korean-war/>.
32
Shane Smith, North Korea’s Evolving Nuclear Strategy, North Korea Nuclear Futures
Series (Baltimore, MD: U.S.-Korea Institute at SAIS, August 2015), 7, available at
<http://38north.org/2015/08/nukefuture082415/>.
33
For a discussion of the risks of a limited conflict with North Korea, see Jackson. For
a discussion of the risks of a collapse of the North Korean regime, see Robert D. Kaplan
and Abraham M. Denmark, “The Long Good-Bye: The Future of North Korea,” World
Affairs, May/June 2011, available at <www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/long-goodbye-
future-north-korea>.
• 123 •
Caves
34
The 2014 Strategy for Countering WMD defines countering WMD as “efforts against
actors of concern to curtail the conceptualization, development, possession, prolifer-
ation, use and effects of WMD, related expertise, materials, technologies, and means
of delivery.” See Strategy for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (Washington, DC:
Department of Defense, June 2014), 17, available at <http://archive.defense.gov/pubs/
DoD_Strategy_for_Countering_Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction_dated_June_2014.
pdf>. This is a separate DOD mission from the nuclear one, wherein a safe, secure, and
effective nuclear deterrent force is maintained to deter strategic attacks against the United
States and to assure its allies; see U.S. Strategic Command Web site, “About/Missions &
Priorities,” available at <www.stratcom.mil/mission/>. Another way to state the difference
between the missions is that countering WMD is what we do about other’s WMD, while
the nuclear mission is what we do with our own nuclear forces. Clearly there is some
overlap in that U.S. nuclear forces primarily deter others’ use of their nuclear weapons
against the United States and its allies. U.S. Strategic Command currently has responsibil-
ity for both of these DOD missions.
35
Smith. The estimate of the number of nuclear weapons that North Korea possesses
varies with assumptions about how much fissile material it has produced and the designs
of its weapons.
36
James R. Clapper, “Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Commu-
nity,” Statement for the Record before the Senate Armed Services Community, February
26, 2015, 6, available at <www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/testimonies/209-congres-
sional-testimonies-2015/1174-statement-for-the-record-worldwide-threat-assessment-of-
the-u-s-ic-before-the-sasc>.
37
2014 Defense White Paper (Seoul: Ministry of National Defense, 2014), 32, available at
<www.mnd.go.kr/user/mnd_eng/upload/pblictn/PBLICTNEBOOK_201506161156164570.
pdf>. The U.S. Department of State also judges that Pyongyang may still consider the
use of biological weapons as an option, even though it is a state party to the Biological
Weapons Convention (BWC). The State Department further notes that North Korea has a
longstanding biological weapons (BW) capability and biotechnology infrastructure that
could support a BW program, although the United States does not possess definitive
information to support a finding of North Korean noncompliance with the BWC. See
2015 Report on Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and
Disarmament Agreements and Commitments (Washington, DC: Department of State, June
5, 2015, Part III, “North Korea,” available at <www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/rpt/2015/243224.
htm#North%20Korea>.
38
Bruce Bennett has estimated the existence of 200 or so WMD sites in North Korea.
See Bruce W. Bennett, Preparing for the Possibility of a North Korean Collapse (Santa Monica,
CA: RAND, 2013), 99, available at <www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_re-
ports/RR300/RR331/RAND_RR331.pdf>.
39
For an expanded discussion of the challenges of WMD elimination operations in
North Korea and ways of responding to them, see Robert J. Peters, The WMD Challenges
Posed by a Collapse of North Korea (Baltimore, MD: U.S.-Korea Institute at SAIS, April 14,
2015), available at <http://38north.org/2015/04/rpeters041415/>; Scott Daulton and
Bill Shavce, “The Challenge of Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Korean
Peninsula,” Military Review, November–December 2014, available at <http://usacac.army.
mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20141231_art011.pdf>.
40
It is worth noting that U.S. forces’ capability to fight through large-scale chemical
and biological attacks is a matter of conjecture, based on simulations and noncombat
testing, since U.S. forces have not encountered any such attacks since World War I.
41
For example, see Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr., “No Longer Unthinkable: Should U.S.
Ready for ‘Limited’ Nuclear War?” BreakingDefense.com, May 30, 2013, available at
<http://breakingdefense.com/2013/05/no-longer-unthinkable-should-us-ready-for-limit-
ed-nuclear-war/2/>.
• 124 •
42
The BWC entered into force on March 26, 1975, and the Chemical Weapons Con-
vention (CWC) entered into force on April 29, 1997. Only three states currently remain
outside the CWC: Egypt, North Korea, and South Sudan. Israel signed the convention in
1993 but has never ratified it. Angola, Myanmar, and Syria joined within the last 3 years.
Fourteen states remain outside the BWC: Angola, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea,
Guinea, Israel, Kiribati, Micronesia, Namibia, Niue, Samoa, South Sudan, and Tuvalu.
Myanmar and Andorra are the most recent state parties, joining in December 2014 and
March 2015, respectively. See Arms Control Association, Fact Sheets and Briefs, “Chemi-
cal Weapons Convention Signatories and States-Parties,” available at <www.armscontrol.
org/factsheets/cwcsig>; “Biological Weapons Convention Signatories and States-Parties,”
available at <www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/bwcsig>; United Nations Office for Dis-
armament Affairs, “The Biological Weapons Convention, Status and Text of the Treaty,”
available at <http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/bwc>; Organisation for the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons, “Note by the Technical Secretariat, Status of Participation in the
Chemical Weapons Convention as at 17 October 2015,” available at <www.opcw.org/
fileadmin/OPCW/S_series/2015/en/s-1315-2015_e_.pdf>.
43
Syria, however, had acceded in December 1968 to the Protocol for the Prohibition of
the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous, or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of
Warfare (also known as the 1925 Geneva Protocol). United Nations Office for Disarma-
ment Affairs, Treaties Database, available at <http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/1925>.
As such, Syria’s use of sarin in 2012–2013 violated its obligations under the 1925 Geneva
Protocol.
44
The White House, “Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of
Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013,” press release, August 30, 2013, available at
<www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/government-assessment-syrian-gov-
ernment-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21>.
45
Ibid. Estimates of the number of fatalities range from the low hundreds to more
than 1,400. On August 30, 2013, the White House claimed 1,429 deaths resulted from
Syria’s use of sarin. On August 29, 2013, the Chairman of the British government Joint
Intelligence Committee report referred to “at least 350 fatalities.” See United Kingdom
Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, “Syria: Reported Chemical Weapons Use,”
August 29, 2013, available at <www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach-
ment_data/file/235094/Jp_115_JD_PM_Syria_Reported_Chemical_Weapon_Use_with_
annex.pdf>. The term hundreds of deaths is used in a Human Rights Watch report from
September 2013. See Human Rights Watch, “Attacks on Ghouta,” September 10, 2013,
available at <www.hrw.org/report/2013/09/10/attacks-ghouta/analysis-alleged-use-chemi-
cal-weapons-syria>.
46
See Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), “Syrian Chem-
ical Destruction Data as of 27 July 2015,” available at <www.opcw.org/special-sections/
syria/destruction-statistics/>.
47
OPCW, “Report of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria Regarding Alleged
Incidents in the Idlib Governorate of the Syria Arab Republic between 16 March and 20
May 2015,” S/1319/2015, October 29, 2015.
48
Theodore Schleifer, “Kerry: Syrian Regime ‘Absolutely’ Used Chlorine in Attacks,”
CNN.com, June 17, 2015, available at <www.cnn.com/2015/06/16/politics/john-ker-
ry-syrian-chemical-weapons-chlorine/>. Numerous eyewitness accounts indicate that the
weapons were delivered by helicopters, which the Syrian regime possesses but not by the
rebels it is fighting. See, for example, OPCW, “Report of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission
in Syria,” annex 2.
49
Inaccurate media reports have given rise to the fallacy that Syria’s use of chlorine as
a weapon of war is not prohibited by the CWC. The likely basis of these reports is the fact
that chlorine is not listed on the CWC’s Schedules of Chemicals. However, the schedules
were drawn up during the negotiation of the CWC to inform the convention’s monitor-
• 125 •
Caves
ing and verification efforts and focused on the types of chemical warfare agents known
to be in military arsenals of the time. Though chlorine was the chemical released in the
first successful, large-scale chemical attack of the modern age—by Germany in the 1915
World War I Battle of Ypres—the world’s militaries had long moved on to more potent
agents optimized for warfare purposes such as phosgene, sulfur mustard, sarin, and VX.
Chlorine came to be viewed as a toxic industrial chemical widely used for commercial
purposes rather than a chemical warfare agent. But that does not exempt it from the
CWC’s prohibition on chemical weapons, which is defined as applying to any toxic chem-
ical used as a method of warfare. Syria’s use of chlorine as a weapon of war unequivocally
is a violation of its CWC obligations.
50
Per The Economist, “the last precise death toll published by the [United Nations] was
191,369 in August 2014, followed by an estimate of more than 250,000 in August 2015.
But it then stopped updating the figure because of dwindling sources of good informa-
tion. On February 11 the Syrian Centre for Policy Research, a nonprofit group, claimed
that the true figure is now almost double that estimate at about 470,000.” See “Quantify-
ing Carnage,” The Economist, February 20, 2016, available at <www.economist.com/news/
middle-east-and-africa/21693279-how-many-people-has-syrias-civil-war-killed-quantify-
ing-carnage>.
51
United Nations, “Security Council Unanimously Adopts Resolution 2235 (2015),
Establishing Mechanism to Identify Perpetrators Using Chemical Weapons in Syria,”
SC/12001, August 7, 2015, available at <www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc12001.doc.htm>.
Russia insisted at the time that, if the Joint Investigative Mechanism attributes the attacks
to the Syrian regime, another United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR)
would be required to authorize any punitive action. If Russia and others block adoption
of such a UNSCR, the United States and its allies will need to determine whether the
situation merits taking action on their own.
52
United Nations, “Joint Investigative Mechanism Presents Its Third Report to
Security Council,” DC/3651, August 30, 2016, available at <www.un.org/press/en/2016/
dc3651.doc.htm>.
53
Stephen Hummel, “The Islamic State and WMD: Assessing the Future Threat,” CTC
Sentinel 9, no. 1 (January 2016), 18–22, available at <www.ctc.usma.edu/v2/wp-content/
uploads/2016/01/CTC-SENTINEL-Vol9Iss13.pdf>. Also see Beatrix Immenkamp, ISIL/
Da’esh and “Non-Conventional” Weapons of Terror (London: European Parliamentary
Research Service, 2015), available at <www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.
html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2015)572806>.
54
United Nations, “Joint Investigative Mechanism.”
55
The Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) “confirmed with utmost confidence” that two
individuals in Syria suffered exposure to sulfur mustard and concluded that it was “very
likely” that a baby also died from exposure to that chemical. See OPCW, “Report of the
OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria Regarding Alleged Incidents in Marea, Syrian Arab
Republic, August 2015,” S/1320/2015, October 29, 2015. Consistent with its mandate,
the FFM did not attempt to ascribe responsibility for the attack, but media reports sug-
gested the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
56
For example, see Hummel, 18–22; Robert Windrem and Tracy Connor, “Could
ISIS Strike the West with Chemical Weapons?” NBC News, November 19, 2015, available
at <www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/could-isis-strike-west-chemical-weap-
ons-n466431>.
57
ISIL claimed responsibility for the March 2016 terror attacks in Brussels, Belgium.
See Kim Hjelmgaard, Delphine Reuter, and John Bacon, “Islamic State Claims Responsi-
bility for Brussels Attack That Killed Dozens,” USA Today, March 23, 2016, available at
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/03/22/explosions-rock-brussels-air-
port/82107254/>; for the November 2015 attacks in Paris, see Rukmini Callimachi, “ISIS
• 126 •
Claims Responsibility, Calling Paris Attacks ‘First of the Storm,’” New York Times, Novem-
ber 14, 2015, available at <www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/world/europe/isis-claims-re-
sponsibility-for-paris-attacks-calling-them-miracles.html>.
58
In November 2015, as French Prime Minister Manuel Valls observed, “Terrorism hit
France not because of what it is doing in Iraq and Syria . . . but for what it is. We know
that there could also be a risk of chemical or biological weapons.” See Hamza Hendawi,
Qassim Abdul-Zahra, and Ken Dilanian, “Officials: Islamic State Determined to Produce
Chemical Weapons,” Associated Press, November 19, 2015, available at <http://bigstory.
ap.org/article/b6c721d1beb34b989bf46aa101cf361a/iraqi-us-officials-working-pro-
duce-chemical-weapons>. In December 2015 the European Parliamentary Research Ser-
vice wrote, “the European Union and its Members States must prepare for the possibility
of a chemical or biological attack on their territory by the self-styled ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq
and the Levant.” See Immenkamp, 1.
59
Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, Al Qaeda Weapons of Mass Destruction Threat: Hype or Reality?
(Cambridge, MA: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, January 2010),
available at <http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/19852/al_qaeda_weapons_
of_mass_destruction_threat.html>.
60
Harald Doornbus and Jenan Moussa, “Found: The Islamic State’s Terror Lap-
top of Doom,” Foreign Policy, August 28, 2014, available at <http://foreignpolicy.
com/2014/08/28/found-the-islamic-states-terror-laptop-of-doom/>.
61
Vladimir Putin, “Being Strong: National Security Guarantees for Russia,” Rossiiska-
ya Gazeta, February 20, 2012, available at <http://archive.premier.gov.ru/eng/events/
news/18185//>.
62
“Chemical and Biological Weapons: The Poor Man’s Atom Bomb,” North Atlantic
Assembly, International Secretariat, AN 253, STC (96) 8, Lord Lyell, General Rapporteur,
October 4, 1996, table 1, available at <http://fas.org/irp/threat/an253stc.htm>.
63
John P. Caves, Jr., and W. Seth Carus, The Future of Weapons of Mass Destruction,
Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction Occasional Paper 10 (Wash-
ington, DC: NDU Press, June 2014), 27, available at <http://wmdcenter.dodlive.mil/
files/2014/07/CSWMD_OccationalPaper-10.pdf>.
64
Ibid., 27–28.
65
See, for example, Andrew Hessel, March Goodman, and Steven Miller, “Hacking the
President’s DNA,” The Atlantic, November 2012, available at <www.theatlantic.com/mag-
azine/archive/2012/11/hacking-the-presidents-dna/309147/?single_page=true>; Gigi K.
Gronvall, Mitigating the Risks of Synthetic Biology, CFR Discussion Paper (New York: Coun-
cil on Foreign Relations, 2015), available at <www.cfr.org/health/mitigating-risks-synthet-
ic-biology/p36097>; Laurie Garrett, “Biology’s Brave New World,” Foreign Affairs 92, no. 6
(December 2013), 28–46.
66
For a discussion of the limitations of and possibilities for achieving a “rapid and
nimble” medical countermeasures capability for infectious disease, see Theresa Wiz-
emann, Megan Reeve Snair, and Jack Herrmann, Rapid Medical Countermeasure Response to
Infectious Diseases: Enabling Sustainable Capabilities Through Ongoing Public- and Private-Sec-
tor Partnerships: Workshop Summary (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2015),
available at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/21809>.
67
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Vienna, Austria, July 14, 2015, avail-
able at <www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/iran/jcpoa/>.
68
See, for example, Mark Dubowitz, congressional testimony, “Hearing before the
U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs,” Washington, DC, July 23, 2015; Institute for
Science and International Security (ISIS), The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action “Kicks the
Can Down the Road”: How to Prepare for the Day When the Can Finally Lands (Washington,
• 127 •
Caves
DC: ISIS, July 22, 2015); Eliot Cohen, Eric Edelman, and Ray Takeyh, “Time to Get
Tough on Tehran: Iran Policy After the Deal,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2016, 65.
69
For a discussion of the verification challenges of the JPCOA, see, for example, Da-
vid Albright, testimony for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “Joint Comprehen-
sive Plan of Action (JPCOA): Non-Proliferation, Inspections, and Nuclear Constraints,”
August 4, 2015, 9–14, available at <www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/080415_Al-
bright_Testimony.pdf>; Ollie Heinonen, Strengthening the Verification and Implementation
of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (Washington, DC: Foundation for Defense of
Democracies Press, November 25, 2015), available at <www.defenddemocracy.org/me-
dia-hit/strengthening-the-verification-and-implementation-of-the-joint-comprehensiv/>.
70
Kenneth M. Pollack, “Regional Implications of a Nuclear Agreement with Iran,”
testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, July 9, 2015, 7, available at
<www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2015/07/09-pollack-iran-nuclear-agreement>.
71
World Nuclear Association, “Emerging Nuclear Energy Countries,” updated De-
cember 2015, available at <www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Others/Emerg-
ing-Nuclear-Energy-Countries/>.
72
Saudi Arabia conceivably could attempt to purchase nuclear weapons or seek
some form of extended nuclear deterrence commitment from Pakistan. Pakistan has a
longstanding defense cooperation relationship with Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan’s nuclear
weapons development program benefited from Saudi support. See Feroz Hassan Khan,
Eating Grass: The Making of the Pakistani Bomb (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2012),
172, 280, 363. A discussion on one possible manifestation of a Pakistani extended
nuclear deterrence commitment to Saudi Arabia is discussed in Kenneth M. Pollack, “U.S.
Policy Toward the Middle East after the Iranian Nuclear Agreement,” testimony before the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, August 5, 2015, 9, available at <www.brookings.
edu/research/testimony/2015/08/05-us-policy-iran-nuclear-deal-pollack>.
73
For example, see ibid., 3. Pollack considers it more likely that Iran does not change
its regional strategy as a result of the nuclear agreement, but believes other courses, like
the one discussed here, are possible.
74
Ben Hubbard, “Arab World Split Over Iran Nuclear Deal,” New York Times, July 14,
2015, available at <www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-
provokes-sharp-reactions-across-the-arab-world.html>.
75
For example, see Payam Mohseni, “Introduction: Views from the Arab World and
Iranian Politics Post-Nuclear Detail,” in Iran and the Arab World after the Nuclear Deal:
Rivalry and Engagement in a New Era, ed. Payam Mohseni (Cambridge: The Belfer Center
for Science and International Affairs, August 2015), 8–9, available at <http://belfercenter.
ksg.harvard.edu/files/Impact%20on%20Arab%20World%20-%20Web.pdf>. The local
observers on regional implications of the nuclear agreement generally believe that the
short-term increase in tensions could give way to a longer term improvement.
76
For example, see ibid., 9–10; Pollack, “U.S. Policy Toward the Middle East,” 4–5.
77
Peter Baker, “In Congress, Netanyahu Faults ‘Bad Deal’ on Iran Nuclear Program,”
New York Times, March 3, 2015, available at <www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/world/mid-
dleeast/netanyahu-congress-iran-israel-speech.html?_r=0>.
78
According to a Deputy Secretary of Defense statement in 2014, this is supposed to
occur by 2020. See Cheryl Pellerin, “Budget Constraints Won’t Halt Asia-Pacific Rebal-
ance, Work Says,” DoD News, October 1, 2014, available at <www.defense.gov/News-Arti-
cle-View/Article/603364/budget-constraints-wont-halt-asia-pacific-rebalance-work-says>.
79
Third Offset Strategy refers to a DOD initiative to identify and exploit new capabili-
ties to preserve U.S. military technological advantages over its most capable adversaries as
they “catch up” to current U.S. capabilities. Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work has
described it as “new combinations of technologies, operational concepts, and organiza-
• 128 •
tional constructs to once again bolster a weakened conventional deterrence.” See “The
Third Offset Strategy and America’s Allies and Partners,” prepared remarks by Deputy
Secretary of Defense Bob Work at Royal United Services Institute, London, September 10,
2015, available at <https://rusi.org/event/robert-work-united-states-deputy-secretary-de-
fense-third-offset-strategy-and-americas-allies>. Deputy Secretary Work later identified
five technological focuses for Third Offset investments: learning machines, human-ma-
chine collaboration, assisted-human operations, advanced manned and unmanned
combat teaming, and network-enabled autonomous weapons that are hardened for cyber
attack and electronic-warfare environments. See Jason Sherman, “DoD Unveils Technol-
ogy Areas That Will Drive ‘Third Offset’ Investments,” InsideDefense.com, December 9,
2015, available at <http://nges.insidedefense.com/inside-pentagon/dod-unveils-technolo-
gy-areas-will-drive-third-offset-investments>.
80
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the Obama administration’s
plans for nuclear forces—including the cost to field, operate, maintain, and modern-
ize—would cost $348 billion over the 2015–2024 period or about 5–6 percent of the
administration’s plans for national defense. See CBO, Projected Costs of U.S. Nuclear Forces,
2015 to 2024 (Washington, DC: CBO, January 22, 2015), 3, available at <www.cbo.gov/
publication/49870>. A report estimated that the United States plans to spend approx-
imately $1 trillion over the next 30 years on maintaining and modernizing its nuclear
forces. See Jon B. Wolfsthal, Jeffrey Lewis, and Marc Quint, The U.S. Trillion Dollar Nuclear
Triad (Monterey, CA: James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, January 2014),
4, available at <www.nonproliferation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/140107_tril-
lion_dollar_nuclear_triad.pdf>. Modernization costs will peak in the latter 2020s and
early 2030s. In April 2016 Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter stated, “We expect the total
cost of nuclear modernization to be in the range of $350–$450 billion. Although this
still presents an enormous affordability challenge for DOD, we believe it must be funded.
Previous modernizations of America’s strategic deterrent and nuclear security enterprise
were accomplished by topline increases to avoid having to make drastic reductions
to conventional forces, and it would be prudent to do so again.” See Secretary Carter,
“Submitted Statement—Senate Appropriations Committee–Defense (FY 2017 Budget Re-
quest),” Washington, DC, April 27, 2016, available at <www.defense.gov/News/Speeches/
Speech-View/Article/744066/submitted-statement-senate-appropriations-committee-de-
fense-fy-2017-budget-requ>.
81
The U.S. nuclear force has been the foundation of national security as long as
adversaries have possessed nuclear weapons. It is not only the primary and irreplace-
able means by which the United States deters a potentially existential attack, but it also
underpins extended deterrence commitments to major allies. Some have asserted that the
United States cannot afford the planned modernization of its nuclear force and advocated
various cost-savings measures, including reducing the number of delivery platforms and
warheads, eliminating the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) or bomber legs of the
triad, and canceling the development of the long-range standoff cruise missile. See, for
example, James E. Doyle, “Better Ways to Modernize the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal,” Survival
58, no. 4 (August–September 2016), 27–50; Tom Z. Collina et al., The Unaffordable
Arsenal: Reducing the Costs of the Bloated U.S. Nuclear Stockpile (Washington, DC: Arms
Control Association, October 2014), available at <www.armscontrol.org/files/The-Un-
affordable-Arsenal-2014.pdf>; and Global Zero, Modernizing U.S. Nuclear Strategy, Force
Structure and Posture (Washington, DC: Global Zero, May 2012), available at <www.
globalzero.org/files/gz_us_nuclear_policy_commission_report.pdf>. Reducing the num-
ber of warheads and delivery platforms within the triad force may have merit, but only as
part of mutual, binding, and verifiable reductions with Russia that preserve or strength-
en strategic stability. The United States has declared its willingness to pursue further
reductions, but Russia has not taken up the offer. See “Remarks by President Obama at
the Brandenburg Gate—Berlin, Germany,” June 19, 2013, available at <www.whitehouse.
gov/the-press-office/2013/06/19/remarks-president-obama-brandenburg-gate-berlin-ger-
many>. Unilateral reductions, especially given an aggressive Russia that is deploying
• 129 •
Caves
multiple new nuclear weapons systems and issuing explicit nuclear threats, would
weaken deterrence. Discarding any leg of the U.S. triad would be highly risky as each
has attributes that complement the others and together ensure that no rational adversary
could calculate, on the basis of capabilities (leaving aside questions of will), that it could
successfully execute a disarming first strike against the United States or use limited nu-
clear strikes to decisive effect in a regional conflict. The latter consideration is particularly
pertinent to bombers and their associated nuclear weapons (standoff cruise missiles and
gravity bombs) as these capabilities provide less escalatory and more credible options to
respond to an adversary’s limited employment of nuclear weapons than those afforded by
higher yield weapons delivered by ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Both
standoff cruise missiles and gravity bombs deliverable by penetrating bombers are needed
to complicate sufficiently the air defense challenge of sophisticated allies with increasing-
ly effective integrated air defense systems. As long as alliances and extended deterrence
commitments remain central to U.S. national security strategy, the United States will
require an effective nuclear bomber force.
82
A recent DOD Inspector General (DODIG) investigation found, inter alia, that
theater nuclear planning expertise has not been maintained and that there is no resident
expertise on integrated theater nuclear planning at any of the geographic combatant
commands (GCCMD). The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Under Secretary
of Defense for Policy agreed with the DODIG recommendation that they update policy
documents and provide oversight of the capability to integrate nuclear options into con-
ventional plans. They also agreed with the DODIG that applicable GCCMD commanders
should develop nuclear planning capabilities and processes and exercise those plans.
See DODIG, “(U) Assessment of the U.S. Theater Nuclear Planning Process, (Report No.
DODIG-20150134), June 18, 2015”; Information memo from John T. Rymer, Inspector
General, DOD, to Secretary of Defense, Subject: “(U) Release of Inspector General Report,
‘Assessment of the U.S. Theater Nuclear Planning Process, dated June 18, 2015.’” These
are classified documents; only excerpts specifically marked unclassified are reflected in
this chapter. “Gulf Leaders Back Out of Camp David Summit in ‘Snub’ to Obama,” BBC.
com, May 12, 2015, available at <www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32694184>.
83
See, for example, Colby.
84
In March 2016 the U.S. military conducted airstrikes against ISIL chemical weap-
ons–related targets based on information obtained by a senior ISIS detainee. Barbara
Starr, “U.S.: ISIS Detainee Providing Information on Chemical Weapons,” CNN.com,
March 9, 2016, available at <www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/u-s-isis-detainee-provid-
ing-crucial-information-on-chemical-weapons/>.
85
BBC.
86
The White House, “U.S.-Gulf Cooperation Council Camp David Joint State-
ment,” press release, May 14, 2015, available at <www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of-
fice/2015/05/14/us-gulf-cooperation-council-camp-david-joint-statement>.
87
Nicole Gaouette and Tony Capaccio, “U.S. Offers Billions in Arms to Ease Mideast’s
Iran Anxiety,” Bloomberg.com, July 9, 2015, available at <www.bloomberg.com/news/arti-
cles/2015-07-09/u-s-offers-billions-in-arms-to-ease-mideast-s-iran-deal-anxiety>.
88
Michael Bowman, “U.S., Israel Sign Record Military Aid Agreement,” Voice of Amer-
ica, September 14, 2016, available at <www.voanews.com/a/us-israel-military-aid-agree-
ment/3509463.html>.
89
It would be a much bigger step for the United States to explicitly extend its nuclear
umbrella to Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) partners. It also may not be politically
saleable to the U.S. Congress or broader public given that GCC partners are not treaty
allies, unlike other states that enjoy the explicit protection of the U.S. nuclear umbrella,
and given the connection that a significant segment of the U.S. population seems to draw
between Muslims generally and terrorism, as highlighted in the 2016 Presidential pri-
• 130 •
mary season. Others may object to the United States adding to its international security
obligations at a time when the country already is stretched thin by security challenges in
Eastern Europe and East Asia, as well as in the Middle East and South Asia.
90
In the 1990s the U.S. Government seconded Department of Energy employees to
the International Atomic Energy Agency to support South African elimination operations
as well as the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq.
91
For a discussion of why China would not cooperate with the United States and
South Korea concerning a North Korean contingency, see Yun Sun, The North Korean
Contingency: Why China Will Not Cooperate (Baltimore, MD: U.S.-Korea Institute at SAIS,
July 25, 2014), available at <http://38north.org/2014/07/ysun072514/>.
92
The value of engaging China about cooperation in the event of North Korean
contingencies has been widely recognized. For example, see North Korea Contingency
Planning and U.S.-ROK Cooperation (Washington, DC: Asia Foundation, September 2009),
available at <https://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/DPRKContingencyCUSKP0908.
pdf>; Paul B. Stares et al., Instability in North Korea and Its Impact on U.S.-China
Relations (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2011), 18–24, available at <www.cfr.
org/asia-and-pacific/managing-instability-chinas-periphery/p25838>. The United States
has sought to do so in both official (Track I) and unofficial (Track II) channels, but China
largely has been unresponsive. For example, see “U.S.-China Discuss North Korean Col-
lapse Possibility,” Global Security Newswire, January 13, 2014, available at <www.nti.org/
gsn/article/us-china-discussed-regime-collapse-north-korea-years-ago/>.
93
This was a significant step toward increasing military focus on WMD contingencies.
WMD use is a low-probability (albeit increasing), high-impact contingency that has tend-
ed to garner more attention from civilian policymakers than military leaders.
94
On September 21, 2016, Marketwired.com reported that the countering WMD mis-
sion would soon move from U.S. Strategic Command to U.S. Special Operations Com-
mand. See “DTRA/SCC-WMD Hosts the 15th Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction
Global Synchronization Conference,” Marketwired.com, September 21, 2016, available
at <www.marketwired.com/press-release/dtra-scc-wmd-hosts-15th-combating-weap-
ons-mass-destruction-global-synchronization-conference-2160546.htm>.
95
Paul Bernstein, “Deterrence in Professional Military Education,” Air and Space Jour-
nal 29, no. 6 (November–December 2015), available at <www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/
digital/pdf/articles/2015-Jul-Aug/C-Bernstein.pdf>.
96
This challenge, inter alia, was addressed in a U.S. Strategic Command DOTMLPF-P
(doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, facilities,
and policy) Change Recommendation recently approved by the DOD Joint Requirements
Oversight Council (JROC), per the JROC decision memorandum issued by General Paul
J. Selva, USAF, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Subject: DOTMLPF-P Change
Recommendation for the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Leader Development
Education and Training, JROC Memorandum 123-lS, December 7, 2015.
97
See, for example, “Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons,” ReachingCriticalWill.
org, March 11, 2016, available at <www.reachingcriticalwill.org/disarmament-fora/hinw>.
• 131 •
7
Countering Terrorism
R. Kim Cragin
The United States faces an unprecedented threat from terrorism today: two
transregional networks actively plot attacks, recruit foreign fighters, and seek
to inspire “lone wolf” terrorists. But this threat is manageable. Rather than
trying to defeat terrorist adversaries, U.S. strategy should emphasize reducing
the risk of significant attacks in the homeland, Western Europe, Canada, and
Australia. In addition to homeland security measures, such a strategy would
be characterized by a shift, and likely an increase, in the placement of U.S.
special operations forces and intelligence assets overseas. Managing this threat
would also require greater coordination with, and persistence from, other
instruments of national power, including diplomacy and law enforcement. The
key counterterrorism challenge for a new administration, therefore, is how to
develop and sustain a strategy that manages this threat persistently, without
being on a constant war footing.
T his chapter addresses the counterterrorism challenges facing U.S.

policymakers today. To do so, it focuses on foreign terrorist groups
and how they threaten the United States and its allies in Western Eu-
rope, Canada, and Australia. Of course, most of these terrorist groups
also pose a threat to regional stability, as addressed in other chapters.
But this chapter prioritizes the safety of the U.S. homeland, citizens, and
residents. It argues that not only the primary threat to the United States
comes from two transregional terrorist networks but also that the Nation
faces an unprecedented threat from foreign fighters and individuals in-
spired by those transregional networks. This combination can be diffi-
cult to disrupt persistently, whether overseas or inside the United States.1
So the key counterterrorism challenge for policymakers today is how the
U.S. Government can manage this threat without being on a constant
war footing.
• 133 •
Cragin
Figure 1. ISIL Presence in Syria and Iraq
Source: Institute for the Study of War
Threats Posed by Terrorist Networks

This section provides an overview of the foreign terrorist and insurgent
groups that pose a threat to the United States, as well as the nature and
extent of that threat. Note that significant research exists on how and
why terrorism arises, why individuals become involved in terrorism,
how terrorist groups generate and maintain support, and why terrorism
declines.2 This section does not delve into that research. Instead it posits
that groups with transregional objectives and reach present the greatest
threat to the U.S. homeland and its allies in Western Europe, Canada,
and Australia. Subsequent sections address the threats posed by foreign
fighters and lone wolves in greater depth.
The Islamic State and Its Provinces

The primary threat to the U.S. homeland today emanates from the Is-
lamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).3 Led by Abu Bakr al-Baghda-
di, ISIL maintains its headquarters in Raqqah, Syria, and Mosul, Iraq.
Beyond these two cities, ISIL either controls movement (or at the very
least retains freedom of movement) across territory in both countries (see
figure 1).4 So it is often referred to as a terrorist group, an insurgency, and
a proto-state. ISIL has an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 local fighters, as
well as foreign fighters, also known as “volunteers,” who have traveled to
Iraq and Syria to assist with the struggle against Syrian President Bashar
al-Asad and join ISIL’s newly established caliphate.5 Experts assess that
• 134 •
ISIL had an annual revenue of between $265 million and $615 million as
of late 2015, stemming from local taxation, oil, kidnapping for ransom,
smuggling, and other forms of crime, although their revenue decreased
in 2016.6 ISIL leaders utilize this revenue, and personal relationships
built over the years, to reinforce their authority over “provinces” that
have been established outside the borders of Syria and Iraq, including
Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Libya, Nigeria, Paki-
stan, Russia (Chechnya), Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Yemen.7
In June 2014, ISIL spokesman Abu Muhammad al-Adnani announced
the creation of an Islamic caliphate in the territory under ISIL’s control in
Iraq and Syria, changing his organization’s name from the Islamic State
of Iraq and the Levant to simply “Islamic State.”8 The primary message
from al-Adnani at the time was that the Islamic State had established
governing structures and religious law in its territories, and thus all Mus-
lims had a religious obligation to transfer their allegiance to ISIL and
relocate to this newly established caliphate.9 Al-Adnani’s announcement
was accompanied by additional military victories, territorial gains, and a
concerted social media campaign to terrorize local and international op-
ponents in 2014 and 2015.10 Militant groups in the outlying provinces of
ISIL’s so-called caliphate also have followed its lead, adopting ISIL tactics
and using social media to advertise their campaigns.
While most of this violence has been directed inward or toward the
local residents of territories under dispute, ISIL and its affiliates also have
attacked international targets. Examples of international terrorist attacks
by ISIL and loyal groups include:
• August 2014: ISIL fighters decapitated American journalist James

Foley. The beheading was videotaped and posted online.11
• June 2015: A gunman attacked a beach vacation resort in Tunisia,

killing 38 individuals.12
• November 2015: Paris came under attack by ISIL fighters; 129 peo-
ple died.13
• March 2016: Twin suicide attacks on the airport and subway system
in Brussels killed 32 individuals; responsibility for the attacks was
claimed by ISIL.
Notably, prior to the Paris and San Bernardino attacks, terrorism ex-
perts debated whether ISIL or al Qaeda presented the greatest threat to
the United States, especially the U.S. homeland.14 This debate centered
• 135 •
Cragin
on two key assumptions. First, some experts assumed that ISIL leaders
were focused exclusively on the battle for control over territory in Syria
and Iraq and, therefore, would not attempt to reach beyond those coun-
tries. As a corollary, because ISIL leaders prioritized the near enemy (for
example, so-called apostate Muslim regimes) over the far enemy (for ex-
ample, the United States), it would not sponsor external attacks.15
Second, other experts assumed that ISIL would experience a backlash
among Muslim communities for its brutality on the battlefields of Syria
and Iraq. Examples of ISIL brutality included the widely disseminated
beheadings of Western journalists.16 ISIL also captured and then burned
alive a Jordanian pilot in February 2015. This assumption drew on past
experience with ISIL’s predecessor, al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which faced
significant backlash after its members conducted its own decapitation
campaign against Iraqi officials and foreign journalists throughout 2004
and then subsequently attacked a wedding party in Jordan in November
2005.17
Yet events eventually called both of these assumptions into question.
In the early summer of 2014, for example, rumors circulated that ISIL
had begun to reach out to militant groups that were associated with al
Qaeda but were disgruntled with its leadership and direction. These
rumors were substantiated several months later as terrorist groups in
Afghanistan, Algeria, Chechnya, Egypt, Libya, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, So-
malia, and Yemen declared their allegiance to, and were formally accept-
ed by, ISIL.18
Additionally, an unprecedented number of foreign fighters—30,000 in
Iraq and Syria and 5,000 in Libya by November 2015—continued to trav-
el overseas to join ISIL.19 This constant flow of foreign fighters, even after
the highly publicized beheadings, suggested that the anticipated backlash
was unlikely to occur. It was coupled with an escalating number of plots
both directed and inspired by ISIL leadership.20 Indeed, investigations
into the Paris and Brussels attacks subsequently revealed that al-Adnani
had been given responsibility over external operations as early as January
2014.21 It therefore became increasingly obvious that ISIL posed the great-
er threat to North America, Western Europe, and Australia.
Al Qaeda and Its Affiliates

If ISIL represents the primary terrorist threat to the United States in
2016, al Qaeda and its associates should not be ignored entirely. Cur-
rently led by Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks
on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in September 2001.22 It has
been a prominent actor in the wider Salafi jihadi movement since the
mid-1980s, initially under the auspices of Maktab al-Khidamat.23 Much
• 136 •
of al Qaeda’s worldview and ideology parallels ISIL. But al Qaeda leaders

prioritize attacks against the far enemy over the near enemy.24 Al Qaeda
leaders also have cautioned their adherents to avoid Muslim casualties
whenever possible.25 These divergences are not insignificant. They have
caused a rift not only between jihadists on the battlefields of Syria and
Iraq but also worldwide. Al-Zawahiri apparently anticipated this rift; in
May 2013 he designated an emissary to the conflicts in Syria and Iraq,
Abu Khalid al-Suri, in an attempt to resolve these differences. But al-Suri
was killed by ISIL fighters in February 2014.26
Al Qaeda, in contrast to a more hierarchical ISIL, has retained its net-
worked structure over the years. Often described as a franchise, al Qae-
da senior leaders reportedly remain based in Pakistan, but they provide
guidance to affiliated militant groups around the world. These affiliates
include al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), al Qaeda in the Is-
lamic Maghreb (AQIM), al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent, and the
al-Nusra Front in Syria.27 Additionally, the Khorasan Group, also based
in Syria, is comprised of experienced al Qaeda fighters from Afghani-
stan and Pakistan who traveled to Syria to fight the Asad regime.28 In
total, al Qaeda and its affiliates have an estimated 8,700 fighters glob-
ally, although it is worth noting that the majority of these fighters exist
with affiliated groups, not core al Qaeda.29 Al Qaeda leaders also have
established ties to the Taliban, Haqqani network, Tehrik-e-Taliban, and
Lashkar-e-Tayyba in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The rise of ISIL, its 2014 declaration of a caliphate, and subsequent
defections clearly put pressure on al Qaeda leaders to demonstrate their
relevance to the wider Salafi jihadi movement, of which both ISIL and al
Qaeda are part. They have responded to this pressure by positioning al
Qaeda as the most viable alternative to ISIL for those Muslims who do
not feel comfortable with ISIL’s tactics on the battlefield. Al Qaeda lead-
ers also have rebuked ISIL for causing disunity within the Salafi jihadi
movement. The following joint statement by AQAP and AQIM illustrates
this approach: “On top of this the [ISIL] spokesman declared war on all
groups and factions everywhere and threatening to fight and shed their
blood. This indicated the extent of their deviation and misguidance. In-
stead of directing their fight towards the enemies of the ummah, and to
direct their arrows towards the Jews and Christians, they chose to direct
their arrows towards the chests of Muslims.”30
Al Qaeda affiliates also have tried to revive their own efforts against
the United States and its allies. This has manifested itself in the emer-
gence of new al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and attacks by
al Qaeda affiliates against Western targets overseas.31 These include an
attack by AQAP on the office of the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine in
• 137 •
Cragin
Figure 2. Select Al Qaeda Leaders Killed by Counterterrorism Forces

Naseer al-Wuhayishi (2015), AQAP leader and deputy to Ayman al-Zawahiri
Sanafi al-Nasr and Muhsin al-Fadhli (2015), leaders of the Khorasan Group
Abu Yahya al-Libi (2012), al Qaeda spokesman and commander in Afghanistan
Saaed al-Sherhri (2012), AQAP founder and former Guantanamo prisoner
Anwar al-Awlaki (2011), American-born cleric and recruiter for AQAP
Atiyah ‘Abd al-Rahman (2011), deputy leader for al Qaeda in Pakistan
Osama Bin Laden (2011), the founder and visionary behind al Qaeda
Paris in January 2015 and an attack by AQIM on the Radisson Blu hotel
in Mali in December 2015. That said, neither of these attacks reached
the level of death, injury, or damage as those conducted by ISIL fighters.
Will al Qaeda fully reemerge in 2017? Will al Qaeda join with ISIL
to form a united transregional network? Will this united network pose
an even greater threat? These are the questions being asked by terrorism
analysts today. The answers will likely depend on the extent to which
the United States and its partners can maintain pressure on ISIL and al
Qaeda’s transregional networks simultaneously. Over the past decade, al
Qaeda senior and mid-level leaders have been targeted by U.S. and other
counterterrorism forces (see figure 2). It is arguable that these and other
intensive efforts have diminished al Qaeda’s ability to attack North Amer-
ica, Western Europe, or Australia or even to mount significant attacks
on Western targets overseas. But this type of counterterrorism campaign
requires concerted resources, including intelligence collection and anal-
ysis, law enforcement and diplomatic pressure, and, in many cases, the
use of U.S. military instruments, primarily U.S. special operations forces
(SOF) and airpower. These resources are finite, and tradeoffs exist. It
still remains an open question as to whether the U.S. Government can
effectively combat two transregional terrorist networks, as well as main-
tain its readiness against more conventional state adversaries. The new
administration, Democratic or Republican, will have to reconcile these
national security priorities.
Lebanese Hizballah and Lashkar-e-Tayyba

In addition to ISIL, al Qaeda, and their affiliates, two additional transre-
gional terrorist networks are worthy of note for U.S. national security
policymakers. Neither of these networks poses a threat to the United
States today, but they should be monitored for shifts in intent and behav-
ior. The first, Lebanese Hizballah, has not threatened the United States
directly since the early 1980s. But despite this absence, it often emerges
in discussions of transregional terrorist networks that might pose a threat
in the future. This is due in part to its relationships with Iran’s Islamic
• 138 •
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Shia militias in Iraq, the Palestinian

Islamic Jihad, and Huthi rebels in Yemen.32
Led by Hassan Nasrallah, Hizballah has maintained strong ties to Iran
since the 1980s.33 Originally an actor in the Lebanese civil war, Hizballah
shifted its attention to Israel and its forces in southern Lebanon after a
power-sharing arrangement was reached for the governance of Lebanon
as part of the 1989 Ta’if Agreement.34 Today, Hizballah reportedly has
5,000 fighters under its command in Lebanon with up to 2,000 more
deployed to assist President Asad’s forces in Syria.35 Its close ties with
the IRGC also provide Hizballah with access to weapons and financing,
and, in some instances, the two have been accused of collaborating on
terrorist attacks.36 Hizballah’s transregional network also has reach into
the United States, albeit in a limited way. In March 2014, for example,
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents arrested a Lebanese-born
American for attempting to travel to Syria to fight with Hizballah; he
reportedly received between $500 and $1,000 for his trip.37
Lashkar-e-Tayyba (LeT) also deserves some mention as another
transregional terrorist network that might pose a threat (albeit much
less so than the other networks discussed in this chapter) to the United
States and its allies in the future. Based in Pakistan, LeT is led by Hafiz
Muhammed Saeed and has a fighting force of between 750 to several
thousand.38 LeT has ties to al Qaeda and the Haqqani network, but it
also operates its own independent network, stretching from Pakistan
to Saudi Arabia to the United States.39 In November 2008, gunmen as-
sociated with LeT attacked the Taj Hotel in Mumbai as well as 11 other
sites, killing 164 people. U.S. citizen David Headley pleaded guilty in
March 2010 to scouting targets for this attack.
New Dynamics
The United States also faces two additional counterterrorism challenges:
increased numbers of foreign fighters and lone wolves. This section ad-
dresses these two threats as they exist now and how they might evolve
in the future.
Foreign Fighters
As of November 2015, 30,000 foreign volunteers had traveled to Syria
and Iraq either to fight against the Assad regime or otherwise support
the ongoing battles; an additional 5,000 were believed to be in Libya.40
While foreign fighters are not a new phenomenon, these numbers are
unprecedented (see table 1). For example, an estimated 20,000 foreign
volunteers fought against Soviet forces in Afghanistan between 1980 and
• 139 •
Cragin
Table. Basic Comparison of Foreign Fighters

Country (Years of Conflict) Volunteers Average Volunteers per Year
Syria (2012–2015) 30,000 7,500
Iraq (2004–2009) 5,000 1,000
Afghanistan (1980–1992) 20,000 1,650
1992; that is an average of 1,650 foreign fighters entering the conflict

per year.41 Similar numbers existed for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Approx-
imately 5,000 foreign fighters traveled to Iraq between 2004 and 2009 to
fight against U.S. forces for an average of 1,000 per year.42 These averages
are hardly comparable to the current conflicts: 7,500 volunteers per year
for Syria and Iraq and 2,500 per year for Libya.
Some debate exists, however, as to the nature and extent of the threat
posed by foreign fighters to the U.S. homeland, Western Europe, Canada,
or Australia. Most agree that foreign fighters can provide unique skills to
terrorist groups, such as medical skills or how best to use social media.
But questions remain about how many will return home and whether
those who do will conduct attacks there. The latter represents a key con-
cern for Western Europe today. If 30,000 foreign volunteers are in Syria
and Iraq, for example, some can be expected to be killed on battlefields.
Estimates vary. A report by the Soufan Group suggests that approximate-
ly 7 percent have been killed on battlefields.43 A separate report released
by the Brookings Institution cites an estimate by European intelligence
officials of 20 percent.44 By comparison, a report by Al-Manar, the tele-
vision news source associated with Hizballah, estimates 37 percent.45 It
is difficult to take numbers from Hizballah—ISIL’s archenemy—too seri-
ously. Nonetheless, if we use the high-range number of 37 percent killed
on battlefields, this still leaves 18,800 foreign fighters remaining in Iraq
and Syria with an additional 3,150 remaining in Libya. Roughly 15 per-
cent of these are estimated to be from North America, Western Europe,
or Australia, equating to 3,293 Western foreign fighters.46
From a counterterrorism perspective, over 3,000 Western fighters still
represents a fairly significant number, given the ease with which they
can travel throughout Western countries and the historical difficulties
that intelligence and law enforcement have experienced in monitoring
them. Clearly not all will return home to conduct attacks or will commit
terrorist acts if they do return. But some will. Estimates vary on potential
recidivism rates from 9 percent to as high as 60 percent (see figure 3).47
This variance suggests that more needs to be done to understand how
foreign fighters travel to conflicts, when and how they return home, and
how they will behave upon their return. Abdel Hamid Abaaoud, one of
the leaders of the November 2015 attacks in Paris, for example, recruited
• 140 •
Figure 3. Western Foreign Fighters after Battlefield Losses

15 percent of 18,900 in Syria and 3,150 in Libya = 3,293 total
Recidivism
Estimate: 9 percent
296 return home to conduct attacks
Estimate: 15 percent
494 return home to conduct attacks
Estimate: 60 percent
1,976 return home to conduct attacks
at least two dozen additional team members to conduct this attack. Seven
of the nine attackers were foreign fighter returnees from Syria. Two were
Iraqis. But most of the other team members—13 in total—had not trav-
eled to Syria or Iraq to fight, suggesting that returnees represent more of a
threat than their initial numbers might suggest because they could recruit
others to their cause.48
Notably, the FBI thus far has managed the risk to the U.S. homeland
posed by foreign fighter returnees successfully, while security services
in France and Belgium have not done as well. The question for a new
administration is whether the FBI can sustain this level of effort within
the United States in the mid-term or increase its investigations as more
foreign fighter returnees reenter the United States.
Lone Wolves
Experts use the term lone wolves to denote residents of the United States
who plan or participate in terrorist attacks without direct support or
operational guidance from terrorist leaders. Some lone wolves are in-
spired by conflicts overseas. Others are part of local paramilitary groups,
white supremacists, or even environmental activists. Members of the
U.S.-based Sovereign Citizen Movement, for example, have targeted
local police officers in Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, and Wisconsin.49 This section focuses only on lone wolves
inspired by transregional terrorist networks, namely ISIL and al Qaeda.
According to Director James Comey, the FBI had open investigations
on suspects associated with or inspired by ISIL in all 50 states as of Feb-
ruary 2015.50 Recent examples of lone wolf attacks include an attack by
two men against an event in Garland, Texas, in May 2015 and the death
of 14 people in San Bernardino, California, in December 2015. While
some experts dispute the danger to the U.S. homeland posed by foreign
fighters, most agree that lone wolves represent a real threat.
Significant research has been devoted to understanding why the cur-
rent conflicts have inspired so many lone wolves and attracted so many
foreign fighters. Most studies, one way or another, point to the relatively
• 141 •
Cragin
sophisticated social media campaign waged by ISIL.51 In characterizing

this sophistication, experts generally make two key observations. First,
while the production of ISIL messages tends to be centralized, the dis-
semination is diffuse. This means that it is difficult to “shut down” ISIL
messaging.52 Second, ISIL messages appear to be targeted toward specific
audiences, including foreign recruits, as illustrated by its English-lan-
guage magazine, Dabiq.53 Comey has taken this assessment one step fur-
ther, arguing that ISIL uses social media platforms to target messages
directly to recruits via smartphones.54 While less appears to be known
about which messages resonate with specific audiences, it seems clear
that ISIL’s use of social media has contributed to the increase in plots by
lone wolves within the United States.
Policy Implications
In summary, the primary terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland, Western
Europe, Canada, and Australia today emanates from ISIL; al Qaeda rep-
resents a secondary threat; and Hizballah and Lashkar-e-Tayyba repre-
sent potential future threats. Given the nature and extent of these threats,
the U.S. Government faces three main counterterrorism challenges: how
to counter two transregional networks simultaneously, how to anticipate
and halt the emergence of new transregional networks, and how to mit-
igate the danger posed by lone wolves and foreign fighters. These tasks
are not easy. But while it is impossible to provide a thorough counterter-
rorism policy in this chapter, the following steps represent a viable way
forward for a new administration.
First, a new administration should take the opportunity to revisit the
access and placement overseas necessary for the U.S. Government to
sustain activities against the ISIL and al Qaeda transregional networks,
as well as anticipate emerging threats. “Access and placement,” in this in-
stance, refers to the allocation of not only U.S. SOF but also intelligence
assets, FBI legal attachés, and other law enforcement personnel, such as
Customs and Border Protection and Drug Enforcement Administration
officers.55 The Barack Obama administration has already taken several
steps in this direction by increasing the number of SOF deployed to Syria
and Iraq and delaying their withdrawal from Afghanistan.56 But given
the counterterrorism challenges outlined in this chapter, a new admin-
istration is unlikely to be able to rely solely on SOF and airpower. It will
also need to leverage even more nonmilitary assets, such as diplomacy,
intelligence, and law enforcement.
Second, a new administration should take the opportunity to revis-
it the authorities and structure within the executive branch needed to
• 142 •
counter ISIL, al Qaeda, or other transregional networks effectively. For

example, as a new administration develops a way forward to counter
these threats, it may want to request an additional Authorization for the
Use of Military Force from Congress. It may also need to revisit intelli-
gence-sharing relationships and partnerships. Equally important, as a
new administration devotes more nonmilitary assets toward countering
these threats, this will require close coordination across the government.
The National Counterterrorism Center could help bring all of the Fed-
eral agencies together, but it cannot direct the reallocation of resources
toward this fight. Such an effort will need to be undertaken by the White
House.57
Third, the United Nations has undertaken multiple efforts to mobilize
the international community against foreign fighter flows. These efforts
include Security Council Resolution 2178, passed in September 2014,
that requires member countries to prevent their citizens from traveling
abroad to join terrorist organizations.58 The United Nations also has at-
tempted to work with member states to tighten their legal frameworks
against foreign fighter flows, as well as identify any needs for technical
assistance, especially with respect to advance passenger information.59 A
new administration should take the opportunity to broaden this effort so
that it focuses on not only outbound travel but also returnees. Specifical-
ly, the ceasefire and transition negotiations should address the dilemma
of what to do with foreign fighters residing within Syria and Iraq. Some
countries, such as Russia, have decided to revoke the citizenship of their
foreign fighters. But it is not in the interest of the United States to allow
these fighters to remain in Syria or relocate to another conflict. The issue
of returnees should receive more diplomatic emphasis, forethought, and
planning. Similarly, the United Nations should be encouraged to empha-
size the challenges posed by recidivism, to identify lessons learned, and
to help member states put programs in place now before they experi-
ence an unmanageable surge of returnees. A new administration should
prioritize assistance to these efforts, whether it be diplomatic, informa-
tion-sharing, or providing technical support and resources to member
states.
Fourth and finally, a new administration should conduct a full and
thorough review of the U.S. Government’s efforts to counter messaging
by ISIL, al Qaeda, and potentially other transregional terrorist networks.
This will not be easy. Multiple departments and agencies play a role in
what is referred to as public diplomacy, strategic communications, infor-
mation operations, or counter-messaging. But opportunities exist. For
example, defectors from ISIL have begun to speak out. Refugees also
have told their stories of horrible treatment and losses, which undermine
• 143 •
Cragin
ISIL’s claim to a legitimate caliphate. And just as social media assists ISIL
and al Qaeda, it also can be used to gauge the nature and the extent
to which ISIL and al Qaeda messages resonate with local populations
around the world. But the U.S. Government must have appropriate au-
thorities, structures, resourcing, and plans to take advantage of these
opportunities.
The United States faces an unprecedented threat from terrorism to-
day, emanating from a combination of transregional terrorist networks,
foreign fighters, and the lone wolves that they inspire. Yet this threat
does not necessitate that the United States be on a constant war footing.
It can be managed. Doing so, however, requires the U.S. Government to
prioritize its military and intelligence assets appropriately, coordinate its
diplomatic efforts more effectively, and expand the use of law enforce-
ment instruments for combating terrorism not only inside the United
States but also overseas.
Notes
1
See, for example, Jesse Byrnes, “FBI Investigating ISIS Suspects in All 50 States,” The
Hill, Briefing Room Blog, February 25, 2015, available at <http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-
briefing-room/233832-fbi-investigating-isis-suspects-in-all-50-states>; Molly O’Toole,
“Is Whack-A-Mole Working Against al Qaeda?” Defense One, June 16, 2015, available at
<www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/06/whack-mole-working-against-al-qaeda/115450/>.
2
For a summary of this extensive research, see Paul K. Davis and Kim Cragin, eds.,
Social Science for Counterterrorism: Putting the Pieces Together (Santa Monica, CA: RAND,
2009); see also Kim Cragin, “Resisting Violent Extremism: A Conceptual Model for
Non-Radicalization,” Terrorism and Political Violence 26, no. 2 (2014), 337–353.
3
For additional information on this group, see Michael Weiss and Hassan Hassan,
ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror (New York: Regan Arts, 2015). Note that some experts still
believe that al Qaeda poses the greatest threat.
4
Note that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) lost control over territory in
2016. For further discussion on gauging ISIL control over territory, see Kathy Gilsinan,
“The Many Ways to Map the Islamic State,” The Atlantic, August 27, 2014, available at
<www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/the-many-ways-to-map-the-islamic-
state/379196/>.
5
Subsequent sections address the foreign fighter flows into Syria and Iraq in greater
detail. For additional references, see Patricia Zengerle, “U.S. Fails to Stop Flow of Foreign
Fighters to Islamic State,” Reuters, September 29, 2015, available at <www.reuters.com/
article/2015/09/29/us-mideast-crisis-congress-fighters-idU.S.KCN0RT1VZ20150929>;
Michael Pizzi, “Foreign Fighters in Syria, Iraq Have Doubled Since Anti-ISIL Interven-
tion,” Al-Jazeera, December 7, 2015, available at <http://america.aljazeera.com/arti-
cles/2015/12/7/foreign-fighters-in-syria-iraq-have-doubled-since-anti-isil-intervention.
html>.
6
These numbers do not account for approximately $500 million to $800 million
taken from Iraqi state-owned banks. See Guy Taylor, “Islamic State Among ‘Best Funded’
Terrorist Groups on Earth: Treasury Department,” Washington Times, October 23, 2014,
available at <www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/23/isis-best-funded-terrorist-
• 144 •
group-earth-treasury/?page=all>; Frank Gunter, “ISIL Revenues: Grow or Die,” Foreign

Policy Research Institute, June 19, 2015, available at <www.fpri.org/articles/2015/06/isil-
revenues-grow-or-die>.
7
“Islamic State Expands into Pakistan with Tehrik-e-Khalifat,” Jane’s Terrorism and
Insurgency, January 30, 2015; Lara Jakes, “Who’s Part of the Islamic State? Depends
on Who You Ask,” Foreign Policy, May 21, 2015, available at <http://foreignpolicy.
com/2015/05/21/whos-part-of-the-islamic-state-depends-whom-you-ask/>; Charlie
Winter, “The Virtual ‘Caliphate’: Understanding Islamic State’s Propaganda Strategy,”
Quilliam Foundation, July 2015, available at <www.quilliamfoundation.org/wp/wp-con-
tent/uploads/publications/free/the-virtual-caliphate-understanding-islamic-states-propa-
ganda-strategy.pdf>; Aaron Zelin, “New Video Message from the Islamic State: ‘Victory
from God and an Imminent Conquest—Wilayat al-Khayr,’” Jihadology.net, May 11, 2015,
available at <http://jihadology.net/2015/05/11/new-video-message-from-the-islamic-state-
victory-from-god-and-an-imminent-conquest-wilayat-al-khayr/>.
8
Abdallah Suleiman Ali, “ISIS Announces Islamic Caliphate, Changes Name,” Pascale
al-Khoury, trans., al-Monitor.com, June 30, 2014, available at <www.al-monitor.com/pulse/
security/2014/06/iraq-syria-isis-announcement-islamic-caliphate-name-change.html#>.
9
Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, “This Is the Promise of Allah,” statement released by
al-Hayat Media Center, June 30, 2015.
10
For more information on territorial gains over time by ISIL, see the excellent maps
developed by the Institute for the Study of War, available at <www.understandingwar.
org/>; for more information on ISIL’s media campaign, see Aaron Zelin, “Picture or It
Didn’t Happen: A Snapshot of the Islamic State’s Official Media Output,” Perspectives on
Terrorism 9, no. 4 (August 2015), available at <www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/
Documents/opeds/Zelin20150807-Perspectives.pdf>; Ali Fisher, “Swarmcast: How Jihad-
ist Networks Maintain a Persistent Online Presence,” Perspectives on Terrorism 9, no. 3
(June 2015), available at <http://terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/426/
html>; Winter.
11
For an account of this and other kidnappings, see James Harkin, Hunting Season:
James Foley, ISIS and the Kidnapping Campaign that Started a War (New York: Hachette,
2015).
12
Ben Hubbard, “Terrorist Attacks in France, Tunisia, and Kuwait Kill Dozens,” New
York Times, June 26, 2015, available at <www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/world/middleeast/
terror-attacks-france-tunisia-kuwait.html?_r=0>.
13
Andrew Higgins and Kimiko de Freytas-Tamura, “Paris Attack Suspect Killed in
Shoot Out Had Plotted Terror for 11 Months,” New York Times, November 19, 2015,
available at <www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/world/europe/paris-attacks.html?ref=live-
blog&_r=0>.
14
President Barack Obama, in this context, compared ISIL fighters in Fallujah, Iraq,
to junior varsity basketball players. See Steve Contorno, “What Obama Said About the
Islamic State as a ‘JV’ Team,” PolitiFact, September 7, 2014, available at <www.politifact.
com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/sep/07/barack-obama/what-obama-said-about-islam-
ic-state-jv-team/>.
15
For further discussion on the near enemy versus far enemy debate in the wider
Salafi jihadi movement, see Gilles Kepel, Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam (London: I.B.
Tauris, 2002); Fawaz A. Gerges, The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global (New York: Cam-
bridge University Press, 2005).
16
For an account of these kidnappings, see Harkin.
17
Ibid., 176; Hassan M. Fattah and Michael Slackman, “Three Hotels Bombed in Jor-
dan; At Least 57 Die,” New York Times, November 10, 2015, available at <www.nytimes.
com/2005/11/10/world/middleeast/3-hotels-bombed-in-jordan-at-least-57-die.html>.
• 145 •
Cragin
18
Liam Stack, “How ISIS Expanded Its Threat,” New York Times, November 14, 2015,
available at <www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/14/world/middleeast/isis-expansion.
html>.
19
Subsequent paragraphs discuss the issue of foreign fighters in depth. It is worth
noting that as of mid-2016, the number of foreign fighters was estimated to be approx-
imately 27,500, with some departing for home or other conflict zones and others being
killed on battlefields.
20
Byrnes.
21
Rukmini Callimachi, “How ISIS Built the Machinery of Terror Under Europe’s
Gaze,” New York Times, March 29, 2016, available at <www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/
world/europe/isis-attacks-paris-brussels.html>.
22
“Al-Qaeda Names Ayman al-Zawahiri as Osama bin Laden’s Successor,” statement
issued on jihadist forums, June 16, 2011, translated and reposted by SITE Intelligence
Group.
23
Kepel; Gerges.
24
Ibid.
25
Ayman al-Zawahiri, “Letter to Zarqawi on Campaign in Iraq,” July 9, 2005, trans-
lated and released by West Point Counterterrorism Center, available at <www.ctc.usma.
edu/v2/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Zawahiris-Letter-to-Zarqawi-Translation.pdf>; Abu
Musab al-Suri, “Call for Global Islamic Resistance,” unpublished paper released Decem-
ber 2004/January 2005, translated and posted by SITE Intelligence Group, February
16, 2007; Abu Laith al-Libi, “Confronting the War of Prisons,” as-Sahab Media, May 24,
2007, translated and posted by SITE Intelligence Group.
26
“Militants Kill al Qaeda Emissary in Syria,” Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Monitor,
February 25, 2014.
27
Some fighters from al Qaeda affiliates have defected to ISIL. See Greg Miller,
“Fighters Abandoning al Qaeda to Join the Islamic State, U.S. Officials Say,” Washington
Post, August 9, 2014, available at <www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/
fighters-abandoning-al-qaeda-affiliates-to-join-islamic-state-us-officials-say/2014/08/09/
c5321d10-1f08-11e4-ae54-0cfe1f974f8a_story.html>.
28
When some experts argue that al Qaeda remains the most significant threat to the
U.S. homeland, they tend to reference the Khorasan Group. See Bruce Bennett, “Airstrikes
in Syria Also Target Little Known Khorasan Group,” Los Angeles Times, September 23,
2014, available at <www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-khorasan-20140923-story.
html>.
29
Estimates for the numbers of al Qaeda fighters come from a variety of sources,
including Bennett; see also “Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is Attempting a Comeback,” Fox
News, October 21, 2012, available at <www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/21/al-qae-
da-in-afghanistan-is-attempting-comeback.html>; “Mapping Militant Organizations,”
Stanford University, available at <web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/
groups/view/493>.
30
“AQAP and AQIM Give Scathing Rebuke of IS in Joint Statement,” November 1,
2015, translated and reposted by SITE Intelligence Group, November 1, 2015.
31
Eric Schmitt and David E. Sanger, “As U.S. Focuses on ISIS and the Taliban,
Al-Qaeda Reemerges,” New York Times, December 29, 2015, available at <www.nytimes.
com/2015/12/30/us/politics/as-us-focuses-on-isis-and-the-taliban-al-qaeda-re-emerges.
html?ref=topics&_r=0>.
32
Sirjah Wahab, “Hizballah Operating in Yemen with Houthis,” Arab News, March
28, 2015, available at <www.arabnews.com/featured/news/724391>; “Palestinian Islamic
Jihad,” profile posted by the Government of Australia, available at <www.nationalsecurity.
• 146 •
gov.au/Listedterroristorganisations/Pages/PalestinianIslamicJihad.aspx>; Mushreq Abbas,

“Iran Looks to Iraq for Syria Support,” trans. Joelle el-Khoury, al-Monitor.com, September
13, 2013, available at <www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/09/iran-looks-for-sup-
port-from-iraq.html>.
33
For more information on Lebanese Hizballah, see Hala Jaber, Hezbollah: Born with
a Vengeance (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997); Naim Qassam, Hizballah: The
Story from Within (London: Saqi Books, 2005); Augustus Richard Norton, Hizballah: A
Short History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009).
34
Hassan Krayem, “The Lebanese Civil War and the Taif Agreement,” Digital Docu-
mentation Center, American University of Beirut, n.d., available at <http://ddc.aub.edu.
lb/projects/pspa/conflict-resolution.html>.
35
As with ISIL and al Qaeda, the numbers for Lebanese Hizballah and its fighting
force tend to vary widely. A general consensus appears to be 10,000 from sources. But
Tony Badran, at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, questions these numbers in
his blog. He cites a Lebanese intelligence official as estimating a force of 5,000. Similarly,
some discrepancies exist on the number of Hizballah forces deployed to Syria, ranging
from several hundred to 2,000. For more information, see Tony Badran, “Hezbollah
and the Army of 12,000,” April 7, 2013, available at <https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/
commentaryanalysis/hezbollah-and-the-army-of-12000>; Dexter Filkins, “The Shadow
Commander,” The New Yorker, September 30, 2013, available at <www.newyorker.com/
reporting/2013/09/30/130930fa_fact_filkins>; Abbas.
36
Kim Cragin, “Hizballah, Party of God,” in Aptitude for Destruction, ed. Brian Jackson
et al. (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2005).
37
Abha Shankar, “Dearborn Man Arrested Trying to Join Hizballah Fighters in Syria,”
Investigative Project Blog, March 18, 2014, available at <www.investigativeproject.
org/4318/dearborn-man-arrested-trying-to-join-hizballah#>.
38
The National Counterterrorism Center Web site states that Lashkar-e-Tayyba has
several thousand fighters, while the South Asia Terrorism Portal Web site estimates 750.
See “Lashkar e Tayyba,” available at <www.nctc.gov/site/groups/let.html> and <www.satp.
org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/jandk /terrorist_outfits/lashkar_e_toiba.htm>.
39
Ibid.
40
Zengerle; Pizzi.
41
The number 20,000 represents a high-end estimate. See Thomas Heggham-
mer, “The Rise of Muslim Foreign Fighters,” International Security 35, no. 3 (Winter
2010/2011), 61.
42
Ibid.
43
Richard Barrett, Foreign Fighters in Syria (New York: Soufan Group, June 2014),
available at <http://soufangroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/TSG-Foreign-Fighters-
in-Syria.pdf>.
44
Daniel Byman and Jeremy Shapiro, Be Afraid, Be a Little Afraid: Western Foreign
Fighters in Syria and Iraq, Policy Paper 34 (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution,
November 2014), 20.
45
“9936 al Qaeda-linked Arabs Killed in Syria,” al-Manar.com, December 24,
2013, available at <www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?fromval=1&cid=23&-
frid=23&eid=126949>.
46
The 15 percent comes from estimated totals: 30,000 foreign fighters and 4,500
from the West.
47
Byman and Shapiro.
• 147 •
Cragin
48
These numbers were calculated based on the ratio for the Paris attacks—3 foreign
fighters: 10 local recruits.
49
The Lawless Ones: The Resurgence of the Sovereign Citizen Movement, Special Report
by the Anti-Defamation League, 2nd ed. (New York: Anti-Defamation League, 2012),
available at <www.adl.org/assets/pdf/combating-hate/Lawless-Ones-2012-Edition-WEB-
final.pdf>.
50
Byrnes.
51
See, for example, Byman and Shapiro; Winter; Zelin, “Picture or It Didn’t Hap-
pen”; Barrett; see also Scott Shane and Ben Hubbard, “ISIS Displaying a Deft Com-
mand of Varied Media,” New York Times, August 30, 2014, available at <www.nytimes.
com/2014/08/31/world/middleeast/isis-displaying-a-deft-command-of-varied-media.
html?_r=0>.
52
Jyette Klausen, “Tweeting the Jihad: Social Media Networks of Western Foreign
Fighters in Syria and Iraq,” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 38, no. 1 (December 2014),
1–22; Fisher; J.M. Berger and Jonathan Morgan, The ISIS Twitter Census: Defining and
Describing the Population of ISIS Supporters on Twitter, Analysis Paper 20 (Washington, DC:
The Brookings Institution, March 2015).
53
Ibid. See also Zelin, “Picture or It Didn’t Happen.”
54
Kevin Johnson, “FBI Director Says Islamic State Influence Growing in U.S.,” USA
Today, May 7, 2015, available at <www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/07/isis-
attacks-us/70945534/>.
55
Under the leadership of Admiral William McRaven, U.S. Special Operations Com-
mand explored the possibility of establishing what was referred to generally as a “global
SOF network.” This proposition came under significant criticism and so did not gain
traction among policymakers. This chapter does not advocate a return to the global SOF
network, but rather, a more limited presence in the form of a series of Special Operations
Command–Forward elements attached to Embassies or consulates. For more information,
see Posture Statement of Admiral William H. McRaven, Commander, United States Spe-
cial Operations Command, before the 113th Congress House Armed Services Committee,
March 6, 2013, available at <http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20130306/100394/
HHRG-113-AS00-Wstate-McRavenU.S.NA-20130306.pdf>; Jack Jensen, “Special Op-
erations Command–Forward Lebanon: SOF Campaigning Left of the Line,” sidebar in
reprint of Michael Foote, “Operationalizing Strategic Policy in Lebanon,” Special Warfare
(April–June 2012), available at <www.soc.mil/swcs/SWmag/archive/SW2502/SW2502O-
perationalizingStrategicPolicyInLebanon.html>.
56
Jim Acosta and Jeremy Diamond, “Obama Again Delays Afghanistan Troop Draw-
down,” CNN, October 15, 2015, available at <www.cnn.com/2015/10/15/politics/afghan-
istan-troops-obama/index.html>.
57
For further discussion on how to improve interagency performance against these
types of threats, see Christopher J. Lamb’s chapter on national security reform in this
volume.
58
Somini Sengupta, “Security Council Passes Resolution to Thwart Foreign Fighters,”
New York Times, September 24, 2014, available at <www.nytimes.com/news/un-gen-
eral-assembly/2014/09/24/security-council-passes-resolution-to-thwart-foreign-fight-
ers/?_r=0>.
59
United Nations, “Action Against Threat of Foreign Terrorist Fighters Must Be
Ramped Up, Security Council Urges in High-Level Meeting,” Press Release No. 11912,
May 29, 2015, available at <www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc11912.doc.htm>.
• 148 •
8
Cyber Policy
Janice M. Hamby and Thomas C. Wingfield
The effective use of the informational instrument of national power in all

domains, and the use of all the instruments of national power in the cyber
domain, will be a serious and growing challenge for the United States. The
next U.S. President must have a clear understanding of the relationship of
technology, law, and policy in formulating options. Centralized but not
procrustean, leadership at the highest level, providing a clear and rational
delineation of authorities, will be needed to coordinate and effectively employ
U.S. cyber and information capabilities. Internationally, engaging with allies
and partners will be vital to our defense; engaging with adversaries will require
a new understanding of deterrence and counter-espionage in cyberspace.
Domestically, new approaches to public-private partnerships will be key to
addressing threats, preserving civil liberties, and unleashing our potential for
improved governance and expanded commerce.
B y any measure, the United States leads the world as a cyber power in
terms of its cyberspace-related leadership and capabilities, research
and development, innovation, and commercialization of leading-edge
hardware and software, as well as more specialized products for military
and scientific applications. This is also true for the world of information.
Without any whole-of-government coordination, the United States pro-
duces and exports the lion’s share of globally consumed television, film,
music, and games, as well as data, information, and knowledge systems.
Its advances in mobile communications and social media have revolu-
tionized the way the global community communicates, learns, and even
thinks.
With this largely unplanned success has come a series of challenges,
many of which require a more deliberate approach and a national-lev-
el strategic effort with Presidential leadership to resolve. This chapter
provides summary views of many of these challenges and offers recom-
• 149 •
Hamby and Wingfield
Figure 1. Framing Cyberspace

mendations by which the admin-
Possible istration could gain traction over
Technology even the most daunting issues in
the information and cyberspace
Permissible domain.
Law
From the perspective of the
Preferable
Policy
Department of Defense (DOD),
the term cyberspace is defined as
a global domain within the infor-
mation environment consisting
of interdependent networks of in-
formation technology infrastruc-
tures and resident data, including
the Internet, telecommunications
networks, computer systems, and embedded processors and control-
lers.1 Protecting this domain is a national priority. It underpins U.S. and
global commerce, governmental and private discourse, innovation, and
creativity. It has evolved into an essential enabler of governance, busi-
ness, and personal transactions. It has elevated the impact of information
in all its forms and provides both opportunities for and limitations to the
way we conduct our national security strategy.
The actors with whom the United States must engage (and sometimes
counter) include capable nation-states, criminals, and nonstate actors.
Many of these are not bound by the same norms and restraints that the
United States observes. The complex motives and methods, combined
with a low barrier to entry, heighten the potential for damaging effects
caused by competitor and adversary actions.
The need to ensure that we both leverage the potential of cyberspace
for U.S. national and global advantage and protect our systems and in-
formation to ensure our prosperity and security as a nation demands
a comprehensive, integrated strategy that provides coherence of action
and synchronizes Federal, state, and local initiatives in cooperation with
our partners in industry as well as with foreign governments.
Framing Cyberspace: The Possible, Permissible, and Preferable

Because cyberspace is a domain of near-infinite complexity, we need
models to allow us to build common theoretical frameworks to help us
synchronize our academic research, operational planning, and high-lev-
el policymaking. Nowhere is such a common operating picture more
important than in explaining the relational positions of technology, law,
and policy.
• 150 •
Cyber Policy
In figure 1, the outermost box represents technology—the range of

the possible. As the largest box, it consists of everything that technolo-
gists have delivered or can deliver without violating the laws of physics.
Some of these options are lawful, some are not; others make good policy
sense, while others do not. To extend the metaphor, the top and sides
of the box can be extended with more time, more money, or smarter
scientists and engineers. The bottom, however, cannot be extended—it
represents those laws of physics and other barriers beyond our control
that limit our expansion to the other three directions.
The intermediate box represents the law—the limits of what is per-
missible. Outside this box are options that are technically feasible but
legally impermissible; inside the box is the full range of lawful options
for policymakers to consider. Just as with technology, the top and sides
of this box can be expanded—domestically by an executive order, stat-
ute, or court ruling. Internationally, we can expand (or contract) this
box with treaties or, more often, by concerted changes to state practice
with opinio juris (the stated position that international law requires or
permits a certain action), resulting in a reinforcement of, or change to,
customary international law. But just as with technology, there are vir-
tually unchangeable aspects of the law. Domestically, the best examples
are fundamental constitutional norms—freedom of speech, or freedom
from unreasonable search and seizure—that are unlikely to be altered,
even through another constitutional amendment. Internationally, we re-
fer to these near-unchangeable laws as jus cogens norms—prohibitions
accepted by so many states for such a great length of time that only other
jus cogens norms could displace them. Examples include the universal
bans on piracy, slavery, grave war crimes, and genocide. This is not to say
that these crimes do not exist but rather that their historical severity has
rendered them unlikely to ever be legalized. Their most important aspect
is their universal applicability, even in the face of a dissenting state. For
international lawyers, jus cogens norms are the equivalent of the laws of
physics.
The innermost, and smallest, box is policy—the realm of the pref-
erable. These are the policy options that make the most strategic sense,
aligning desired ends with available means most effectively. They make
the most political sense, whether in response to public opinion, me-
dia coverage, or interest-group or thought-leader positions. They might
be the path of least resistance within a bureaucracy, the least common
denominator position adopted by a coalition of allies, a workable com-
promise within a legislature, or an executive’s daring vision. In any case,
they are the product of the political forces operating at the time and
should be derived from the largest possible menu of lawful options. As
• 151 •
Hamby and Wingfield
Figure 2. Cyberspace Issues and Federal Boundaries

Artificial Security Advances Start-Ups, The Internet MOOCs Internet Access
Intelligence Incubators, of Things
Venture Capital Pop-Up Schools Cyber-based Protest
Nano-Bio-Robo New Technologies Media and
Connections Cyberspace On-line Learning Privacy Protections
Innovation in Options
Internet Economy Mesh Businesses Cyberspace
Education Anonymity
Classroom
Global Financial Technologies
Transaction Process Moblie Science in Encryption
System Automation Cyberspace Cyberspace Human Rights for
Digital Citizens Data Ownership
Bitcoin and Economy
BlockChain National Cyber Censorship
Power Strategies
Sharing Economy Hybrid/Gray Zone Cyber Arms Racing
Global/National Warfare Arms Control
Dual-Use Technologies
Logistics International
Warfare in Issues in Governance
Militarization of Multistakeholder vs
Cyberspace Cyberspace Multilateral Governance
Cyberspace Politics and Democracy
Edge Defense in Cyberspace International Norms of
Cyber Security
Net Neutrality Cyber State Conduct
Attribution
Cyber National and Private Sector Government Data,
National Cyber
International Law Responsibilities Information, Knowledge
Jurisdictions
and Liabilities Management
Data Localization Laws Social Media
Navigation Services Strategic Narrative/
Cyber Crime Messaging
Health Services Data Critical Communications
Balkinization of Infrastructures Public/Private
Infrastructures
the Internet Info Sharing
Assurance
TOR Dark Net
Hidden Services Territorial Sovereignty Issues Resilience
with the other two boxes, we can imagine three sides that can be moved
with time, money, and political capital, just as we can imagine a fourth
side that cannot be—policy options that are considered so politically
toxic or strategically unfeasible as to be impossible.
Governance Framework and Policy

Multiple partitions abound in the Federal Government’s design, reflect-
ing the economic and political priorities of the Industrial Age. One ef-
fect is the pile-up of “cross-cutting” issues—particularly those generated
by the disruptive information/digital age—that fail to fit neatly within
outdated Federal agency/department boundaries. Figure 2 shows exam-
ples of cyberspace issues that run across, over, under, and around these
boundaries.
This leads to costly dysfunctionality. Issues of cyberspace become too
fractured and segregated to fit within the logic of existing department/
agency mission areas. This limits responses to departmental or agen-
cy-specific responsibilities, which rarely consider or incorporate all
the other parts of a cross-cutting issue. The results are solutions with a
higher risk of failure—for example, the persistent failure to share elec-
tronic health records between DOD and the Veteran’s Administration.
Departments and agencies waste resources and duplicate efforts. Bureau-
cratic barriers bound Federal work and employees within department
• 152 •
Cyber Policy
and agency authority structures, which lose synergistic value. Moreover,

these arrangements cause unnecessary contestation for resources and ar-
guments over leadership, spending, and control at the expense of shared
best practice solutions.
Four reform strategies have been attempted thus far: grabbing agen-
cy components to create an Industrial Age–style Department of Home-
land Security, designating lead agencies, appointing “supervisory czars”
over groups of agencies (for example, Director and Office of National
Intelligence), and building lower-level issue-specific fusion centers for
cross-agency information-sharing and coordination. Collectively, these
strategies have generated modest improvements in shared situational
awareness on the cross-cutting issues of cyberspace. They have been
handicapped by a narrow focus, inappropriate appropriations classifica-
tions, and misaligned authorities and responsibilities, leading to contin-
ued duplication of effort, poor exploration of unintended consequences
of policy actions, and constant work to address undiscovered feasibility,
affordability, and utility issues. We offer the following recommendations:
• Map Federal Government relationships within cyberspace writ

large to generate shared situational awareness as the basis for ef-
fectively integrating the executive branch. This map should offer a
dashboard-style real-time presentation of connections, crossovers,
databases, and knowledge sets of the Federal Government and ex-
pand to include commercial, nongovernmental, and international
networks.
• As a first step to fitting the Federal Government for the digital age,
create an empowered and resourced leadership structure in the ex-
ecutive office with a cyberspace remit (rather than one focused on
e-government or cybersecurity).
• Task this new structure and leadership to launch a “hackathon”-style

initiative to acquire and explore new options for executive branch
network structures that are not dependent on current Federal Gov-
ernment agency and department boundaries, budgets, and author-
ities.
• Design a collaborative follow-on strategy with congressional Mem-

bers and staffs for identifying legal frameworks for authorizing,
appropriating, and overseeing such networked and adaptive struc-
tures.
• 153 •
Hamby and Wingfield
Reviewing Cyber Authorities

The U.S. Government has not clearly laid out the roles, responsibilities,
and authorities (RRA) of its components for cyberspace operations. As
a result, U.S. actions in cyberspace are nether coordinated nor synchro-
nized, and resources are not coordinated to reduce inefficiency and un-
intended redundancy.
As identified in the 2016 Cybersecurity National Action Plan (CNAP),
the Barack Obama administration’s cyber policy has been based on three
strategic pillars: raising the level of cybersecurity in American public, pri-
vate, and consumer sectors; taking steps to deter, disrupt, and interfere
with malicious cyber activity aimed at the United States or its allies; and
responding effectively to, and recovering from, cyber incidents.2 In addi-
tion to the CNAP, areas previously addressed include information-sharing
(Executive Order 136913), improving government information technol-
ogy and information security, increasing public cyber awareness and ed-
ucation, and increasing the size and quality of the military and civilian
cyber workforce. These initiatives are helping to address the tactical and
operational weaknesses of the United States. Unfortunately, what is miss-
ing is a comprehensive framework that clearly articulates the RRA for
Federal, state, and local governments. There are several key documents
that address aspects of this problem, the most important of which are
Presidential Policy Directive (PPD)-20, PPD-21, and PPD-41.4 All address
important shortfalls, but greater synchronization and clearer authorities
and responsibilities are needed. We offer the following recommendations:
• Replace the patchwork of executive branch policies that describe cy-

ber roles, responsibilities, and, on occasion, authorities with a single
overarching document.
• Ensure specificity and clarity when assigning RRA in cyberspace for

Federal organizations. There are debates about responsibility when-
ever agencies have to interpret RRA, which delays collaboration and
hinders the sharing of information. Require rotational assignments
for senior executives to ensure a more complete understanding of
the roles and responsibilities of other Federal agencies.
• Ensure this new document expands upon the framework initially

outlined in PPD-20. Unlike PPD-41, which focuses solely on event
response, the policy must look holistically at cyberspace to include
planning for the building of the cyberspace terrain and how we op-
erate in that terrain (both offensively and defensively).
• 154 •
Cyber Policy
• Continue the concept of using lines of effort as introduced in PPD-41.

This format is an easy structure to understand, clearly identifies the
supported and supporting organizations, and will enhance collabora-
tion among agencies across the range of cyber activities.
• Make the document unclassified. A major issue with PPD-20 is that

it is a top secret document and the vast majority of the workforce
has no idea of its contents—or even its existence. This made it
challenging for the Federal workforce to understand how its orga-
nization fit into the cyberspace architecture. In addition, the private
sector and American people lacked knowledge of U.S. defenses and
cyberspace capabilities.
• Consider creating a Department of Cyber to unify capabilities and

provide leadership. Following the U.S. Coast Guard precedent of
having one of the Armed Forces report to an agency other than DOD,
consider aligning U.S. Cyber Command under this new department.
Engaging the International Community on Internet Governance

The United States must engage the international community regarding
Internet governance to ensure that information in cyberspace remains
free and accessible to U.S. citizens and the global community. Fram-
ing this complex challenge requires understanding the roles that cyber
strategy, policy, regulation, and security play in Internet governance. It
is also important to assess whether our efforts to secure the Internet and
protect information and privacy rights are consistent with overarching
“governing” objectives (that is, information freedom and net neutrality)
and to ensure that our security efforts do not threaten the very liberties
they are intended to protect.
This is not to suggest that U.S. engagement can wait. The pace and
scope of the Internet’s growth and the infinite ways it is evolving (with
economic, political, and social implications) necessitate a deliberate and
decisive engagement. While the Internet has ushered in great societal
benefits, it has also introduced new risks, such as crime, terrorism, and
warfare, that threaten the critical infrastructure and services on which
societies depend. The risk borne by individuals and societies continues
to expand as complex and tightly coupled systems5 such as electrical
power grids, services such as health care, and the emerging “Internet of
things” are increasingly interconnected, moving us from the information
age to a “network society.”6 As with any technology, there are intended
and unintended uses and users. There are some who desire to leverage
• 155 •
Hamby and Wingfield
the Internet to bring local, national, and global services and benefits.7
There are others with nefarious intentions, introducing crime, exploita-
tion, and terrorism into cyberspace. We offer the following recommen-
dations:
• Map infrastructural Internet components to identify gaps and re-

dundancies in governance.
• Incorporate cyberspace policies and standards into future bilateral

and multilateral trade agreements to establish and reinforce needed
international cyber norms.
• Forge new ties with a variety of nonstate actors including indus-

try, nongovernmental organizations, and international organizations
(for example, the International Telecommunications Union, Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, and so forth) to
build a coalition of governing actors that share democratic values as
they relate to information and cyberspace.
• Engage the public in this policy formation process, as its under-

standing of the benefits and risks associated with the Internet is
key to its future security and resiliency. This can be accomplished
through different forms of public forums.
Measuring Performance in Cyberspace

Performance management has been required of Federal agencies since
passage of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. How-
ever, the integration of performance information into agency decision-
making is not well advanced.8 Despite efforts by the George W. Bush and
Obama administrations, the Government Accountability Office noted
that reported use of performance information for high-level objectives
did not improve between 2007 and 2013.9 Since cyber is a relatively
new field, cyber performance management is still a fairly undefined term.
During this developmental stage, the cyber world must embrace perfor-
mance measures that link organizational strategic goals and objectives
with strategic initiatives in order to assist government agency–level lead-
ers or executives with organizational decisionmaking.
Traditional information technology (IT) services, those commonly
found under the domain of Federal chief information officers (CIOs), do
have performance metrics. These existing metrics (for example, network
availability, number of trouble tickets resolved) do not address cyber per-
• 156 •
Cyber Policy
Table. Differences Between Nuclear and Cyber Weapons

Target of Development
Deterrence Effort Effects of Use Proliferation Deterrence
Immediate
Nuclear State-level Well
State overt Low
Weapons resources understood
destruction
State Individuals to Widely variable
Cyber
Nonstate state, but also breadth, depth, High Debatable
Weapons
Individuals self-creating and time
formance management. As a result, organizational cultures inappropri-

ately place responsibility for gains from cyberspace on technicians alone.
We offer the following recommendations:
• Include a performance management framework for cyber in the next

National Security Strategy (NSS).
• Mandate agency strategies include performance measures that di-

rectly align with the performance management framework in the
NSS.
• Develop performance measures that reflect cyberspace’s impact on

national strategy goals such as national security, civil liberties, and
economic growth.
Deterrence and Offensive Cyber Operations

Cyber deterrence is a critical component of overall strategic deterrence,
but it is far less developed conceptually. Some see a parallel between
nuclear weapons and cyber weapons and posit that nuclear deterrence
models could therefore be usefully applied to cyberspace. One critical
difference is the scalability of cyber weapons, which allows for cyber de-
terrence at the operational and tactical levels. The table highlights some
of the differences between nuclear and cyber weapons. These differences
illuminate the need to develop a new model that incorporates the unique
aspects of cyber deterrence.
The target of deterrence needs to believe the deterring state has the
capability to impose an unacceptable cost for an attack, coupled with the
will to use that capability, or the capability to defend against or immedi-
ately recover from an attack, rendering it ineffective. The highly secre-
tive nature of our offensive cyber capabilities and the many restrictions
placed on their use limit their deterrent effect. Additionally, cyber attacks
are often difficult to trace. This lack of attribution means attackers need
not fear retribution. Finally, leaders who feel vulnerable to retaliation or
• 157 •
Hamby and Wingfield
find an attack to be pointless due to resilience may also hesitate to act

or to escalate.
Cyber weapons are part of a larger arsenal of national power that the
United States could bring to bear to deter or, should deterrence fail, to
defeat our enemies. While cyber weapons may be the most appropriate
means to achieve a specified effect, other sources of national power are
also clearly relevant to both cyber deterrence and cyber operations in
conflict scenarios. We offer the following recommendations:
• Support a sufficiently capable cyber force to ensure a deterrent effect

and, should deterrence fail, to prevail in conflict scenarios.
• Emphasize the essential nature of cyber resilience as a matter of

broad national policy to promote necessary investments in backup
and restoration capabilities, and invest in technologies that make
defensive cyber operations faster and less manpower-intensive, such
as artificial intelligence and big data analytics.
• Direct research on the integration of cyber capabilities into deter-

rence theory frameworks.
Advancing Public-Private Partnerships

The loss of critical infrastructure “would have a debilitating impact on
security, national economic security, national public health or safety.”10
The majority (about 85 percent) of critical infrastructure is privately
owned and operated, requiring a public-private partnership to provide
its security.11 Operating alone, the private sector is incentivized by profit
and is averse to liability. This puts the resiliency of national critical infra-
structure at risk.
The current strategy of promoting and facilitating best practices and
information-sharing with the government is necessary but insufficient
to addressing sophisticated threats of organized crime, terrorists, and
nation-states. National interests traditionally handled through law en-
forcement or national defense are not aligned with the financial and rep-
utational interests of the private sector. As the United Kingdom Cyber
Security Strategy states, “Just as in the 19th century we had to secure the
seas for our national safety and prosperity, and in the 20th century we had
to secure the air, in the 21st century we also have to secure our advantage
in cyber space.”12 We offer the following recommendations:
• 158 •
Cyber Policy
• Propose legislation to accelerate and expand the provisions of the

U.S. Cybersecurity Act of 2015.
• Promote incentives, venues, and opportunities that encourage pri-

vate-sector participation in solution development.
Privacy and Identity

The laws, regulations, and standards that govern the protection of per-
sonal information and the release, mandatory or otherwise, of data col-
lected or maintained by the U.S. Government are undergoing a period of
review. The triple challenges of IT advances, the globalized flow of data
for trade and other purposes, and the value, both legal and illegal, of
individually identifiable information have caused this relook. Advances
in IT have included an exponential increase in collection, storage, and
processing capabilities, including the development of machine learning
algorithms that greatly surpass human ability in pattern matching and
discovery. The globalized flow of data is fueled by electronic commerce,
off-shoring, and transnational workforces enabling 24/7 operations that
flow from time zone to time zone. Finally, the value of individually iden-
tifiable information enables both good and bad things: it can not only as-
sist law enforcement and intelligence activities and enable better service,
but it also fuels identity theft, fraud, and blackmail.
This situation is exacerbated by the reality that different cultures ap-
proach the definition and protection of privacy very differently. This dif-
ference has complicated global commerce and international legal struc-
tures, but solutions such as the European Union–U.S. Privacy Shield
have been developed to bridge such divides. Challenges remain. Existing
controls are structured for legacy structures and technologies. Emerging
technologies present new challenges. This new and evolving state of af-
fairs requires careful consideration to ensure that government activities
are consistent with social values, international trade agreements, and re-
ality.
Several important initiatives are emerging to create a foundation for a
solid path forward. The creation of the Federal Privacy Council is criti-
cal to these efforts and signals the importance with which the problems
associated with privacy and technology are considered. Similarly, the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has begun twin
efforts in developing guidance and standards for privacy and de-iden-
tification processes. Emerging research from academia and industry in
topics such as privacy labeling and management, database privacy, and
differential privacy is critical to the development of tools and practices
• 159 •
Hamby and Wingfield
for privacy problems. There is an emerging community of practice of

privacy officers, mathematicians, computer scientists, and civil libertar-
ians that provides fora for the discussion and presentation of research.
Building on these initiatives provides a way forward to address privacy
and data release concerns. We offer these recommendations:
• Leverage the Privacy Council and NIST efforts to provide intellectu-

al support to the community of practice and create feedback mech-
anisms to U.S. Government efforts.
• Prioritize funding the National Science Foundation and other gov-

ernment research to support existing privacy enhancing functional
research, such as differential privacy.
• Fund research into the future of privacy, such as the issues associated
with big data analysis that derives private information from contex-
tual data, a lack of published information, or from cross-referencing
information from multiple sources. All these approaches have been
used to expose private information and present significant challeng-
es for both individuals who wish to keep aspects of their lives secret
and for governments that need to keep aspects of operations (such
as research and development and counterintelligence efforts) secret.
• Sponsor research into cascading effects from privacy violations that

subvert national goals in order to reveal currently unimagined poli-
cy and scientific needs.
Foreseeing the Future of Identity

Concepts of identity are evolving in ways that are difficult to predict. In
the past, identity elements were defined through elements of person-
hood (name, eye color), job (title, responsibilities), profession (lawyer,
doctor), relationship (family or network member), interests (hobbies,
habits), culture (values and belief systems, heritage, citizenship), and
political structures. Layering on those established identity elements are
new, cyber-enabled identities, which may or may not relate closely (or at
all) to physical reality.
Cyber identities may be expressed through a variety of means, includ-
ing avatars in artificial worlds, software bots that execute behaviors (such
as troll armies), affiliation with ad hoc communities (such as Anony-
mous), or as social media characters. Besides being new ways to create
or express identity, these cyber-enabled identity elements can be difficult
• 160 •
Cyber Policy
to relate to real people and thus cause challenges in realms as diverse as

national security and mental health. As cyber-innovation continues at
its breakneck pace, cyber-enabled identities and identity elements will
continue to evolve and mutate in ways that are difficult to predict, in-
cluding allowing people to “live” or express themselves through multiple
different identities or even many cloned identities.
There are important implications for this emerging fluidity in identity.
One is in governance: when one person can have multiple identities,
that person can opt in to multiple governance structures, ranging from
political to practice to commercial. Another is in security: identities can
be used to disguise or hide subversive activities, but may also be used
effectively to discover and understand alternative ways of thinking and
acting. There is benefit and worry; the balance between the two requires
significant understanding and structural philosophical approaches. We
offer the following recommendations:
• Appoint an interagency working group, with representatives from

the Justice, State, Defense, Transportation, and Homeland Security
departments, to formulate, lead, and coordinate legal approaches,
domestically and internationally, because cyber-enabled identities
can easily engage in behavior that crosses jurisdictional boundaries.
• Create an office in the Department of Homeland Security to engage

in dialogue with communities formed in the virtual world by cy-
ber-enabled identities for communication and intelligence.
• Fund research into the implications (for example, psychological ef-

fects or national security considerations) of single individuals engag-
ing in the virtual world through multiple cyber identities.
Technology for Governance

Explosive growth of unstructured data demands solutions to the challenge
of information management. As the use of mobile devices and sensors
grows and evolves, experts expect data volume to grow to over 4,300 per-
cent of 2009 levels by the year 2020. The Federal Government faces a need
to shift from collecting data to gaining new insights, identifying unexpect-
ed patterns and trends, and using data analytics to find new solutions to
complex problems—an analysis best conducted using data visualization
techniques. Unfortunately, correctly interpreting trends and patterns hid-
den in the data requires special skills in information and computing tech-
nologies that are lacking in the current cyber workforce. Additionally, ap-
• 161 •
Hamby and Wingfield
propriate investment in the underlying technologies themselves lags well

behind need. Ultimately, information processing and visualization must be
improved for national leadership to make sense of the proliferation of data
in order to inform policy and decisionmaking.
Visual analytics is an especially compelling technology because of its
potential to facilitate leadership’s ability to understand a situation quickly
and clearly and to make better decisions. However, a major challenge, in
addition to a very small talent pool, is the level of funding required for
high-end visualization resources and machine learning capability. Google
researchers note that machine learning can solve problems that no other
methods can but that the cost of the technology and maintenance of the
algorithms is significant and may be out of reach for individual organiza-
tions.13 A collective approach to develop capabilities that could then be
further customized for individual organizational use is warranted to make
these technologies affordable. We offer the following recommendations:
• Tap private sector and academic research to inform development of

objectives and policy regarding data visualization capabilities.
• Direct NIST to move more aggressively to instantiate a collaborative

model to catalyze development of data visualization capabilities for
the purpose of government sense-making and decisionmaking.
Decoding Encryption: Aligning Technology, Law, and Policy

The Nation faces the risk that our adversaries’ use of encryption technol-
ogies to “go dark” will cause the loss of the ability to surveil their actions
in cyberspace.14 Terrorists are using the Dark Web and strong encryption
technologies to plan and execute their operations protected from gov-
ernment surveillance.15 National security and law enforcement entities
desire a backdoor or master key built into the encryption algorithms or
legislation compelling companies to engineer their software allowing for
searches to surveil terrorists and investigate criminals.
The cryptographic, scientific, and technologic communities are unit-
ed in saying strong encryption is an all-or-nothing position and that
weaker encryption jeopardizes the global infrastructure of trust. Encryp-
tion is founded in mathematical principles and is considered strong only
when it is subjected to rigorous public scrutiny. A weakness—whether
accidental or legislative—is a globally exploitable feature.
Strong encryption is important to national security. Critical infrastruc-
ture, banking, commerce, and communications all rely on strong en-
cryption for security. Encryption protects and enables national defense,
• 162 •
Cyber Policy
commercial activities, and freedom of speech. Public and private entities

use strong encryption to fulfill their obligations to protect personal infor-
mation under legislation (for example, the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act and the Privacy Act of 1974).
Recent attacks in the United States, France, Belgium, and Turkey aid-
ed by secret communications using strong encryption provide a case to
limit it. This, however, would not be effective. Encryption technologies
used by criminals and terrorists are not controlled solely by U.S. com-
panies or interests and cannot be effectively curtailed though U.S. leg-
islation. Additionally, methods to surveil and apprehend criminal and
terrorist actors who use encrypted technologies do exist. These methods
exploit how the actors build and use encryption technologies and the
infrastructures of the Dark Web. Additional research is needed, as many
methods and techniques were exposed and rendered ineffective by the
Edward Snowden leaks of 2013, but others can be developed. We offer
the following recommendations:
• Support use of strong encryption, acknowledging its utility for pro-

tecting citizen data.
• Require use of strong encryption technologies in the Nation’s critical

infrastructure.
• Invest in advanced tools to identify and surveil criminal and terror-

ist actors.
Developing a Coherent Artificial Intelligence Agenda

Between May and July 2016, the U.S. Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP) completed four public workshops on artificial intelligence
(AI) to “identify challenges and opportunities related to this emerging
technology.”16 Focus areas included legal and governance, use for public
good, safety and control, and social and economic implications. Addi-
tionally, OSTP created a new National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC) Subcommittee on Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence
to coordinate Federal Government activities in these areas. These two
initiatives demonstrate that AI is gaining attention, but they do not con-
stitute a strategy for assessing the associated benefits and risks in a com-
prehensive manner.
With the imminent arrival of self-driving vehicles and precision
autonomous weapons systems, it is imperative that the United States
advance a coherent AI agenda addressing the technological, legal, and
• 163 •
Hamby and Wingfield
policy implications of this technological revolution. Failure to do so

threatens to leave the Nation incapable of benefiting from AI use for the
government or influencing responsible AI use in the private sector. We
• Charge the newly formed NSTC Subcommittee on Machine Learn-

ing and Artificial Intelligence to maintain currency on AI capabilities
and trends, regularly convene diverse experts in the field, offer ex-
panded participation in the subcommittee, and produce actionable,
timely AI goals.
• Complete a formal review of White House expectations to influence

private AI use and implementation of AI in government.
• Conduct outreach to address public fears that AI may cause loss of

jobs or that autonomous machines may threaten public safety.
Modernizing Government Cyber Infrastructure

The White House and Congress must continue to reform IT acquisition
practices in order to meet modernization goals and objectives. Numerous
studies and congressional testimonies have highlighted the need for a syn-
chronized and cohesive strategy to plan, program, budget, and execute
modernization of IT. A May 2016 report by the Government Accountabil-
ity Office (GAO) found that Federal agencies are spending almost 75 per-
cent of the $88 billion IT budget to maintain legacy systems.17 The report
specifically identified that 5,233 of approximately 7,000 Federal IT sys-
tems are spending all of their funds on operations and maintenance costs.
By comparison, development, modernization, and enhancement spending
for the same programs represents less than 25 percent of spending and
has declined $7.3 billion since 2010. The study also highlighted that nu-
merous systems were developed decades ago with parts and programming
languages that are now obsolete and pose significant risk. Some of the pro-
grams, such as the DOD program that coordinates the operational func-
tions of the Nation’s nuclear forces, were developed over 50 years ago and
use 8-inch floppy disks that have long ceased being produced. In other
cases, agencies rely on outdated operating systems such as those from Mi-
crosoft in the 1980s and 1990s that ceased vendor support long ago. As a
result, the GAO study found that agencies spend significantly more to hire
and maintain programmers who hold specific skill sets as well as expose
increased security risks. This comes at a time when more than $3 billion
worth of Federal IT investments will reach end-of-life in the next 3 years.
• 164 •
Cyber Policy
In response to these issues, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) developed the IT Modernization Fund (ITMF).18 The fund, as
part of the White House’s Cybersecurity National Action Plan, follows up
on the gains made from the Federal IT Acquisition Reform Act in 2014.19
The ITMF is in line with the recommendations from the May 2016 GAO
report and supports other modernization initiatives such as the General
Services Administration (GSA) 18F program.20 Success of the ITMF is at
risk unless several major weaknesses are addressed. We offer the follow-
ing recommendations:
• Establish a centralized board of experts to identify and prioritize the

most pressing legacy IT systems to be targeted for replacement with
a smaller number of common platforms.
• Provide an initial $3.1 billion in seed funding. Based on calculations

provided by OMB, the funding will address at least $12 billion in
modernization projects and generate the momentum needed to es-
tablish a repayment process to ensure the ITMF is self-sustaining.
• Establish, under the oversight of the GSA, a centralized fund sup-

porting agency modernization plans, competitively distributed
based on plan quality.
• Leverage GSA experts in IT acquisition and development to support

agencies in implementing their modernization plans.
Improving the Cybersecurity Workforce

U.S. national security, the protection of critical infrastructure, and the ef-
fective functioning of the Federal Government require reliable and secure
cyber-based government assets supported by a professional cybersecuri-
ty workforce that protects these assets from all types of threats, including
cyber attacks. Recent breaches, including those resulting in significant
data losses at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and Internal
Revenue Service, revealed that the cybersecurity workforce is significant-
ly challenged in protecting the government’s cyber-based assets against
attacks. Efforts to generate the numbers of personnel with the requisite
competencies have been unsuccessful. The government lacks a coherent
and comprehensive approach to improve the cybersecurity workforce.
OPM has a responsibility to develop a holistic and proactive approach
to improve the cybersecurity workforce. This approach must include,
• 165 •
Hamby and Wingfield
but not be limited to, recruiting, hiring, developing, and retaining. We

• Establish a cybersecurity executive council composed of senior ex-

ecutives from each department and agency to establish the execu-
tive governance for cybersecurity workforce policies, initiatives, and
strategies.
• Develop and publish an updated job specialty standard specific to

cybersecurity positions to establish a single authoritative source for
cybersecurity positions.
• Establish common higher-level cybersecurity educational criteria to

create a baseline for cybersecurity educational requirements.
• Offer tuition assistance, reimbursement, and scholarships to en-

hance retention of government cybersecurity workforce members
and attract new employees from the private sector.
• Index compensation for specific cybersecurity workforce positions

to comparable private sector positions in order to retain top per-
formers.
• Require quarterly progress reports until these actions are fully im-
plemented.
Sensing and Responding for Agile Government

Information technologies now feed a swelling appetite for real-time in-
formation. Citizens demand and rely on data from their mobile devices
to make decisions (such as travel routes or which consumer product to
buy) that can immediately disrupt markets or drive new behaviors. Pri-
vate industry recognizes this as part of doing business in the 21st century.
Governments have not realized this and have failed to find ways to use
it to drive innovations.
Failure to adopt a strategy to serve citizen needs for information that
leverages the opportunities of technology while avoiding the inherent
challenges (privacy concerns, information overload, and so forth) plac-
es the government at risk of losing relevance, confidence, and trust in
the eyes of its citizenry. Citizens will find information elsewhere and
construct their own stories about particular experiences with govern-
ment entities based on their perceptions of the value realized from the
• 166 •
Cyber Policy
interaction. Worse yet, citizens may find governance of no value or fill

any vacuum with information from untrustworthy or biased sources to
construct their perception of events and motivations.
These alternate sources have demonstrated their ability to seize op-
portunities to sense public mood and provide the storylines that will
advance their cause by taking advantage of gaps in public information
and any signs of insecurity or fear. They feel no obligation to be truthful
or unbiased. The same dynamic has reduced the time allowed, from the
emergence of a public policy issue through the development and imple-
mentation of policy to address it, such that the failure to immediately
address a problem is viewed as unresponsiveness. Civil movements rely
on cost-effective, instantly deployed social media platforms to engage
advocates and escalate favorable public opinion. These same platforms
can be used to cultivate public friction and hateful or counterproductive
civic positions that present obstacles to positive government initiatives.
In this context, government has also failed to seize the opportunity
to employ the same information technologies to develop a better sense
of how citizens perceive public good and how they find value in gov-
ernment service delivery models. There is a need for the administration
to establish a sensing framework to develop insights regarding if it is
serving or failing to serve those to whom it is accountable. This applies
whether dealing with cyberspace or traditional governmental obligations
in establishing trust and engagement by the technology-enabled citizen.
A positive outcome of such an initiative would be the repackaging of
government data and information to proactively explain internal deci-
sion factors, competing agendas, and crowdsourced data gaps to external
consumers. This could illuminate the complexity of governance activities
and decrease the need to seek substitute data sources. Effectively it offers
content for civic education and distributes responsibility for governance
to a community of interested people. This new vision embeds contem-
porary consumer sense-making in the practices of the good governance.
We offer the following recommendations:
• Charge the Federal CIO with rapidly crafting a strategy to synchro-

nize and elevate e-government initiatives into effective citizen en-
gagement capabilities addressing needs for information dissemina-
tion, service provision, and gauging citizen valuation of government
policy, services, and transparency.
• Link agency IT funding to successful implementation of the Federal

CIO strategy (referenced above) to engage citizenry using required
metrics on citizen-perceived utility of systems, trustworthiness of
• 167 •
Hamby and Wingfield
governance messaging, transparency of governance processes and

decisionmaking, and government responsiveness to citizen needs.
• Develop a Web-based performance dashboard to present customiz-

able views of internal policy administration data metrics, provide a
more accessible window into government institutional activity and
value creation, and promote accurate perceptions of government
activity.
Conclusion
In a short time, cyber has emerged as both a warfighting domain, fully
as significant as the land, sea, air, and space domains, and an omni-
present public-private operating universe. The potential opportunities
found within the domain of information and cyberspace are seemingly
limitless. The risks of this reliance are clear, as demonstrated by recent
highly publicized network breaches. It is important that these risks be
deliberately accounted for and addressed in the process of making deci-
sions about the use of cyberspace.
Cyber competence must be part of the skill set for all senior leaders in
the national security enterprise. Most senior leaders received their pro-
fessional educations at the beginning of the cyber age, and their under-
standing of, and sensitivity to, the opportunities and vulnerabilities de-
scribed above may be limited. Nevertheless, mastery of the cyber domain
has now assumed critical importance because of our dependence on cy-
berspace. Agency heads must be held accountable for their organization’s
employment of information technologies—abrogation of responsibility
to CIOs and other “cyber experts” is unacceptable.
Addressing the critical challenges of cyberspace must be approached
with an understanding of limitations and risks inherent in the use of the
technologies that underpin the domain’s potential. The authors here have
highlighted promising opportunities and areas of concern. Specific rec-
ommendations are offered to contribute to a Presidency ready to embrace
both the risks and the opportunities facing the Nation in cyberspace.
The authors would like to thank the following contributors to their

chapter: William S. Boddie, James Churbuck, Cathryn Downes, Carl
J. Horn, Michael D. Love, Jenny Hall Mandula, Kenneth D. Rogers,
John L. O’Brien, Julie J.C.H. Ryan, Paul Shapiro, George Trawick, and
Veronica J. Wendt.
• 168 •
Cyber Policy
Notes
1
Joint Publication 3-13, Information Operations (Washington, DC: The Joint Staff,
2014), available at <www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_13.pdf>.
2
White House Fact Sheet, “Cybersecurity National Action Plan,” February 9, 2016,
available at <www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/09/fact-sheet-cybersecuri-
ty-national-action-plan>.
3
Executive Order 13691, “Promoting Private Sector Cybersecurity Infor-
mation Sharing,” February 13, 2015, available at <www.federalregister.gov/arti-
cles/2015/02/20/2015-03714/promoting-private-sector-cybersecurity-information-sharing>.
4
Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 20, “U.S. Cyber Operations Policy” (2012), is a
classified document that provides a framework for the roles and responsibilities of the
executive branch’s agencies in cyberspace as well as a framework for U.S. cybersecurity.
PPD-21, “Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience” (2013), provides a top-down
risk management architecture and directed the creation of the national critical infrastruc-
ture centers for enhanced information-sharing and collaboration. Supporting PPD-21 is
Executive Order 13636, “Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity,” which focuses
on the cyberspace security aspect of PPD-21. PPD-41, “United States Cyber Incident
Coordination” (2016), articulates how the Federal Government coordinates its incident
response activities to significant cyber incidents.
5
Charles Perrow, Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies (New York: Basic
Books, 1984).
6
Manuel Castells, “Informationalism, Networks, and the Network Society: A Theo-
retical Blueprint,” in The Network Society: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, ed. Manuel Castells
(New York: Edward Elgar Publishers, 2004).
7
Laura DeNardis, Internet Points of Control as Global Governance, Internet Governance
Paper No. 2 (Ontario, Canada: Centre for International Governance Innovation, 2013).
8
John Kamensky, “Why Isn’t Performance Information Being Used?” Government
Executive, October 14, 2014, available at <www.govexec.com/excellence/promising-prac-
tices/2014/10/why-isnt performance-information-being-used/96347/>.
9
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Managing for Results: Agencies’ Trends
in the Use of Performance Information to Make Decisions, GAO 14-747 (Washington, DC:
GAO, 2014).
10
PPD-21.
11
Nathan E. Busch and Austin D. Givens, “Public-Private Partnerships in Homeland
Security: Opportunities and Challenges,” Homeland Security Affairs 8, no. 18 (October
2012), available at <www.hsaj.org/articles/233>.
12
“Cyber Security Strategy of the United Kingdom: Safety, Security and Resilience
in Cyber Space,” 2009, available at <www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/228841/7642.pdf>.
13
Zachary Chase Lipton, “The High Costs of Maintaining Machine Learning Systems,”
KDNuggets News, 2015, available at <www.kdnuggets.com/2015/01/high-cost-machine-
learning-technical-debt.html>.
14
Senate Hearing on Worldwide Threats, 2016.
15
The Dark Web is commonly defined as a sub-portion of the Internet that consists
of Web sites, portals, and social media similar to the open Internet, but that is accessible
only through specially designed Web browsers and using technologies that easily ano-
nymizes the user and encrypts all of his traffic, data, and activities.
• 169 •
Hamby and Wingfield
16
Ed Felton, “Preparing for the Future of Artificial Intelligence,” WhiteHouse.gov, May
3, 2016, available at <www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/05/03/preparing-future-artifi-
cial-intelligence>.
17
“Federal Agencies Need to Address Aging Legacy Systems,” GAO.gov, May 25,
2016, available at <www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-696T>.
18
“Federal Agencies: Reliance on Outdated and Unsupported Information Technolo-
gy: A Ticking Time Bomb,” hearings before the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, House of Representatives, 114th Cong., testimony of the Honorable Tony Scott,
available at <https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2016-05-25-Scott-
Testimony-OMB.pdf>.
19
White House Fact Sheet, “Cybersecurity National Action Plan.”
20
GAO, Building the 21st Century Digital Government, available at <https://18f.gsa.gov/>.
• 170 •
9
Asia Pacific
James J. Przystup and Phillip C. Saunders
This chapter examines the strategic challenges the United States confronts in the
Asia-Pacific region and argues that the United States should work with allies,
partners, and multilateral organizations to build a rules-based regional order
that includes China and advances U.S. national interests. This requires sustaining
the U.S. rebalance to the Asia-Pacific and intensifying cooperation with other
regional actors to shape China’s choices. The chapter begins by reviewing the
history of U.S. engagement with Asia and describing the range of important U.S.
national interests located in the Asia-Pacific region or strongly influenced by
developments there. It then reviews major trends shaping the region (including
economic dynamism, China’s rise, and the U.S. rebalance to Asia) and considers
specific security challenges in Northeast Asia, the Korean Peninsula, the China-
Taiwan relationship, and in the South China Sea. The authors argue that the
United States needs to devote high-level attention to its alliances in Asia, to
cooperation with new regional security partners, and to shaping the Asia-Pacific
strategic and economic order in favorable directions. These actions will place the
United States in a better position to shape China’s strategic choices and integrate
China within a rules-based regional and global order.
A merica’s engagement with Asia began before the United States ex-
isted. In February 1784, the ship Empress of China departed New
York harbor, arriving in Macau in August of that year. The ship returned
the following year with a cargo of Chinese goods that netted a $30,000
profit. In Federalist Paper No. 4, John Jay referred to American com-
merce with China and India.
In 1835, before the United States touched the shores of the Pacific
Ocean, the U.S. Navy East India Squadron was established. In 1844,
China, in the Treaty of Wanghia, granted trading rights to the United
States. Two years later, the United States attempted to negotiate a com-
mercial treaty with Japan. The talks ended in failure, but a decade later
• 171 •
Przystup and Saunders
Commodore Matthew C. Perry concluded the Treaty of Kanagawa, open-

ing Japan to American goods and providing protection for shipwrecked
American sailors engaged in the China trade.
In the last half of the 19th century, U.S. commercial interests expanded
rapidly. At the end of the century, U.S. interests expanded beyond trade.
In the Treaty of Paris ending the Spanish-American War, Spain ceded the
Philippines and Guam to the United States.
Expansion across the Pacific brought the United States into contact
with the geopolitics of Asia, focused then on China and the efforts of
the imperial powers (France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, and
Russia) to carve out spheres of influence and commercial privileges in
the weakening Qing empire.
Over the past century, the United States has adopted multiple policy
frameworks to protect and advance its national interests in the Asia-Pa-
cific region. The Open Door policy toward China represented a unilat-
eral U.S. initiative aimed at rejecting imperial spheres of influence and
special privilege and advancing the principle of equality of commercial
opportunity. The Open Door evolved into a multilateral framework for
managing commercial competition in China. A second Open Door note,
issued at the time of the Boxer Rebellion, appealed to the imperial pow-
ers to preserve China’s territorial and administrative integrity.
President Theodore Roosevelt, playing balance-of-power politics,
aligned the United States with Japan to check Russia’s efforts to develop
an exclusive sphere of influence in Northern China and Korea. Roos-
evelt’s diplomatic intervention in the Treaty of Portsmouth brought the
Russo-Japanese war to a close.
In 1920, at the Washington Conference, the United States worked
to fashion a multilateral, cooperative framework to preserve China’s ter-
ritorial integrity and the postwar status quo in the Asia-Pacific region.
Lacking any enforcement mechanism, the Washington Conference sys-
tem failed to meet the challenges of rising Chinese nationalism, the great
depression, and Japanese unilateralism.
From 1945 through the end of the Cold War and the Barack Obama
administration’s rebalance to the Asia-Pacific, the United States has relied
on bilateral security treaties with Japan, the Republic of Korea (ROK),
Australia, the Philippines, and Thailand to protect and advance its se-
curity interests. This bilateral “hub and spokes” framework has served
as the region’s informal security structure, underpinning its remarkable
postwar reconstruction and present-day prosperity. Today, the hub-and-
spokes framework is evolving to encompass trilateral cooperation among
alliance partners and multilateral cooperation involving U.S. allies and
strategic partners.
• 172 •
Asia Pacific
The common principle underlying these various policy approaches

is the concept of “access”: economic access to the markets of the region
to pursue U.S. commercial interests; strategic and physical access to our
allies to ensure confidence in U.S. security commitments; and political
access to allow for the promotion of democracy and human rights.
At the same time, the United States has championed the evolution
of a postwar liberal, open, rules-based international order allowing for
the free flow of commerce and capital supported by the Bretton Woods
institutions of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and its successor the World Trade Or-
ganization. At the same time, the United States has promoted efforts to
support international stability and the peaceful resolution of disputes.
This principled U.S. commitment has contributed significantly to the
stability and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region today.
U.S. National Interests in the Asia-Pacific Region

The United States has a range of important national interests either lo-
cated in the Asia-Pacific region or strongly influenced by developments
there. These interests include:
• defense of the homeland, U.S. territories, and U.S. citizens
• maintenance of an open, rules-based international order, including

resolution of disputes through peaceful means rather than coercion
or the use of force
• access to the region and freedom of navigation in the maritime and

air domains
• maintenance of a stable balance of power that supports regional sta-

bility and promotes economic prosperity joined with opposition to
any power or group of powers that would deny U.S. access to the
region or threaten U.S. interests
• strengthening U.S. alliance relationships and reinforcing U.S. com-

mitment to security of its allies
• prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and

missile delivery systems
• 173 •
• promotion of global norms and values, such as human rights, de-

mocracy, and good governance.
Defining Trends in the Asia-Pacific Region

The Asia-Pacific region is marked by important opportunities and chal-
lenges that require high-level attention. Economic dynamism is in-
creasing the region’s weight in world affairs and its importance to U.S.
interests. China’s rise is part of this positive story, but Beijing is also con-
verting its astonishing economic growth into military power and diplo-
matic influence that are challenging the regional balance of power and
threatening the stability of the existing order. The Obama administration
has responded to regional opportunities and challenges via its rebalance
to the Asia-Pacific, which sought to increase U.S. diplomatic, military,
and economic engagement there. U.S. interests merit increased strategic
attention and resources, but the next administration will need to decide
how to sustain the rebalance and what adjustments are necessary given
the changing global and regional strategic environment and the U.S. do-
mestic political context.
Asia’s Economic Dynamism

In 2013, the Asia-Pacific region generated close to $21 trillion in eco-
nomic activity, over a quarter of the global economy. China and Japan
stand as the world’s second and third largest economies, while the 10
countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have
a combined economic output of over $2.3 trillion.1 East Asia remains
one of the fastest growing regions in the world, with an annual growth
rate of 6.8 percent in 2014, accounting for about 40 percent of global
growth.2 This economic dynamism is increasing the region’s overall stra-
tegic weight and importance to the U.S. economy.
In 2015, U.S. trade with Asia totaled more than $1.5 trillion, growing
from $397 billion at the end of the Cold War and $503 billion at the
turn of the century.3 In 2014, U.S. exports to the Asia-Pacific region
represented 27.8 percent of total exports, while imports accounted for
37 percent of total imports. Capital goods, excluding automotive, led
U.S. exports to the region, amounting to 26.3 percent, while consum-
er goods, excluding food and automotive, accounted for 32.2 percent
of U.S. imports from the region. Meanwhile the U.S. direct investment
position in the region amounted to $738.8 billion, an increase of 6.1
percent over 2013.4 The United States remains the single largest investor
in the Asia-Pacific region.
• 174 •
Asia Pacific
In 2012, 32 percent of export-related jobs in the United States were

tied to the Asia-Pacific region, representing 1.2 million American jobs,
an increase of more than 52 percent over 2002. In 2011, 68 percent of
all congressional districts exported more than $500 million to the re-
gion, with 39 states sending approximately 25 percent of their exports to
the Asia-Pacific region.5 Governor-led trade missions target the region’s
booming economies. Top U.S. trading partners include China (the sec-
ond largest), Japan (fourth), and South Korea (sixth); if taken as a whole,
ASEAN would be the fourth largest U.S. trading partner.6
The Rise of China

China’s rise is altering the strategic landscape of the region and chal-
lenging the existing regional order. In 1980, as Deng Xiaoping began to
open China to the market, China had a $200 billion economy; by 2014,
its economy topped $10 trillion. This remarkable transformation was
achieved by adopting market-oriented economic reforms and opening
China to foreign trade, investment, technology, and ideas. The result is
a China that is firmly integrated into the regional and global economy.
China is now more exposed to external economic developments; the
1998 Asian Financial Crisis and 2008 Great Recession both caused sig-
nificant slowdowns in Chinese growth.7 Conversely, China’s economy is
now big enough and integrated enough that its economic problems can
move global trade patterns and U.S. stock markets.
Like other Asian countries, China’s economic rise was enabled by an
open international trading order and stability in the Asia-Pacific region
underpinned by U.S. military power and the U.S. alliance system. A rea-
sonably good working relationship with the United States remains criti-
cal for Chinese goals such as sustaining economic growth and maintain-
ing regional stability, but the relationship has become more competitive
and many Chinese elites believe that the United States seeks to subvert
the Chinese political system and contain China’s economic and military
potential. As China has become more powerful, and has converted some
of its economic gains into military power, it has become less comfortable
with the U.S. alliance system and begun to seek more influence within
the region and in the international system as a whole.
China’s economic growth has reshaped regional trade and investment
patterns and greatly increased Beijing’s influence. China is now the num-
ber one export market for almost all countries within the region and has
dramatically expanded its foreign investment across Asia. China has a
free-trade agreement (FTA) with ASEAN and is currently pursuing both a
China–Japan–South Korea FTA and a broader Regional Comprehensive
Economic Partnership agreement. Chinese foreign aid and infrastructure
• 175 •
projects within Asia, some of which are now under the umbrella of Xi
Jinping’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative, are another source of influence.
Beijing has mostly used its economic power as assurance measures and
inducements to cooperate with China, but in recent years has become
more willing to use more coercive economic measures to punish coun-
tries that displease it.8
Rapid economic growth has also supported modernization and ex-
pansion of the Chinese military, which has enjoyed double-digit budget
increases for most of the last 20 years and now has the largest defense
budget in the Asia-Pacific region ($154 billion for 2016).9 The People’s
Liberation Army has been modernizing its forces and developing the
joint doctrine, training, and capabilities necessary to win “local wars un-
der conditions of informationization.”10 This modernization effort gives
priority to naval, air, and missile forces capable of projecting power be-
yond China’s borders and places increasing emphasis on the maritime,
space, and cyber domains. As part of its efforts to deter potential U.S.
intervention in a Taiwan contingency, the People’s Liberation Army has
emphasized the development of antiaccess/area-denial capabilities that
would raise the costs and risks for U.S. forces operating near China.11
These capabilities threaten to put at risk the U.S. ability to access its
allies, extend deterrence, and meet its regional security commitments.
Expanded naval and coast guard capabilities have also supported more
assertive Chinese efforts with respect to maritime territorial disputes in
the East and South China seas.
Countries in Asia have been carefully monitoring China’s rise and the
potential for a strong China to dominate the region. Aggressive Chinese
behavior toward Taiwan and in the South China Sea from 1994 to 1996
created regional alarm about a “China threat,” but more restrained Chi-
nese behavior and assurance measures adopted over the period from
1997 to 2008 helped ease regional concerns. During this period, Asian
views largely shifted from regarding China as a potential threat to re-
garding China as an opportunity; this shift was widely interpreted as an
indicator of the success of China’s Asia policy.12 Beginning in 2009, how-
ever, more assertive Chinese behavior on maritime territorial disputes
and other issues dissipated much of the goodwill built by China’s charm
offensive and revived regional concerns about how a strong China might
behave in the future.13 These concerns are most acute for countries with
maritime or land territorial disputes with China, such as India, Japan,
Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam. Chinese policymakers talk about
the need to maintain the proper balance between the competing goals of
defending Chinese sovereignty (weiquan) and maintaining regional sta-
bility (weiwen); under President Xi Jinping there has been more emphasis
• 176 •
Asia Pacific
on pursuing territorial claims and less concern about the negative impact
on relations with China’s neighbors.
In interviews conducted as part of the Institute for National Strategic
Studies research project “The Rebalance Beyond 2016,” analysts across
the region described China’s rise as “inexorable.” Despite the significant
economic and political challenges facing China, they were confident that
China will, at worst, muddle through, if not succeed eventually. Looking
ahead, interviewees defined a best-case China scenario as one in which
the pace of change would slow, allowing countries of the region to adapt
and, over time, engage and socialize China toward acceptance and sup-
port of the existing regional order. This will require sustained U.S. in-
volvement and coordination with regional allies and partners. For the
United States and the Asia-Pacific region, China’s rise (and international
reactions to that rise) will shape the contours of the international order
in the century ahead.
While participating in the postwar Bretton Woods system and bene-
fiting from a stable regional order underpinned by U.S. alliances, China
has moved to advance a parallel set of institutions that mostly exclude
the United States. These include the Shanghai Cooperation Organiza-
tion; the initial proposal for an East Asian Summit that would have ex-
cluded the United States; and under President Xi, the Asian Infrastruc-
ture Investment Bank, the One Belt, One Road Eurasian trade initiative,
the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, and the “Asia for
Asians” security concept, widely viewed as aimed at U.S. alliances and
the U.S. security role in the region. Taken as a whole, China’s growing
power and willingness to use that power to try to alter regional security
arrangements and support new institutions that advance Chinese inter-
ests and exclude the United States pose a significant challenge to U.S.
interests in the Asia-Pacific.
The U.S. Rebalance to Asia

Upon taking office in January 2009, Obama administration officials pro-
claimed a U.S. “return to Asia.” This pronouncement was backed with
more frequent travel to the region by senior officials and increased U.S.
participation in regional multilateral meetings, culminating in the deci-
sion to sign the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation and to partici-
pate in the East Asia Summit at the head-of-state level.
The strategic rebalance to Asia built on these actions to deepen and
institutionalize U.S. commitment to the Asia-Pacific region. In announc-
ing the rebalance in a November 17, 2011, address to the Australian
Parliament, President Obama argued that “Our new focus on this region
reflects a fundamental truth—the United States has been, and always
• 177 •
will be a Pacific nation. . . . Here we see the future.” The President noted
that Asia is “the world’s fastest growing region,” “home to more than half
of the global economy,” and critical to “creating jobs and opportunity for
the American people.” He described the rebalance as “a deliberate and
strategic decision” to increase the priority placed on Asia in U.S. policy.14
Then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton elaborated on the rationale
for the rebalance, arguing that “harnessing Asia’s growth and dynamism
is central to American economic and strategic interests” and that the
United States had an opportunity to help build “a more mature security
and economic architecture to promote stability and prosperity.” Given
the importance of the Asia-Pacific region, she argued that “a strategic
turn to the region fits logically into our overall global effort to secure and
sustain America’s global leadership.”15
While the main objective of the rebalance was to bring U.S. foreign
policy commitments in line with U.S. interests, it also responded to
China’s increasingly assertive regional policies, especially on maritime
territorial disputes. Countries across the Asia-Pacific region urged Wash-
ington to play a more active role in regional economic, diplomatic, and
security affairs in order to demonstrate U.S. commitment and help main-
tain regional stability in the face of a more powerful and more active
China.
Obama administration officials have stressed that the rebalance in-
cludes diplomatic, economic, and military elements, all of which must
be applied in a coordinated manner for maximum effect.16 The diplomat-
ic element has involved enhanced high-level diplomatic engagement, in-
cluding frequent travel to the region by the President, Secretary of State,
and Secretary of Defense. President Obama has participated regularly
in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and East Asia Summit
meetings; had periodic meetings with the leaders of U.S. allies Japan,
South Korea, and Australia; and launched a new U.S.-ASEAN dialogue
mechanism that included a summit with Southeast Asian leaders at Sun-
nylands, California, in February 2016.
American allies and partners in the region have stressed U.S. eco-
nomic engagement with Asia as a key means of demonstrating U.S. stay-
ing power. The Obama administration faced a number of practical and
political obstacles in increasing U.S. trade and investment ties with the
Asia-Pacific, especially in the context of the global financial crisis. The
centerpiece of the administration’s efforts is the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP), as “an ambitious, next-generation Asia-Pacific trade agreement”
including Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malay-
sia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Viet-
nam.17 The TPP agreement was signed on February 4, 2016, but will not
• 178 •
Asia Pacific
take effect until all member countries have ratified the agreement. The
Obama administration has not submitted the agreement to Congress for
approval; once submitted, Congress will have 90 legislative days to ap-
prove or disapprove it. TPP is an example of “open regionalism,” mean-
ing that other Asia-Pacific countries willing to meet TPP standards will
eventually be able to join the agreement.
The military element of the rebalance includes both increased com-
mitments of U.S. military forces to the Asia-Pacific region and enhanced
military and security cooperation with a range of allies and partners. The
Navy and Air Force both announced plans to devote 60 percent of over-
seas-based forces to the Asia-Pacific region, including deployments of
advanced systems such as the Littoral Combat Ship and F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter. The Army announced plans to align 70,000 troops to Asia mis-
sions, while the Marines announced plans for rotational deployments of
2,500 Marines to Australia. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter described
a three-part Department of Defense approach to the “next phase” of the
rebalance that includes investing in future capabilities relevant to the
Asia-Pacific security environment, fielding key capabilities in quantity,
and adapting the U.S. defense posture to be “geographically distributed,
operationally resilient, and politically sustainable.”18 A significant part of
the rebalance involves efforts to expand military cooperation with tra-
ditional allies such as Australia, Japan, and South Korea, while using
exercises and dialogues to reach out to nontraditional partners such as
India, Malaysia, and Vietnam.19
While the President’s remarks set out a comprehensive strategy to-
ward the region, the initial public diplomacy rollout focused on the mil-
itary aspects, unfortunately playing into the Chinese conceit that U.S.
policy is aimed at containing China. Beijing has subsequently gone a step
further, blaming the rebalance for increasing tensions in the region even
though it was partly a response to regional concerns about increasing
Chinese assertiveness.
Asia-Pacific Security Challenges

Asia’s economic dynamism, China’s rising power, and the U.S. rebalance
are broad trends that are having a major impact on the Asia-Pacific re-
gion as a whole. These trends co-exist with a number of specific security
challenges in Northeast Asia, the Korean Peninsula, the China-Taiwan
relationship, and the South China Sea, including unresolved territorial
disputes, competition to secure natural resources, and freedom of nav-
igation issues that present complex challenges to regional stability and
security.
• 179 •
Northeast Asia
Even 75 years after the end of World War II, tensions over the history
of Japanese colonialism and aggression continue to complicate Tokyo’s
relations with Beijing and Seoul. The Japan-China relationship is also
marked by conflicting territorial claims in the East China Sea, includ-
ing disputes over possession of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, an unre-
solved maritime boundary, and resource competition for fish, oil, and
natural gas. Both China and Japan claim the islands (as does Taiwan)
and tensions over them have flared periodically since the late 1970s.20
The United States does not take a position on the sovereignty dispute
but recognizes Japanese administrative control and has stated that the
unpopulated islands are covered under the U.S-Japan Security Treaty.
In September 2010, a Chinese fishing trawler operating within Ja-
pan’s exclusive economic zone north of the Senkaku Islands collided
with two Japanese coast guard ships. The ships pursued and boarded the
trawler, taking into custody the captain and crew. Tokyo took the posi-
tion that the coast guard’s actions were correct, taking place in Japanese
waters and based on Japanese law. Beijing’s response was to call on Japan
to refrain from taking “so-called law enforcement activities” in Chinese
waters. To have accepted the legality of the coast guard’s action would
have been to compromise China’s claim to sovereignty over the islands.
The rapid deterioration of relations that followed, China’s suspension of
rare-earth metal exports to pressure the Japanese business community,
widespread anti-Japanese demonstrations across China, and small-scale
anti-Chinese protests in Japan all underscored the sensitive nature of the
territorial issue.
Two years later, in September 2012, the Japanese government pur-
chased (“nationalized”) three of the five Senkaku islands from their pri-
vate-sector owner. Widespread anti-Japanese demonstrations spread
across China, and Beijing suspended all high-level political and dip-
lomatic contacts. To assert its claims to the islands, China stepped up
patrols of white-hulled paramilitary ships (now consolidated into the
Chinese coast guard) into Japan’s contiguous zone around the islands,
establishing an almost daily presence in the area. Chinese ships also
entered Japan’s territorial waters in the Senkakus. By the end of 2013,
Chinese coast guard ships had entered Japan’s territorial waters in the
Senkakus 256 times. Of the incursions, 68 took place in the period Sep-
tember–December 2012 and 188 in 2013.21 In November 2013, China
declared an Air Defense Identification Zone that extended over the Sen-
kaku Islands. The following month the government of Prime Minister
Shinzo Abe, in its national security strategy, defined Japan’s security en-
vironment as “ever more severe.”22
• 180 •
Asia Pacific
Japan and China also hold conflicting claims over the maritime
boundary in the East China Sea. Japan claims a mid-line boundary in
the East China Sea, while Beijing’s claim is based on the continental shelf
and extends beyond the mid-line to the Okinawa trough. In the context
of this unresolved boundary, exploration for oil and natural gas has also
served as a flashpoint. In June 2008, Japanese and Chinese diplomats
reached agreement on the joint development of resources in the East
China Sea; implementing details were left to follow-on talks, which have
failed to resolve outstanding issues. In June 2013 China began the con-
struction of large exploration platforms on the Chinese side of the mid-
line boundary. Tokyo considered the Chinese action to be at odds with
the 2008 agreement and an “attempt to change the status quo unilateral-
ly.” Beijing’s response was to make clear that exploration was taking place
within China’s sovereign waters, that China and Japan have yet to reach
agreement on the maritime boundary, and that China does not recognize
Japan’s unilateral boundary demarcation. The Japanese press reported
that Prime Minister Abe has raised the issue twice with President Xi at
the November 2014 and April 2015 meetings.
North Korea
North Korea, as it has for decades, remains the most destabilizing el-
ement in the Asia-Pacific security environment. Pyongyang’s growing
nuclear and missile arsenal poses a direct threat to U.S. national securi-
ty interests. Senior U.S. defense officials have stated that North Korea,
within a decade, will be able to deploy intercontinental ballistic missiles
capable of reaching U.S. territory in the Pacific and the homeland itself.23
North Korea’s estimated 1.2 million-man conventional army also con-
tinues to pose a direct threat to the Republic of Korea, a treaty ally of
the United States. North Korean provocations, such as the sinking of the
ROK navy’s warship Cheonan, in March 2010, the shelling of Yeonpyeong
Island in November 2010, and the August 2015 incident at the demili-
tarized zone (DMZ), risk escalation into a wider conflict. Pyongyang re-
mains committed to the unification of the Korean Peninsula on its terms.
Diplomatic efforts to address North Korea’s nuclear program have a
long history. Beginning in 1991, then–Undersecretary of State Arnold
Kanter met with North Korean diplomats in New York and proposed
the basic tradeoff that has marked diplomatic efforts since: abandon-
ment of North Korea’s plutonium-based nuclear program in exchange
for an array of security guarantees and economic benefits. The initiative
eventually played out into the 1994 Agreed Framework, which offered
Pyongyang two light water reactors, a security guarantee, and moves to-
ward normalized relations. Profound distrust on both sides gradually
• 181 •
unraveled the accord, which collapsed in 2002 when the George W. Bush
administration discovered that Pyongyang was secretly pursuing urani-
um enrichment as an alternative path to the bomb.
In September 2003, China launched the Six Party Talks to reduce
the risk of unilateral U.S. military action and to keep denuclearization
of North Korea on the security agenda. The talks produced the Septem-
ber 19, 2005, agreement, yet another attempt at a grand bargain. The
Six Party Talks collapsed in December 2008 when North Korea failed
to produce details of its nuclear activities that would verify compliance
with the agreement. Efforts to revive the Six Party Talks have proved
unavailing.
In 2009 the Obama administration attempted to break the diplomatic
deadlock, offering to extend an open hand to North Korea. North Korea
answered with ballistic missile and nuclear weapon tests. Nevertheless,
the administration continued to pursue a diplomatic opening to Pyong-
yang, which resulted in the February 29, 2012, Leap Day agreement, a
mini–grand bargain in which the United States would provide food in
return for North Korea’s freezing of its missile and enrichment programs.
Pyongyang responded with another ballistic missile test.
In 2012 the nuclear and missile programs were enshrined in North
Korea’s revised constitution. Today, under the leadership of thirty-some-
thing Kim Jong-un, North Korea is pursuing byungjin, a two-track policy
aimed at sustaining its nuclear weapons and missile programs and si-
multaneously promoting economic growth—in short, guns and butter.
Pyongyang has made very clear that it has no interest in surrendering its
nuclear program, even for an economic windfall. Instead it seeks inter-
national recognition as a nuclear weapons state.
Uncertainties about the long-term life expectancy of the regime under
Kim Jong-un, including the prospect of instability or regime collapse,
raise daunting security challenges.24 China might intervene to prop up
a failing regime, prevent a refugee crisis from spilling over its borders,
or secure North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction. Similar conditions
could prompt the ROK to cross the 38th parallel in an effort to unify the
peninsula or the United States to intervene to secure North Korea’s weap-
ons of mass destruction. The prospects for strategic miscalculation in a
fast-moving, dynamic environment are extremely high, especially given
the absence of substantive dialogue between the United States and China
about contingency responses.
China-Taiwan
The political dispute between Mainland China and Taiwan remains an un-
resolved legacy of the Chinese civil war. The People’s Republic of China
• 182 •
Asia Pacific
(PRC) claims Taiwan as an inherent part of Chinese territory. While pur-

suing a policy of unification through peaceful development, Beijing has
refused to renounce the use of force if Taiwan should pursue de jure
independence. Even as economic integration has deepened to the point
where Mainland China is now Taiwan’s number one export market and
the main destination for Taiwan investment, political trends have con-
tinued to diverge.
On the mainland, the narrative of a “century of humiliation” at the
hands of foreign powers makes Taiwan reunification a benchmark goal
for Chinese nationalism and a domestic political third rail where top
leaders have little room to compromise. Conversely, democratization and
social changes on Taiwan have reduced the political dominance of the
mainlanders who fled the Communist takeover in 1949 and produced a
population with less sense of a Chinese identity and little desire for clos-
er political relations with Mainland China, much less unification with a
country led by a Communist government. Despite an increasing sense
of an identity separate from the Mainland, the pragmatic population on
Taiwan prefers to maintain the political status quo and avoid pro-inde-
pendence actions that might provoke hostile PRC responses.
U.S. policy is based on three communiques signed with the People’s
Republic of China and the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act. U.S. policy rec-
ognizes the PRC government as the sole legal government of China, ac-
knowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and that
Taiwan is part of China, and maintains cultural, commercial, and other
unofficial relations with the people on Taiwan. At the same time, U.S.
policymakers have clearly and consistently stated that the United States
does not support Taiwan independence. The Taiwan Relations Act pro-
vides the legal basis for U.S. unofficial relations with Taiwan and en-
shrines a U.S. commitment to assist Taiwan in maintaining its defensive
capability. It also states that peace and stability in the Western Pacific
area “are in the political, security, and economic interests of the United
States, and are matters of international concern” and that U.S. policy is to
“maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or
other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social
or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.”
U.S. policy is focused on maintaining a framework within which the
two sides of the strait can work out their political differences rather than
on achieving specific outcomes. Accordingly, the United States insists on
peaceful resolution of cross-strait differences, opposes unilateral changes
to the status quo by either side, and encourages cross-strait dialogue to
help advance a peaceful resolution. This approach has helped the United
States cooperate with the PRC on a range of global, regional, and bilat-
• 183 •
eral economic and security issues while maintaining robust unofficial

ties with the people on Taiwan. However, the growing imbalance in eco-
nomic and military power between China and Taiwan poses challenges
for the viability of this policy framework, especially as Chinese military
modernization expands the coercive tools available to PRC leaders.
Contentious cross-strait relations improved considerably from 2008
to 2016 under Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou, whose willingness to en-
dorse the so-called 1992 consensus (which he interpreted as “one China,
separate interpretations”) reduced tensions and permitted a major ex-
pansion of cross-strait economic ties, establishment of direct air and sea
links, and the signing of 23 cross-strait agreements. Ma resisted pressure
from Mainland China to engage in talks on political issues or to define
Taiwan’s status more precisely. Although this period saw stability and a
significant expansion in cross-strait contacts, many on Taiwan claimed
that the economic benefits went largely to politically connected big busi-
nesses and that the Ma administration did not stand up enough for Tai-
wan’s interests.
Opposition Democratic Progressive Party candidate Tsai Ing-wen won
a decisive victory in January 2016 elections; her party won control of
the legislature for the first time and she took office as president on May
20, 2016. Mainland China is suspicious of Tsai because of her party’s
pro-Taiwan independence stance and her service in former president
Chen Shui-bian’s government, although she has pledged not to challenge
the status quo and has made subtle policy adjustments to reassure Bei-
jing that she will not take pro-independence actions that might disrupt
stability.25
Nevertheless, Mainland China officials have insisted that Tsai explic-
itly acknowledge that Taiwan is part of China and endorse the 1992
consensus, a concession she is unwilling (and perhaps unable) to make.
A March 2016 Center for Strategic and International Studies delegation
to China and Taiwan concluded that China is deliberately setting the
bar high because it wants Tsai’s term in office to be considered a failure.
To that end Beijing has severed semi-official cross-strait dialogue mech-
anisms, reduced the flow of tourists to Taiwan, and may take addition-
al actions to curtail Taiwan’s international space, including by inducing
some of Taiwan’s 21 diplomatic allies to shift recognition to the PRC.
Beijing’s strategy appears to be to blame Tsai for a downturn in cross-
strait relations that damages Taiwan’s economy, and to hope that Taiwan
voters choose a candidate committed to improving cross-strait relations
in the 2020 election.
This all suggests that cross-strait relations will enter a period of greater
turbulence with Beijing seeking to depict Tsai as challenging the status
• 184 •
Asia Pacific
quo by refusing to endorse the 1992 consensus and Tsai and her govern-
ment looking to Washington for support in the face of increasing Chinese
pressure. At the same time, Beijing knows that any attempt to resolve
the Taiwan issue with force would have extremely high costs and risks
(including the likelihood of U.S. military intervention) and would se-
verely damage China’s relations with the United States and other major
countries in the region.
South China Sea

In contrast to the East China Sea, competing territorial claims and mar-
itime boundaries in the South China Sea involve multiple parties. The
disputes center on three sets of overlapping claims. China, Taiwan, and
Vietnam all claim the Paracel Islands, which China occupied in 1974
during the last days of the Republic of Vietnam. China, the Philippines,
and Taiwan claim Scarborough Shoal, site of a 2012 dispute between
Beijing and Manila. China, Taiwan, and Vietnam claim all the land fea-
tures in the Spratly Islands, while Brunei, Malaysia, and the Philippines
each claim a number of specific features. China has not clarified the ex-
act nature or legal basis of its claim to land features and adjacent waters
inside the “nine-dash line” that it inherited from the Republic of China.
The nine-dash line overlaps with part of Indonesia’s exclusive economic
zone claim, including part of the Natuna natural gas field.
In 2002, the member states of ASEAN and China adopted the “Dec-
laration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea” to address
conflicting claims. In the document, the parties:
• reaffirmed “their respect for and commitment to the freedom of nav-

igation in and overflight above the South China Sea as provided for
by the universally recognized principles of international law, includ-
ing the 1982 UN [United Nations] Convention on the Law of the
Sea”
• undertook “to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by

peaceful means, without resorting to the threat of or use of force”
• undertook “to exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that

would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability
including, among others, refraining from . . . inhabiting . . . the pres-
ently uninhabited islands, reefs, shoals, cays, and other features and
to handle their differences in a constructive manner.”26
• 185 •
Finally, the parties reaffirmed that “the adoption of a code of conduct

in the South China Sea would further promote peace and stability” and
agreed “to work, on the basis of consensus, toward the eventual attain-
ment of this objective.”
A binding code of conduct today stands as a distant vision, and much
has transpired that is at odds with the spirit of the Declaration of Con-
duct. Claimants have used a variety of tactics to reinforce their claims,
with a significant increase in activity since 2009.27 Tactics to assert sov-
ereignty include patrols by coast guard and naval forces, occupying land
features, enforcing fishing regulations in disputed waters, oil and natural
gas exploration, harassment of military ships and aircraft operating in
disputed areas, and using legal means (such as the case the Philippines
brought against China in the International Tribunal of the Law of the
Sea). None of the claimants has clean hands, but China has been the
most active in using military and paramilitary means to assert its claims,
including by coercion of other claimants.28 Since 2009 China has be-
come more assertive in enforcing its claims, including harassment of U.S.
military ships and aircraft operating legally in international waters or
within China’s exclusive economic zone. In May 2014 China deployed
an oil rig into waters in the Paracels claimed by Beijing and Hanoi, rais-
ing tensions and setting off collisions between Chinese and Vietnamese
coast guard ships and virulent anti-Chinese demonstrations in Vietnam.
In 2013 China began land reclamation projects in the South China
Sea on several low-tide elevations, geologic features that do not extend
above water at high tide. China’s efforts at land reclamation were not
unprecedented: Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam have
also engaged in such projects since the 1980s. The U.S. Department of
Defense Maritime Security Strategy notes that, in the period from 2009 to
2014, Vietnam “was the most active claimant in terms of both outpost
upgrades and land reclamation,” adding “approximately 60 acres of land
at 7 of its outposts and [building] at least 4 new structures as part of its
expansion efforts.”29
However, China’s land reclamation activities dwarf those of other
claimants. By June 2015 China’s land reclamation projects totaled “more
than 2,900 acres, or 17 times more land in 20 months than the other
claimants combined over the past 40 years, accounting for approximately
95 percent of all reclaimed land in the Spratly Islands.” In comparison
Vietnam had reclaimed “a total of approximately 80 acres, Malaysia, 70
acres; the Philippines 14 acres; and Taiwan, 8 acres.”30 Beijing’s position
remains that “China has indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha is-
lands and their adjacent waters,” with “sovereignty and relevant rights . . .
formed over the long course of history and upheld by successive Chinese
• 186 •
Asia Pacific
governments.”31 In October 2015 President Xi pledged that China would

not “militarize” the islands that it had constructed, but the exact nature
of this commitment is vague and most observers expect China to use
the airfields and port facilities that it is building for both military and
civilian purposes.
U.S. policy has been to avoid taking sides in the sovereignty disputes,
but to stress the importance of respect for international law and peaceful
resolution of disputes without coercion. China’s successful use of incre-
mental salami tactics to expand its effective control of disputed maritime
territory in the South China Sea has brought this approach into question,
as Beijing has been able to “work around” the United States to gradually
expand its naval and coast guard presence and power projection capa-
bilities while avoiding the use of lethal force. More recently, the United
States has adjusted its policies to increase security assistance to help im-
prove maritime domain awareness of U.S. allies and partners and has
also reinvigorated its Freedom of Navigation program, which challenges
excessive or illegitimate maritime claims.32
U.S. Policy Responses: Sustaining the Rebalance

U.S. policies must take the broad trends of Asia’s economic dynamism,
China’s rising power, and the U.S. rebalance into account even as they
grapple with specific regional security challenges. We believe the correct
strategy is to work with U.S. allies, partners, and multilateral organi-
zations to build a rules-based regional order that includes China and
advances U.S. national interests. This requires sustaining the U.S. rebal-
ance to the Asia-Pacific and intensifying cooperation with other regional
actors to shape China’s choices and make it pay a price for aggressive
actions that violate international rules and norms.
For over a half century, the U.S. system of bilateral security allianc-
es (with Australia, Japan, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, and
Thailand) has served as the informal security architecture of the Asia-Pa-
cific region, underpinning stability and enhancing economic prosperity.
Although most countries in the region share concerns about how Chi-
na is using its power (and especially about its aggressive pursuit of its
maritime territorial claims), they are reluctant to choose between China
(a critical economic partner) and the United States or to participate in
security cooperation aimed against China. Given the diversity of the re-
gion in terms of political culture and security interests, a formal alliance
system such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been widely
recognized as impractical.
• 187 •
The best approach is to build on the existing bilateral alliance sys-

tem by encouraging increased cooperation between U.S. allies, engaging
other regional security partners, and shaping the evolution of regional
organizations through active U.S. participation. U.S. policymakers must
recognize China is a powerful country that is also attempting to reshape
the regional order in directions favorable to its interests. An open, rules-
based regional order that includes the United States will be more attrac-
tive to Asia-Pacific countries than Chinese-backed alternatives.
Strengthening Alliances
To address the security challenges in 2017–2021 and beyond, a critical
first step for the next administration is to focus on strengthening the bi-
lateral alliance structure. This starts with the U.S.-Japan Alliance.
Japan. For over half a century, the alliance with Japan has served as the
foundation of U.S. strategy toward the Asia-Pacific region and an integral
element of U.S. global strategy. Elements of the Seventh Fleet based in
Yokosuka, Japan, were among the first U.S. units to support coalition
efforts in the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and Operation Enduring Freedom
in 2001.
Under the government of Prime Minister Abe, Japan has taken steps
to enhance security cooperation with the United States. In December
2013, the Abe government released Japan’s first-ever national security
strategy, which defined Japan as a “Proactive Contributor to Peace” in
support of international stability and security. The document set out
three objectives for Japan’s security policy: to strengthen deterrence, to
strengthen the Japan-U.S. Alliance, and to strengthen the rules-based
international order. In July 2014 a decision by the Japanese government
cabinet reinterpreted Japan’s constitution to allow for the exercise of the
right of collective self-defense.
In April 2015 the Obama administration and the Abe government re-
leased the Revised Guidelines for Defense Cooperation. The new guide-
lines aim to enhance U.S.-Japan Alliance cooperation by providing for
an Alliance Coordination Mechanism; closer operational coordination;
a whole-of-government, upgraded bilateral planning mechanism; seam-
less coordination of efforts “to ensure Japan’s peace and security in all
phases, from peacetime to contingencies”; and defense equipment and
technology cooperation as well as cooperation in space and cyberspace.
The limiting geographic reference to “Situations in Areas Surrounding
Japan” in the 1997 guidelines was omitted, theoretically expanding the
scope of alliance-based security cooperation.
• 188 •
Asia Pacific
Of increasing concern to Japan is the potential for “gray zone” ac-

tivities, attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion such as
China’s frequent incursions into Japan’s sovereign waters and air space
that could cause “unexpected situations” and challenge the alliance in
response. In April 2014 President Obama made clear that Article 5 of
the alliance extends to the Senkaku Islands given Japan’s administrative
control. To strengthen deterrence, it is critical for the new administra-
tion to be seen actively planning and exercising with Japan’s Self-Defense
Forces to deal “seamlessly” with gray zone situations that could arise in
the Senkaku Islands.
With respect to North Korea’s growing missile threat, Japanese strat-
egists are concerned with the potential for “decoupling,” the result of a
North Korea inclined to engage in provocations, confident that its nucle-
ar arsenal would preclude a U.S. response. Japanese strategists are also
concerned with the deterrence challenge posed by China at both the
regional and strategic levels.
Implementation of the new defense guidelines, in particular the U.S.
commitment “to extend deterrence to Japan through the full range of
capabilities, including U.S. nuclear forces” and to continue forward de-
ployment in the Asia-Pacific region will be critical to sustaining Japanese
confidence in the alliance. Implementation of the guidelines will be a
critical test both of the new administration’s commitment to the alliance
and to the rebalance.
Across the region, the strength of the U.S.-Japan Alliance as well as
the U.S. commitment to the defense of the Republic of Korea are widely
perceived as a barometer of the U.S. security commitment to the Asia-Pa-
cific region.
The Republic of Korea. For over 60 years, the U.S alliance with the Re-
public of Korea has succeeded in deterring North Korea from again at-
tempting to unify the Korean Peninsula by force of arms. The resulting
armed peace has allowed for a political evolution to take place in which
the Korean people have transformed an authoritarian political system
into a vibrant democracy, while allowing the native energies of the Ko-
rean people to flourish and develop a dynamic market economy with an
international presence.
At the same time, the threat posed by North Korea to the security of
the ROK and the broader international community remains. The sinking
of the ROK navy corvette Cheonan in March 2010 and the shelling of
Yeonpyeong Island in November 2010 and the August 2015 landmine
incident at the DMZ underscore North Korea’s continuing hostility.
• 189 •
While North Korea’s conventional capabilities have continued to de-

grade, the threat posed by its nuclear weapons and missiles is increasing
at an accelerating pace. Since the September 19, 2005, Six Party Talks
agreement on denuclearization, North Korea has conducted five nuclear
tests (in October 2006, May 2009, February 2013, January 2016, and
September 2016). The UN Security Council imposed sanctions after the
first four tests and is currently considering additional sanctions. Mean-
while North Korea continues to develop and test a ballistic missile arse-
nal. In October 2014, U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) commander General
Curtis Scaparrotti, USA, cautioned that North Korea may have devel-
oped a miniaturized nuclear warhead and mated the warhead to missiles
capable of striking U.S. territory.
North Korea’s evolving nuclear and missile capabilities raise issues
related to deterrence and defense, affecting both the ROK and Japan.33
Defense planners are concerned that “newly nuclear states often are more
assertive at the conventional level because of their confidence in being
able to deter a strong adversary response with their nuclear means.”34
To address this potential risk, the ROK and the United States reached
agreement on a Counter-Provocation Plan in March 2013. The plan was
employed during the August 2015 DMZ landmine incident. Updating
the Counter-Provocation Plan to deal with the evolving threats posed by
North Korea will be an important alliance management instrument for
the new administration.
Enhancing missile defense will also be a critical alliance issue for the
new administration. In July 2016 the United States and the ROK agreed
to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to
the ROK. The deployment will defend against North Korean missile at-
tacks and open the door to the development of an interoperable U.S.-
ROK-Japan multilayered missile defense system that would enhance de-
fense and deterrence in Northeast Asia. China, however, has expressed
concerns that the U.S. deployment of the THAAD system in South Korea
could put China’s nuclear deterrent at risk and aggravate tensions on the
peninsula. In July 2014 President Xi Jinping reportedly told President
Park Geun-hye that THAAD deployment on the peninsula “went against
China’s security interests.”35 After the deployment decision, China ex-
pressed “firm opposition” and has applied economic and diplomatic
pressure on the ROK to reconsider. U.S. and ROK policymakers will
need to stand firm in the face of Chinese pressure.
Meanwhile, efforts to implement the September 19, 2005, Six Party
agreement on the denuclearization of North Korea remain on diplomatic
life support. In April 2009 North Korea announced its withdrawal from
• 190 •
Asia Pacific
the Six Party Talks and subsequently made clear that its nuclear arsenal
will not be used as a bargaining chip to secure economic benefits.
The next administration should take the long view with respect to
North Korea—not all problems will be solvable within its term in office.
An effective policy will aim to strengthen deterrence and defense of the
ROK, maintain the external pressure of economic sanctions, and keep
the door open to dialogue and diplomacy.
To deal with the possibility of instability or regime collapse, the next
administration should work to closely coordinate U.S. and ROK objec-
tives, endstates, and policy responses and, at the same time, make every
effort to bring China into the conversation. To date China has considered
such official-level discussion to be premature.
The Philippines. In 1992, after the Philippine senate rejected an exten-

sion of the basing agreement, the United States closed Clark Air Base
and the Subic Bay Naval Base and withdrew its military forces from the
Philippines. U.S. military assistance resumed after 9/11, directed to sup-
port Manila’s counterterrorism efforts in Mindanao and the southern-
most islands.
As Philippine concerns about China have increased, Manila has be-
come more willing to expand security cooperation. In 2011, the United
States agreed to support programs aimed at enhancing its maritime secu-
rity capabilities. In 2012, the Balikatan joint exercise took place off Pal-
awan Island, near the contested Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.
The United States also transferred two former Coast Guard ships to the
Philippines. In 2014, Washington and Manila signed the Enhanced De-
fense Cooperation Agreement, aimed at “addressing short-term capabili-
ty gaps, promoting long-term modernization, and helping maintain and
develop additional maritime security, maritime domain awareness, and
humanitarian assistance and disaster relief capabilities.”36 During his vis-
it to the Philippines in 2014, President Obama made clear that the U.S.
commitment “to defend the Philippines is ironclad and the United States
will keep that commitment because allies never stand alone.” Obama
reiterated the “ironclad commitment” formulation during his 2015 visit
to the Philippines. Despite new Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s
recent remarks questioning the value of security cooperation with the
United States, U.S. policymakers should exercise patience and remain
focused on the long-term interests of both countries.
Moving Beyond the Hub-and-Spokes Alliance System

Since the turn of the century, the U.S. alliance structure has been evolv-
ing from the Cold War bilateral hub-and-spokes construct toward a
• 191 •
more open architecture that includes increased cooperation between

U.S. allies and active efforts to engage other regional security partners.
The United States has supported increased bilateral security cooperation
between U.S. allies, most notably between Australia and Japan and Japan
and the Philippines; trilateral cooperation among Australia, Japan, and
the United States and among Japan, the ROK, and the United States;
and quadrilateral engagement involving the Australia, India, Japan, and
the United States. Exercises that began in the context of U.S. bilateral
alliances have expanded to include a wide range of regional participants,
including China (which participated in the 2014 and 2016 Rim of the
Pacific exercises).
At the same time, the United States has developed Comprehensive
Partnerships with Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam and a Strategic Part-
nership with Singapore. Japan and Australia, both U.S. allies, have de-
veloped similar partnerships with Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and
Vietnam. These non-alliance partnerships help to enhance broad-based
regional security cooperation and contribute to stability.
Australia, Japan, and the United States are focusing on maritime is-
sues in Southeast Asia and the South China Sea, including maritime
capacity-building, maritime domain awareness, joint training and exer-
cising, and port calls. In 2013 the United States committed $156 mil-
lion (2014–2015) to support maritime capacity-building in Southeast
Asia, including $18 million to Vietnam.37 In November 2015, the White
House announced its intention to enhance capacity-building efforts by
committing more than $250 million over the 2015–2016 period, fo-
cused on Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam.38
In November 2015 Japanese and Vietnamese ministers of defense
agreed to strengthen defense cooperation, including joint maritime exer-
cise and a 2016 port call at Cam Ranh Bay by Japan’s Maritime Self-De-
fense Force. Earlier, in 2006, Japan, making strategic use of its Official
Development Assistance program, sent three patrol boats to Indonesia
and in 2012 transferred 10 Japanese Coast Guard ships to the Philip-
pines. Similarly, Australia has used the Pacific Patrol Boat Program to do-
nate aging Australian ships to South Pacific and Southeast Asian neigh-
bors.
One of the most difficult regional security issues is maritime territorial
disputes, which are sensitive domestic political issues (but not existen-
tial interests) for all the claimants. China’s efforts to use military and
paramilitary means to expand its effective control of disputed territories
and waters pose a challenge to key U.S. interests and principles such as
peaceful resolution of disputes, respect for international law, and free-
dom of navigation. The United States should continue to resist pressure
• 192 •
Asia Pacific
to take sides in sovereignty disputes and maintain an even-handed ap-

proach. However, when countries, including China, take actions that
we view as inconsistent with international law, the United States should
impose costs, including via official statements, diplomatic efforts to orga-
nize opposition to illegal or destabilizing actions, and enhancing security
cooperation with regional allies and partners. The United States must
maintain its military capabilities and be willing to act to assert its own
interest in freedom of navigation, including by military activities that
challenge excessive maritime claims. If carried out on a routine basis,
there will be less need to publicize each freedom of navigation operation.
Enhancing the rebalance’s focus on maritime capacity-building in
Southeast Asia will be an important benchmark of the next administra-
tion’s commitment to regional stability and security. At the same time,
given the diversity and complexity of the Asia-Pacific region, alliances
and partnerships should not be viewed as being exclusively threat-cen-
tric. They can also play an important role in building regional order by
strengthening cooperation in dealing with nontraditional security issues,
thereby enhancing confidence among states. Efforts to work with allies
and partners in enhancing regional security cooperation will strengthen
U.S. political and diplomatic leadership in the region.
Shaping the Asia-Pacific Order

Scholars have long argued that the Asia-Pacific region lacks the web of
multilateral organizations that have facilitated European integration. Ex-
planations for Asia’s under-institutionalization include the region’s eco-
nomic and cultural diversity, mutual suspicions between countries, and
the impact of Cold War political divisions. In 1967, the governments
of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand came
together to create ASEAN. For over two decades, ASEAN stood as the
lone multilateral institution in the region. However, recent decades have
seen the creation of new regional organizations and meetings that may
become building blocks for a new regional order.
As the Cold War was ending in 1988, Malaysia’s Prime Minister Mo-
hammed Mahathir advanced the concept of an East Asia Economic Cau-
cus that would exclude the United States. U.S. opposition doomed the
caucus, but in 1989 Australia, with strong U.S. support, established the
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation to advance regional trade liberaliza-
tion. With the establishment of APEC, Asian multilateralism gathered
momentum. In 1993, ASEAN created the ASEAN + 3 (China, Japan,
South Korea) format, followed by the ASEAN Regional Forum in 1994,
the East Asian Summit in 2005, and the ASEAN Defense Ministers Meet-
ing Plus in 2010—ASEAN + Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zea-
• 193 •
land, the ROK, Russia, and the United States. In addition, the annual
Shangri-la Dialogue sponsored by the International Institute for Strategic
Studies in Singapore has served as a high-level multilateral forum for the
discussion of political and security issues.
In 2008, the Bush administration appointed the first U.S. Ambassa-
dor to ASEAN, a clear recognition of the growing importance of ASE-
AN and of the region’s expanding multilateral, diplomatic, economic,
and security forums. One explicit goal of the rebalance was to increase
the U.S. ability to help shape the emerging multilateral architecture in
the Asia-Pacific region. The Obama administration has paid particular
attention to high-level participation in the region’s multilateral institu-
tions and dialogues, with the President, Secretary of State, and Secretary
of Defense regularly attending meetings in Asia. Countries across the
region have welcomed the Obama administration’s sustained high-level
attention, but are concerned whether the next administration will place
an equally high priority there. U.S. interests would be best served by
continued high-level U.S. participation and active U.S. engagement in
efforts to shape the regional order.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership

The priority that almost all Asia-Pacific governments place on economic
growth means that trade and investment agreements are a critical aspect
of international relations in Asia and important building blocks for the
emerging regional order. If the United States is not actively engaged,
other countries will be allowed to shape regional economic rules, norms,
and standards in ways that may work against U.S. interests. The center-
piece of the Obama regional economic agenda has been the Trans-Pa-
cific Partnership, a “gold-standard” free trade agreement. Ten countries
reached agreement on the deal in October 2015, but Congress will need
to approve the agreement in an up-or-down vote.
Ambassador Michael Froman, the U.S. official in charge of negotiat-
ing the agreement, told a Center for Strategic and International Studies
audience:
TPP is a critical part of our overall Asian architecture. It is

perhaps the most concrete manifestation of the President’s
rebalancing strategy toward Asia. It reflects the fact that
we are a Pacific power and that our economic well-being
is inextricably linked with the economic well-being of this
region. . . . TPP’s significance is just not economic, it’s stra-
tegic—as a means of embedding the United States in the
region.39
• 194 •
Asia Pacific
Similarly, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Daniel Russel cast TPP as a “strategic agreement . . . the economic leg and
‘crown jewel’ of the Obama Rebalance Strategy . . . one that convincingly
demonstrates that sustained engagement by the U.S, as a Pacific nation,
is shaping an open, prosperous, rules-based region.” Russel went on to
state, “That’s why TPP is worth as much to Defense Secretary Carter as a
new aircraft carrier, as he recently said.”40
In interviews across the region over the past 2 years, political lead-
ers, diplomats, and military officials all underscored the strategic im-
portance of TPP as a benchmark of long-term U.S. commitment to the
region and the cornerstone to securing a rules-based, open international
trading order in Asia. Failure to enact TTP would be viewed as a sign
of U.S. strategic withdrawal from the region. Beyond TPP, negotiations
with the European Union on the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (TTIP) will provide the next administration an opportunity
to structure a rules-based trade and investment order that includes more
than one-third of global gross domestic product. Taken together, TTIP
and TPP provide the United States an opportunity to shape a rules-based
international economic order that advances its long-term economic and
strategic interests.
China Policy: Managing a Mixed Relationship

One of the most difficult policy challenges will be dealing with China,
which has the ability to affect a range of U.S. global, regional, and do-
mestic interests. The U.S.-China relationship is marked by a mix of co-
operation and competition; the policy challenge is to maximize coopera-
tion in areas where common interests exist, while competing successfully
in areas where U.S. and Chinese interests are opposed. Both countries
have a strong interest in maintaining an effective bilateral working re-
lationship in order to pursue important global, regional, and domestic
goals. High-level leadership will be needed on both sides to keep the
competitive and cooperative aspects of the relationship in balance.41
Cooperation is important for the United States because China has
become an important global actor, with the ability to influence the ef-
fectiveness of global institutions such as the UN Security Council and
World Trade Organization. On some issues, such as climate change and
dealing with North Korea’s nuclear and missile ambitions, progress is
impossible without cooperation with China. While Chinese leaders view
some aspects of global institutions as unfair and are not interested in
shoring up U.S. hegemony, they like a rules-based global economic sys-
tem and view the United Nations as the most legitimate institution of
global governance.42 China has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of
• 195 •
the open global trade system established by the United States after World
War II, which facilitated its economic rise. Beijing seeks to wield greater
influence within global institutions, and where possible to work with
other countries to adjust international rules and norms to better reflect
its own interests and perspectives. Nevertheless, China remains reluctant
to take on the costs, risks, and commitments necessary to play a glob-
al leadership role; its actions are usually focused on defending narrow
Chinese interests rather than aspiring for global leadership. Given that
China’s main interest in most parts of the world is to maintain stability
and secure access to resources and markets, its interests will often be
relatively compatible with those of the United States.43
U.S. and Chinese interests are less aligned at the regional level, where
there is increasing competition for influence. Over the last decade Bei-
jing has become more critical of the U.S. alliance system, arguing that it
reflects Cold War thinking and emboldens U.S. allies to challenge Chi-
nese interests. The U.S. rebalance to the Asia-Pacific and increased U.S.
regional security cooperation have stoked Chinese fears of U.S. encircle-
ment or containment. Beijing’s proposed alternatives emphasize nontra-
ditional security cooperation and the importance of resolving disputes
through peaceful dialogue. Beijing has resisted making any binding com-
mitments that might restrict its military capabilities or ability to employ
military power to defend its core interests. Its increasing military capa-
bilities and more assertive approach to maritime territorial disputes have
heightened regional concerns about how a strong China will behave,
leading most countries to improve their security ties with the United
States. If the United States emphasizes its alliances, expanding security
cooperation with other partners, and active engagement with regional
multilateral institutions, it will be able to deal with Chinese regional se-
curity initiatives and actions from a position of strength and successfully
resist Chinese efforts to erode the U.S. alliance system.
Although cooperation with China is important, U.S. policymakers
should be careful to resist Beijing’s efforts to create a U.S.-China con-
dominium or “G-2”-like arrangement. Such an arrangement would be
unlikely to last and would probably require unacceptable compromis-
es to accommodate China’s so-called core interests (including accepting
China’s territorial claims to Taiwan and in the South China Sea and East
China Sea). Accepting a Chinese sphere of influence or giving the ap-
pearance of siding with Beijing against U.S. allies would damage U.S.
credibility and compromise the U.S. position in the Asia-Pacific region.
The next administration will have the opportunity to develop a new
label for the U.S.-China relationship to replace Beijing’s preferred formu-
lation of a “new type of major country relationship.” It will be important
• 196 •
Asia Pacific
to adopt a label that reflects the importance of the U.S.-China relation-

ship but does not suggest that the United States values its relationship
with China above its relationships with its treaty allies.
China’s more assertive regional behavior is partly the product of mis-
reading global power trends (including the mistaken assessment that the
2008 global financial crisis marked a fundamental shift in the relative
balance of power between the United States and China). Current Chi-
nese Communist Party efforts to tighten political control over the Chi-
nese population and restrict the flow of information into China reflect
increasing concerns about domestic stability in the face of slowing eco-
nomic growth. China’s successful economic model needs to be adapted
to place more weight on markets and domestic demand, but there are
widespread concerns that the political system may not be able to push
through the necessary reforms. Moreover, past efforts to stimulate the
economy in the wake of the financial crisis have created debt burdens at
various levels of the Chinese financial system that increase the risk of a
major financial crisis.
Although an economic collapse that brings down the Chinese regime
is unlikely, the next U.S. President will likely face a Chinese leadership
more focused on maintaining domestic stability and less inclined to en-
gage in provocative international behavior. This will heighten the im-
portance of a cooperative working relationship with the United States to
give China the space to deal with its internal problems and should give
U.S. policymakers more leverage. China will continue its military mod-
ernization and regional infrastructure investments through the Asian In-
frastructure Investment Bank and One Belt, One Road initiative but may
have fewer resources to devote to these efforts. Chinese leaders are un-
likely to engage in provocative international behavior to divert attention
from domestic problems but will be concerned that other countries may
seek to exploit a distracted Chinese leadership.44 The result may be an
increased interest in stabilizing maritime territorial disputes and avoid-
ing challenges to Chinese sovereignty claims. This approach might also
spill over into more interest in engaging with the Democratic Progressive
Party on Taiwan to work out an acceptable formulation for cross-strait
relations.
Conclusion
Over the next 4 years, the United States will be challenged to maintain
its leadership of a rules-based order in the Asia-Pacific region. U.S. di-
plomacy must play a leading role in strengthening our alliances, partner-
ships, and regional institutions that widely share the U.S. commitment
• 197 •
to a rules-based order as the foundation of regional peace and stability.

The engagement of the highest levels of U.S. leadership with the region
will be critical. Allies, partners, and potential challengers will all judge
the regular presence of the President, Secretary of State, and Secretary of
Defense in the region as a key indicator of U.S. commitment.
The U.S. bilateral alliances with Australia, Japan, the Philippines, the
Republic of Korea, and Thailand remain the foundation of our strate-
gic presence in the Asia-Pacific region and need appropriate high-level
attention. At the same time, the alliance structure is evolving toward a
more open system, with new security partnerships forming across the
region. This has been most noticeable in Southeast Asia, where Australia,
Japan, and the United States are all engaged in maritime capacity-build-
ing with states bordering on the South China Sea. The United States
should expand bilateral and multilateral security cooperation with its
allies and partners and support their efforts to promote regional securi-
ty cooperation. Given U.S.-China regional competition, initiatives from
other countries may sometimes be the best means of moving forward.
The United States is best positioned to deal with China if it has de-
voted sufficient attention to its regional alliances, partnerships, and
participation in multilateral organizations. The U.S. President will need
to engage directly with his Chinese counterpart in order to keep both
governments focused on a cooperative agenda and to manage the more
competitive aspects of the relationship. The relationship with Beijing will
be challenging, but Chinese internal economic and political problems
are likely to give U.S. policymakers more leverage. Chinese leaders will
remain suspicious about U.S. intentions to contain China. U.S. policy-
makers should stress that the United States supports open, rules-based
regional and global organizations, which will require China’s active par-
ticipation and support if they are to achieve their goals and, at the same
time, can help generate international pressure on China to be a construc-
tive participant.
As it has since the turn of the century, U.S. trade and investment in
the region will continue to expand. The U.S. economic presence is the
ultimate foundation of long-term U.S. presence and commitment. Pro-
viding a rules-based order for commerce and investment and, in turn,
sustained economic growth is the focus of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Legislation to provide for U.S. accession is now before Congress. There
are many competing studies on the effect of TPP on U.S. growth and em-
ployment, and political leadership will be faced with a truly historic de-
cision in terms of U.S. participation. U.S. accession to TPP will be viewed
as a test of U.S. leadership and commitment to a trade and investment
rules-setting agenda.
• 198 •
Asia Pacific
Notes
1
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is made up of Brunei Darus-
salam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar (Burma), the Philippines, Singa-
pore, Thailand, and Vietnam.
2
The World Bank, “East Asia Pacific Economic Update, October 2015: Staying the
Course,” available at <www.worldbank.org/en/region/eap/publication/east-asia-pacif-
ic-economic-update>.
3
U.S. Census Bureau, “Trade in Goods with Asia,” available at <www.census.gov/
foreign-trade/balance/c0016.html>.
4
U.S. Census Bureau, “U.S. Direct Investment Abroad for 2012–2014,” September
2015, available at <http://bea.gov/scb/pdf/2015/09%20September/0915_outward_di-
rect_investment_detailed_historical_cost_positions.pdf>.
5
East-West Center, “Asia Matters for America,” available at <http://www.asiamatters-
foramerica.org/overview>. Note that the Asia Matters for America project includes 40
countries as comprising the Asia-Pacific region.
6
Walter Lohman, Olivia Enos, and John Fleming, 2014 Asia Update: What’s at Stake
for America, Special Report No. 158 (Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation, October
8, 2014), available at <www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/10/asia-update-whats-at-
stake-for-america-2014>.
7
China’s official growth statistics for 1998 and 2008 do not fully reflect this slow-
down, which was partly offset by large economic stimulus packages.
8
Bonnie S. Glaser, “China’s Coercive Economic Diplomacy—A New and Worrying
Trend,” PacNet 46 (Honolulu, HI: Center for Strategic and International Studies, July 23,
2012).
9
Christopher Bodeen, “China’s Military Spending Increase to Be Smallest in 6 Years,”
Associated Press, March 4, 2016.
10
State Council Information Office, “China’s Military Strategy,” May 2015, available at
<http://eng.mod.gov.cn/Database/WhitePapers/>.
11
See Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s
Republic of China 2015 (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 2015).
12
David Shambaugh, ed., Power Shift: China and Asia’s New Dynamics (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2006); Evelyn Goh and Sheldon W. Simon, eds., China, the
United States, and Southeast Asia: Contending Perspectives on Politics, Security, and Economics
(New York: Routledge, 2008).
13
See David Shambaugh, China Goes Global: The Partial Power (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2013); Phillip C. Saunders, “China’s Role in Asia: Attractive or Asser-
tive?” in International Relations of Asia, ed. David Shambaugh and Michael Yahuda, 2nd ed.
(Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2014), 147–172.
14
“Remarks by President Obama to the Australian Parliament,” Canberra, Australia,
November 17, 2011, available at <www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/11/17/
remarks-president-obama-australian-parliament>.
15
Hillary Clinton, “America’s Pacific Century,” Foreign Policy 189 (November–Decem-
ber 2011), 56–63.
16
For an analysis of the origins of the rebalance, see Phillip C. Saunders, “China’s Ris-
ing Power, the U.S. Rebalance to Asia, and Implications for U.S.-China Relations,” Issues
and Studies 50, no. 3 (September 2014), 19–55.
17
See the fact sheets from the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office, available at <www.
ustr.gov/tpp>; Jeffrey Schott, Barbara Kotschwar, and Julia Muir, Understanding the
• 199 •
Trans-Pacific Partnership (Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics,

2013).
18
Ashton Carter, “Remarks on the Next Phase of the U.S. Rebalance to the Asia-Pa-
cific,” McCain Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, April 6, 2015, available at
<www.defense.gov/News/Speeches/Speech-View/Article/606660>.
19
For a recent overview of these activities, see Admiral Harry B. Harris, Jr., com-
mander, U.S. Pacific Command, statement before the Senate Armed Services Commit-
tee hearing on U.S. Pacific Command Posture, February 23, 2016, available at <www.
armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Harris_02-23-16.pdf>.
20
For the Japanese position, see Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, “Fact Sheet on
the Senkaku Islands,” November 2012, available at <www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/
senkaku/fact_sheet.html>; for the Chinese position, see State Council Information Office,
“Diaoyu Dao, an Inherent Territory of China,” September 2012, available at <http://news.
xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-09/25/c_131872152.htm>.
21
Japan Ministry of Defense, available at <www.mod.go.jp/e/publ/w_paper/pdf/2014/
DOJ2014_3-1-1web_1031.pdf>.
22
National Security Strategy (Tokyo: Ministry of Defense, December 17, 2013), 1,
available at <www.cas.go.jp/jp/siryou/131217anzenhoshou/nss-e.pdf>.
23
See Annual Report to Congress 2015.
24
For an analysis of future scenarios, see Phillip C. Saunders, James J. Przystup, and
David F. Helvey, “North Korea 2025: Alternate Futures and Policy Challenges,” CSCMA
Event Report, February 2, 2016, available at <http://inss.ndu.edu/Portals/82/Documents/
conference-reports/2015-Korea-Symposium-Event-Report.pdf>.
25
Alan D. Romberg, “The ‘1992 Consensus’—Adapting to the Future?” China Lead-
ership Monitor, no. 49 (Winter 2016), available at <www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/
clm49ar.pdf>.
26
ASEAN, “Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea,” November
4, 2002, available at <www.asean.org/?static_post=declaration-on-the-conduct-of-parties-
in-the-south-china-sea>.
27
See Christopher D. Yung and Patrick McNulty, An Empirical Analysis of Claimant
Tactics in the South China Sea, INSS Strategic Forum 289 (Washington, DC: NDU Press,
August 2015).
28
Ibid.
29
Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy (Washington, DC: Department of Defense,
August 21, 2015), available at <www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/NDAA%20
A-P_Maritime_SecuritY_Strategy-08142015-1300-FINALFORMAT.PDF>.
30
Ibid.
31
“Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang’s Regular Press Conference on October
27, 2015,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, October 27,
2015, available at <www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/t1309625.
shtml>.
32
Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy.
33
In Japan, North Korea’s growing missile arsenal raises similar questions regarding
missile defense and deterrence.
34
Brad Roberts, Extended Deterrence and Strategic Stability in Northeast Asia, NIDS Vis-
iting Scholar Paper Series, No. 1 (Tokyo: National Institute for Defense Studies, August 9,
2013), available at <www.nids.go.jp/english/publicationvisiting/pdf.01.pdf>.
• 200 •
Asia Pacific
35
Chang Se-jeong and Ser Myo-ja, “Xi Pressed Park on Thaad System,” Korea JoongAng
Daily, February 6, 2015, available at <http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/
article.aspx?aid=3000595>.
36
Available at <www.gov.ph/2014/04/29/document-enhanced-defense-coopera-
tion-agreement>.
37
“Resourcing the Pivot to East Asia and the Pacific FY 2015 Budget Priorities,” May
20, 2014, House of Representatives Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs, Commit-
tee on Foreign Affairs, 4.
38
“Fact Sheet: U.S. Building Maritime Capacity in Southeast Asia,” available at <www.
whitehouuse.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/17>.
39
Remarks by Ambassador Michael Froman at the Center for Strategic and Interna-
tional Studies, Asia Architecture Conference, September 22, 2015, Washington, DC.
40
Remarks of Daniel Russel, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of East Asian and
Pacific Affairs, at the Asia Society, New York City, November 4, 2015.
41
See Phillip C. Saunders, Managing Strategic Competition with China, INSS Strategic
Forum 242 (Washington, DC: NDU Press, July 2009).
42
Thomas Fingar, “China’s Vision of World Order,” in Strategic Asia 2012–2013: Chi-
na’s Military Challenge, ed. Ashley J. Tellis and Travis Tanner (Washington, DC: National
Bureau of Asian Research, 2012), 342–373.
43
Phillip C. Saunders, “Implications: China in the International System,” in The
Chinese People’s Liberation Army in 2025, ed. Roy Kamphausen and David Lai (Carlisle
Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 2015), 301–333.
44
John Speed Meyers and Phillip C. Saunders, “Will China Start a Diversionary War?”
unpublished manuscript, April 2015.
• 201 •
10
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Europe
Charles L. Barry and Julian Lindley-French
The cohesion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the linchpin
of the U.S. global security order for over 65 years, is threatened externally
by Russian aggression and internally by centrifugal European forces spawned
by persistent economic challenges and immigration. Yet NATO is as relevant
to the future as it was in the past. Europe is by far the region with the most
enduring ties to the United States. The world’s largest and richest region, it is
the strongest U.S. partner across all elements of power: diplomatic/political,
informational, military/security, and economic/financial. The United States
should protect this irreplaceable resource by moving with urgency to assert
strong and sustained leadership and commitment to the future of NATO’s
dominant roles in regional peace and global security. The United States
should likewise strengthen its ties to individual European nations and with
the European Union to underscore its enduring support for an appropriately
integrated and prosperous Europe at peace.
E very new administration in Washington must struggle to set the

right priorities as it gets organized. The President’s national security
team—a team that now includes new economic and financial players—
must find its own cohesiveness. Early decisions will set the tone for the
4 years to come. These first choices will signal where the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) and Europe fit among the new President’s
priorities. There is a compelling need for strong, active, and inclusive
U.S. leadership of its most important global security alliance.
The United States and Europe have more in common than any other
two regions of the world. Their economies are the largest by far: the
$18 trillion European Union (EU) economy and $17 trillion U.S. econ-
omy represent more than one-third of global gross domestic product
(GDP). The largest foreign investor in the EU is the United States, and
the largest foreign investors in the United States are in Europe. Together
• 203 •
Barry and Lindley-French
the United States and EU annually account for $4 trillion in collective

foreign direct investment (FDI), close to 50 percent of world’s FDI, an
average of 15 million jobs related to transatlantic trade per year, $5 tril-
lion in commercial transatlantic sales per year, and $120 billion in U.S.-
EU development assistance globally per year. In addition, 98 percent of
U.S.-EU trade is dispute-free. Europe is the largest regional investor in
the United States, representing approximately two-thirds (66 percent) of
FDI through 2013. Asia is a distant second with 17 percent.
NATO is the cornerstone of U.S. allies and partners across the globe.
Treaty partners represent 28 of 34 defense treaty allies around the world.
Of the six Asian non-NATO allies, three are formal partners of the Al-
liance. In total NATO has 41 formal partner countries. When coupled
with NATO’s 28 members, these 69 countries account for one-third of
the nations in the world willing to operate at times with NATO, follow-
ing the Alliance’s doctrine, standards, and operational procedures. NA-
TO’s military and political influence is unparalleled, with its membership
including three of the five founding permanent members of the United
Nations Security Council and three of the world’s nuclear powers.
This close cooperation with like-minded nations is embedded in U.S.
national security strategy, our defense strategic concepts, and our mili-
tary strategy.1 It is fundamental to our doctrines and planning for oper-
ations. Although the United States reserves the right to act unilaterally,
seeking out allies for support and conducting international affairs with
partners has long been a bedrock of U.S. foreign policy. Working with
allies has become part of our national security DNA.
And there is no greater grouping of allies and partners than the North
Atlantic Alliance, the strongest cohort of U.S. allies and partners any-
where in the world and at any point in history. NATO members and
partners offer flexible military capabilities able to support the United
States around the world.2 By virtue of their membership or formal part-
nership in the Alliance, each nation testifies to its willingness to pursue
common interests with the United States politically, economically, and,
at times, militarily. Given the large number of nations linked to NATO, it
can only be regarded as the linchpin of U.S. security strategy. Although a
unique military alliance, NATO is also a successful, even essential, venue
for political consultation, cooperation, and crisis response, both military
and nonmilitary. It has also served as a forum for diplomatic actions and
even economic cooperation.
NATO therefore is and will continue to be the enduring alliance for
the United States in the 21st century.3 Our vital national security interests
require that the United States engage in demonstrable leadership of it.
Every U.S. administration comes to appreciate the value of the invest-
• 204 •
ment in and commitment to NATO. Realizing the highest return on that

investment demands early, steady, and substantive engagement at all lev-
els, including by the President.
Unfortunately, this has not always been the case in recent years, and
rebuilding is required. Preoccupation with turmoil throughout the Mid-
dle East, South Asia, and North Africa has sapped Washington’s diplo-
matic as well as military time, resources, and energy. Since 2009 the U.S.
rebalance to Asia has consumed unprecedented Presidential and Cab-
inet-level attention and travel. NATO/Europe has been (until recently)
an area for culling resources and lowered focus for overtasked agencies.4
A different perspective is warranted. The United States needs its allies
united behind a positive global agenda. Without the political, financial,
and military support of NATO’s many Allies and partners, the United
States pays a far higher price for less peace in the world. NATO should
be accorded standing recognition by U.S. policymakers as the most cru-
cial diplomatic/military tool in America’s international repertoire. NATO
is a global, not a regional contributor, worthy of high engagement at all
times, not only when Europe is in peril.5
The next U.S. President should prioritize staffing key positions well
before June 2017 when the administration’s first meeting with NATO
leaders and ministers will be held. The President should have a substan-
tive phone call with the NATO Secretary General (as well as the President
of the European Council of the European Union) within the first 30 days.
Allies should know what agenda the United States has in mind, and
ideally consensus-building will have begun. How the United States pre-
pares, and whether it presents a solid vision, will be leadership signals to
Allies for the next 4 years. During that time there may be two summits
and eight sets of ministerial meetings for the State and Defense depart-
ments, plus discussions triggered by crises. The United States must work
to create expectations of close cooperation going both ways. In any glob-
al crisis, a key question will be, “What kind of support can our NATO
Allies and partners provide?”
U.S. leadership in NATO has been challenged in recent years. A string
of U.S. actions since September 11 has not ended well, cooling allied
ardor. Allies want a tension-lowering, communicative but firm approach
to Russia that takes into account the concerns of all Alliance members.
They also look to a new U.S. President for wise choices regarding crises
from NATO’s south. Delivering on both will strengthen U.S. leadership
and transatlantic ties. It will also send a strong message to Russia and
other powers that there is solidarity across the Atlantic—that the United
States and Europe cannot be divided on key issues.
• 205 •
The Warsaw Summit

The very successful Warsaw Summit in July 2016 exemplifies the modern
NATO event: decisions by heads of state are made that address the most
significant threats to Allies’ security, plus agreed top-level positions are an-
nounced on a host of other important matters (at Warsaw, more than 100)
that the Alliance intends to act on and resource. Summits sustain their im-
pact by calling for follow-up actions and reports by staffs, commands, and
the nations themselves. The 27th NATO summit in Warsaw also typified
most summits by publishing a number of separate declarations by heads
of state on topics of particular importance, such as Ukraine, transatlantic
security, Afghanistan, commitment to resilience, cyber, Georgia, and NA-
TO-EU relations. These declarations joined the primary declaration where
heads of state gave the weight of their high offices to more than 30 pages
of issues NATO is working to achieve.
NATO commitments showcased at Warsaw were particularly strong.
They include:
• the continuous rotational deployment of NATO battalion battle

groups beginning in 2017 in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland
• establishing the framework for a NATO multinational division head-

quarters in Poland
• the continuous rotation of a U.S.-armored brigade in Germany with

prepositioned equipment
• substantially increased funding ($3.4 billion) for the European Re-

assurance Initiative
• further construction of missile defense facilities ashore in Poland
• additional deployments of maritime and air forces in the NATO

area, including the Black and Baltic Sea regions.
In recent years, every administration has experienced several Alliance

summits. A Brussels Summit is possible in 2017 to introduce the new
heads of state of the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States, and
possibly France and Germany (both hold elections in 2017). Leaders
might also call for a vision for the future and new Strategic Concept
to be prepared for NATO’s next decade. A summit will take place on
NATO’s 70th anniversary in April 2019 (which, notably, would be only
months after Russia’s presidential election). Summits include all NATO
• 206 •
members plus representatives of the EU and many partners, and they are
watched around the world. NATO convenes a special meeting between
NATO members and Russia after each summit, adding to their potential
to improve international relations and reduce tensions. NATO and its
members typically begin to prepare for summits a year before.
Strengthening and Sustaining Alliance Political Cohesion

NATO needs leadership that overcomes differences, works to find com-
mon ground, achieves consensus decisions, and marshals support for ac-
tion. Alliance cohesion is stressed by many factors, including continuing
economic distress, a more aggressive Russia, massive refugee overflows,
terrorism, differences over the role of nuclear weapons or missile defens-
es, ethnic divisions, and intra-Alliance relations. These challenges are
manageable with steady leadership and an agenda that addresses mem-
bers’ discrete security interests. NATO should not be only a rare tool
for collective defense, but it should also function as connective tissue
for both the United States and Europe, a transatlantic underpinning to
international security.
Building and maintaining cohesion inside NATO is complex for dif-
ferent reasons. First, NATO has a much larger and more diverse member-
ship than it did 25 years ago, complicated by an EU that at times seems
more competitive than complementary. Second, the Cold War threat that
kept lesser national and regional concerns in the background for the
sake of security ended a generation ago. An additional and mounting
concern is Turkey and its increasingly authoritarian leader, Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, whose July 2016 post-coup consolidation of power has raised
serious concerns about Turkey’s democracy and even its future in NATO.
Finally, Russian president Vladimir Putin’s objective is likely to damage
or destroy the very cohesion NATO is trying to preserve and strengthen.6
NATO expansion has done much to bring democracy to the newer
member states, but in an alliance of 28 or more members, there will al-
ways be perennial competing interests to take into account and differing
agendas to navigate and integrate. Well-known clusters of nations—the
Arctic, Balkan, Baltic, Benelux, Nordic, Southern, or Visegrád coun-
tries—divide resources and localize priorities when it comes to exter-
nal threats and military requirements. Bilateral voices add to this mix at
times: the U.S.-UK “special relationship,” the Franco-German “axis,” and
the U.S.-Canada “North American pillar” are examples. Also, decades
of NATO membership have masked but never completely overcome
lingering tensions between Turkey and Greece. These fissures or fault
lines are offset by the clear need for collective action to contain Russian
• 207 •
expansion and the instability emanating from NATO’s southern flank.

There are powerful contributions to be harnessed within each of NATO’s
“subcommunities,” and NATO’s agenda must always take into account
their separate concerns.
Better NATO Decisionmaking

Decisionmaking has become unwieldy in an alliance that has mush-
roomed from 12 to (soon) 29 members; growth has slowed NATO to
a crawl. The decision process itself is straightforward; every agreement
requires consensus, and each member’s voice has equal weight. One
member can block any decision. The consensus method applies at ev-
ery level of debate. An objection in any forum thwarts progress until
resolved. However, consensus is not unanimity. Total affirmation is not
required. Members who disagree can either raise objections or simply
remain silent to achieve “consensus.”7 However, silent members may
later offer no political or material/military support or may even criti-
cize agreed actions in some way. Members may also interpret differently
what was agreed. Thus, achieving consensus does not always signal an
Alliance in harmony.
Are there ways to expedite agreements and strengthen consensus
support? The Libya operation in 2012 illustrates that in crisis NATO’s
machinery can move very fast indeed. Several suggestions have been
put forth. Could NATO agree to a formal steering committee to develop
North Atlantic Council (NAC) proposals?8 Might the informal “quad”
employed during the Cold War (France, Germany, United Kingdom, and
the United States) be resurrected to work out issues in advance?9 An-
other suggestion has been to adopt less than full consensus criteria for
minor decisions or at working levels of agreement.
U.S. sponsorship and support from at least key members in Europe
would be needed for even minor changes to be put in place. Structural
changes to the consensus custom are certain to be drawn out and fraught
with the potential for discord.10 Working to make decisions less conten-
tious within the current process will be more promising. Regular infor-
mal discussions among key leaders, including at the highest levels, ap-
pears to hold the most potential for improvement. The mechanism could
be varied based on the issue, consulting other members on particular
matters. Implementation should be transparent and only as a precursor
to formal decision sessions.
Other changes could be employed to speed decisions. For example,
written decision drafts could be circulated in advance of discussions ex-
cept in emergencies.11 Already there are instances where working pa-
• 208 •
pers are distributed after meetings with dissenting views included. These
practices indicate there is flexibility at least in the formative stages. The
Supreme Allied Commander Europe could be authorized to complete
select contingency planning and steps toward military alerts to reduce
the complexity of reaching decisions in a crisis.12
The new U.S. administration should decide on one or two techniques
for improving consensus decisionmaking and refine them with key Al-
lies. Transparency with other members should be part of the plan, and
their views should be brought into the mix before a final proposal is on
offer. The rewards will be reinforced cohesion and stronger support for
reform. In the end there will also be greater participation in implemen-
tation.
Deterring and Communicating with Russia

When it comes to Russia, U.S. and NATO policies are integrated: the
Alliance generally follows the U.S. lead. Furthermore, NATO and Russia
are both encumbered by the same history—an adversarial past that is
often more in focus than any possible future. NATO wants Russia as a
partner but not a co-decider in crafting the Alliance agenda. Russia seeks
a new European order without NATO and EU “blocs.” Promising cooper-
ation deteriorated with the first NATO enlargement and NATO’s bomb-
ing of Russian partner Serbia in 1999.13 Relations were mutually sus-
pended after the 2008 Russo-Georgian War, and they all but ended over
the 2014 crisis in Ukraine. By 2015 Russia listed NATO first among its
military threats,14 and both U.S. and NATO military leaders have made
a reciprocal assessment.15 At the end of a third consecutive 8-year U.S.
Presidency, each begun with the goal of improving relations with Russia,
the NATO-Russia relationship has regressed to near Cold War stasis.16
Rapprochement will be challenging. Putin’s worldview seems fixed.
Above all he fears a “color revolution,” inspired by next-door represen-
tative democracy he cannot tolerate and standards of living he cannot
hope to emulate. The West cannot easily acquiesce politically to Russian
revanchism in Crimea and Ukraine, and it will not give way to Russia’s
assertions of suzerainty on NATO’s eastern borders. The stage is set for a
period of mutual confrontation for some time.
In this environment NATO must resolutely reassure the worried Baltic
states and deter Russia. Stronger deterrence posturing is therefore under
way and will likely continue. No current indicators suggest that Russia
wants military confrontation with NATO, yet Russian military adventures
since 2008 are grounds for caution and concern.17 NATO must strike a
delicate balance: reassuring Allies and deterring Russian miscalculation
• 209 •
while also calming tensions. Russia should suspend provocative exercises

near borders and, more importantly, its activities seeking political, eco-
nomic, or social destabilization of NATO members through “ambiguous
warfare” intended to exploit “the conflict potential of populations.”18
Nothing is more likely to deter such behavior than NATO firmness and
resolve, demonstrated by strong forces on the ground in threatened areas.
The Southern Flank

The situation to NATO’s south has evolved from a distraction to a central
concern. The present galvanizing threats from this region are terrorism
infiltrating from failed states across the Middle East and North Africa and
the collateral flow of refugees from the same conflict zones. Countering
terrorism includes protecting national homelands from attack, but also
intelligence-gathering and protecting the flow of energy and commerce.
Stemming the flow of refugees calls for both humanitarian relief and
removing the impetus to leave home for the unknown. Terrorists from
the south have struck NATO members throughout Alliance territory. The
growing flow of migration now challenges every Ally as well. Hence the
risks from the south are demonstrably risks to all.
A “NATO southern strategy” has been called for to address the in-
creasing risks from across the Mediterranean in North Africa, and from
the Middle East.19 NATO is already implementing a host of important
programs and operations in the region, from active partnerships to op-
erations, and from joint exercises to force contingencies such as and en-
hanced NATO Response Force and Very High Readiness Joint Task Force
(VJTF), both tailorable and responsive to the south as well as the east.
NATO’s political focus is appropriately balanced toward the south, and
one of two joint force headquarters, Joint Force Command Naples, has
a southern region mandate and is also active in overseeing NATO repre-
sentation at and support to the African Union.
Stronger steps may, however, be needed. Refugee displacements from
the Middle East and North Africa have reached calamitous proportions,
causing the greatest political crisis in Europe since the Cold War and
fueling in part Britain’s exit from the EU. The campaign of terror in Eu-
rope shows no signs of abating and may well increase in intensity as the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant loses territory and resorts to even
greater violence abroad. As argued elsewhere in this volume, the Unit-
ed States will be hard put to shore up its traditional allies in a Middle
East in near collapse. Should conjoined refugee and terrorist pressures in
Europe continue to magnify, NATO may be forced to consider stronger
military measures as it looks south.
• 210 •
Alliance Defense Spending20

Every U.S. administration since 1952 has engaged in NATO burdenshar-
ing debates, the constant struggle over defense spending among “friendly
rivals.”21 In terms of annual GDP, Europe is larger than the United States
but spends far less on defense per nation and much less per capita than
its American counterpart.22 In 2014, declining U.S. defense spending
reached only 3.5 percent of GDP; however, Europe’s rising average was
just 1.33 percent of GDP. That year, the United States spent the equiva-
lent of $2,051 per person on defense, while Europe averaged less than
one-fifth that amount, just $404 per capita. That is only about $1.32 per
citizen per day invested in self-defense.23
The charge that Europe is “free riding,” however, is false.24 Europe,
with a larger GDP than the United States and with twice its population,
spent almost $300 billion on defense for 2014 (the United States spent
$654 billion, about 2.25 times higher). However, much of the U.S. de-
fense budget supports American security interests worldwide and is not
specifically focused on Europe. Europe should not spend like the United
States on defense. It is not the dominant world power and, per capita
at least, few Europeans enjoy the wealth of the United States, which on
average is half again that of Europeans.25 More than a 2 percent commit-
ment that many Allies cannot meet, NATO needs military formations
that are better trained, supported by modern equipment and enablers,
and stocked to appropriate levels with repair parts, munitions, fuels, and
other items. In short, they should be employable. In any great crisis,
even modest contributions of quality units (such as a division from the
larger powers and a brigade or battalion from the smaller ones with ap-
propriate air and naval units) add up to a formidable military force no
likely adversary can match.26 This may be a more prudent and effective
approach than insisting on higher defense spending per se.
Critical U.S. Leadership Priorities for NATO

Ten critical priorities will be on NATO’s agenda as a new administration
is seated. Each will probably come to the fore in the first term, demand-
ing U.S. attention and direction. They are sketched briefly as follows.
Sustaining Investment in NATO Partnerships

The substantial network of NATO partnerships built up since the mid-
1990s is at risk of withering on the vine for lack of attention post-Af-
ghanistan. U.S. leadership will be needed to reinvigorate political and
military cooperation with 41 partner countries and several internation-
al organizations.27 Together with NATO members, this is a reservoir of
• 211 •
more than one-third of the world’s nations disposed to operating with

NATO, a substantial addition to both U.S. and NATO security.28
At their Wales Summit in September 2014, Allies agreed to a Defense
and Related Security Capacity Building initiative to assists partners in
strengthening capabilities they might contribute to NATO. The Warsaw
Summit established a Partnership Interoperability Initiative for willing
and capable partners to become better prepared for future crisis man-
agement missions. Another Warsaw program offers enhanced opportu-
nities for partners making substantial operational contributions to draw
even closer to the Alliance.29 These programs should be pursued in full.
Broader partner groups—the Partnership for Peace Program, Mediterra-
nean Dialogue, Istanbul Cooperation Initiative—provide regional focus
and should be kept vibrant.30 NATO’s eight “partners across the globe”
engage in dialogue and cooperate on issues of mutual interest such as
counterterrorism, cyber defense, and energy security.31 NATO military
leaders strongly endorse the contributions of partners and the programs
that build their capabilities.32 However, realizing the benefits of partner-
ship programs will require sustained effort and resources over the long
term from NATO staffs as well as nations.
Keeping NATO’s Nuclear Arsenal Relevant

Alliance leaders regularly reaffirm NATO’s pedigree as a nuclear alli-
ance.33 However, beneath that broad agreement, some Allies openly
question the utility of theater nuclear forces (TNF) in Europe.34 TNF is
how Europeans share the responsibility for, as well as the risk of their
own, nuclear defense. The indivisibility of nuclear defense is why TNF
should be modernized and kept viable. In 2012 NATO completed a De-
terrence and Defense Posture Review to harmonize these differences but
did not succeed.35 The relevant issue is the impending obsolescence of
the specialized “dual (i.e., nuclear) capable aircraft” (DCA) operated by
five participating Allies.36 These are the delivery systems essential to TNF.
Already, experts note, current DCA aircraft are too vulnerable in today’s
air defense environments.37 The solution for three of the five participat-
ing Allies will be the planned acquisition of the U.S. F-35, currently the
only future DCA.38 Germany and perhaps Belgium will have to consider
modifying the EF 2000 Eurofighter for a DCA role, in coordination with
U.S. plans to modernize the TNF arsenal.39 In addition to fleet modern-
ization, weapons storage facilities must also be upgraded, especially in
light of heightened terrorist activities across Europe. These costs should
be a priority for NATO common funding.
• 212 •
Readiness Action Plan: Reassuring Allies and Force Adaptation

The Wales Summit approved and Warsaw confirmed a Readiness Ac-
tion Plan featuring two parts, Assurance and Adaptation. In 2015 alone
NATO held more than 300 exercises, many conducted by rotational forc-
es in Eastern Europe, highlighted by NATO’s largest exercise in a decade
(Trident Juncture) held in the south. Tailored assurance measures are
being implemented in Turkey to address risks arising from the Syrian
conflict. Assurance is now an Alliance-wide endeavor under regular re-
view by NATO ministers.
Post-Warsaw measures will include a substantial increase in U.S. mil-
itary force presence and prepositioned equipment in Europe. NATO’s
VJTF is a 5,000-strong force deploying over 2 to 7 days.40 VJTF is backed
by 35,000 troops in an enhanced NATO Response Force comprised of
interoperable land, maritime, air, special operations, and enabling forces
(including cyber defense). Behind these are remaining national forces of
members and partners in graduated levels of readiness. Ensuring that all
force commitments, including U.S. participation, are interoperable and
fully resourced over time will be crucial to success.41 Response times are
just as critical to deterrence, as adversaries must see that NATO forces
will respond effectively before there is any opportunity for success.
Full-Spectrum Deterrence
The United States should lead NATO toward a 21st-century vision of stra-
tegic deterrence. Deterrence cannot plateau with the operational or tac-
tical positioning of a few ready units. In order to be credible, deterrence
must be strategic as well: geographically broad, resourced in depth and
across the spectrum of forces from conventional to nuclear. Geograph-
ically, NATO capabilities must deter risks from the north as well as the
east and south. Nuclear deterrence requires exercising in that realm too,
something that has been absent for 25 years. A conceptual 360-degree
deterrence posture must be full spectrum—effective against terrorism
and hybrid threats as well as conventional and nuclear threats. Strate-
gic deterrence also means up-to-date mobilization and exercise plans to
bring the full weight of national forces, industry, and resources to bear
against any serious challenge.42 Highlights of national plans should be
reflected in the NATO Defense Planning Process, including mobilization
of critical civil resources and relevant industrial capacity.
Cyber Defense
In conflict and peacetime, no domain is more contested than cyberspace.
The Alliance should undertake to coordinate national command activi-
ties relevant to NATO by creating a Coordination Center for Operational
• 213 •
Cyber Forces.43 NATO cyber defense requires steady investment via com-
mon funding. This reflects universal dependence on information systems
for mission execution, the fast-paced nature of technology evolution,
and the rapid evolution of cyber. A top priority is to ensure protection of
Alliance data on national systems connected to NATO networks.
Ten years after first being defined, it is time for NATO cyber defense
requirements to transition from incremental project-based funding to a
planned level of common funding. The reality of universal dependence
on information systems for mission execution makes steady NATO fund-
ing an imperative. Fast-paced technology evolution and the rapid mor-
phing of the cyber threat environment ensure cyber defense has become
a fundamental item in NATO resource planning.
Defense Against Hybrid Threats

Every NATO member and partner is affected, directly or indirectly, by hy-
brid threats from Russia. These threats take the form of cyber intrusions,
public media manipulation and disinformation (maskirovka), encourage-
ment of separatist movements, corruption of public officials, large-scale
penetration of NATO member intelligence services and political parties,
and energy resource intimidation, as well as others. The initial goals are
economic and political instability. But the collapse of a bordering NATO
state such as Estonia due to Russian subversion—clearly an Article 5
event—could be an existential threat to NATO’s viability altogether. The
failure to achieve unanimity in the North Atlantic Council in this event
through the defection of even a few of NATO’s smaller, poorer, newer
members—those most susceptible to Russian intimidation—might spell
the end of the Alliance as we have known it. NATO thus requires a via-
ble concept for resilience and hybrid defense, a concept that builds on
and assists in national defensive measures. Stronger and better integrated
national forces, especially in eastern Europe, are badly needed, and here
NATO can help. Energy dependence on Russian supplies also constitutes
a serious vulnerability that must be addressed. The Alliance can help
build member capacity with respect to governance for internal minori-
ties, energy independence, strategic communications, and cyber defens-
es. NATO can also help coordinate national measures for intelligence,
police, paramilitary, special operations, and conventional military forces.
Missile Defense
Missile defense is an essential Article 5 capability.44 It has been a goal
of NATO for 15 years given ever-growing missile threats, including po-
tential weapons of mass destruction payloads. The Alliance is making
progress toward missile defense for all allied territory and populations.
• 214 •
Systems are also in place for protecting deployed troops. Aegis systems,
both ship-borne (based in Spain) and land-based (in Romania), cover
the southern regions of the Alliance. Another Aegis system is under de-
velopment in Poland. This will be the final piece of the U.S. European
Phased Adaptive Approach missile defense system. It requires funding
through 2018. When completed NATO will have an Article 5 collec-
tive defense capability against missile attacks. Other Allies contribute
to NATO missile defense with land- and sea-based systems, and these
contributions should expand. The latest countries to join the program
are Denmark, the Netherlands, and Spain.45
Missile defense is also a major NATO-Russia issue. Russia fears NATO
capabilities may neutralize the missile and rocket forces it relies on for
national defense, both conventional and nuclear, creating a destabilizing
situation of Russian vulnerability.46 Russia wants NATO to terminate its
missile defense program or allow Russia in as co-directors and decision-
makers. NATO has stated neither option is acceptable. Thus there is an
impasse at a time when risks have increased and communications are
minimal. Given that some 30 countries have missile systems capable of
reaching NATO territory, the need for effective missile defense is clear.47
It will come, however, at the price of continued Russian intransigence.
The NATO Strategic Concept

The 2010 Strategic Concept (SC) no longer reflects the strategic environ-
ment and is in need of updating. The SC states that “the Euro-Atlantic
area is at peace and the threat of a conventional attack against NATO
territory is low.” Since peace was shattered in Ukraine, many Allies have
raised concerns about the threat of conventional attack. Terrorist threats
born in the conflicted territories to NATO’s south have spawned deadly
attacks in France, Germany, and Belgium. Refugee flows across Europe
have grown to alarming proportions and continue unabated. The world
of 2010 seems far away indeed. A near-term option may be to provide
interim political guidance to NATO military leaders for revision of MC
400/3, the classified instructions commanders use to implement the
2010 Strategic Concept, followed by a revised SC rolled out at the 70th
anniversary summit. In crafting a revised concept, NATO leaders will
likely consider guidance tailored to NATO’s eastern region and separately
for NATO’s south and southeast. Branch plans for other areas (for exam-
ple, the Arctic) should be included.
NATO’s Open Door Policy

NATO has invited Montenegro to join the Alliance and has a long-pend-
ing decision to accept Macedonia once its name dispute with Greece is
• 215 •
resolved.48 Allies want to assert their resolve that Russia not have a de
facto veto over new members. However, it is equally important to take
in new members only where there is demonstrable mutual benefit to se-
curity. Expansion for expansion’s sake is unwise. For some, a permanent
partnership is all that is desired. Militarily neutral Serbia is an example of
a NATO partner (since 2006) that does not aspire to membership.
Bosnia-Herzegovina’s long, slow Membership Action Plan process is
hampered by internal political disputes between its two entities, Republika
Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Near-term goals
are further reconciliation and avoidance of retrenchment or open conflict.
Membership for Ukraine and Georgia will continue to be conten-
tious with Russia. Russia commenced military operations in Georgia and
Ukraine in part to send a clear signal that membership in NATO now is
unacceptable. In spite of NATO’s 2008 Bucharest Declaration (one repeat-
ed at Wales) that both countries will become members, NATO should be
in no hurry. Both will take some time to complete Membership Action
Plans, a process neither has begun. Their priority should be much-need-
ed internal reforms. The goal should be to draw them closer to NATO as
active partners, along the examples set by Finland and Sweden.
Reform
NATO should respond to recent terrorist attacks and other threats fac-
ing the Alliance by solving its longstanding failure to share informa-
tion. Many attempts have failed at getting Allies to generate more than a
minimalist and untimely intelligence picture. A major transformation is
called for. A worthy solution is to invest in a standing committee of na-
tional intelligence directors, answerable to the NAC and parallel in both
structure and process to the Military Committee. Such an institution is
the only way to establish a culture of information-sharing not only for
terrorism but also for threats in every domain.
Alliance-wide reforms were initiated at the 2010 Lisbon Summit and
endorsed in 2012 at Chicago.49 These included reforms to NATO head-
quarters staffs, military command structure, and agencies. Reforms were
also enacted for Alliance resource management and common funding
processes. At the start of 2017 the focus should be on developing team
excellence, assessing performance, and making adjustments.
There is an urgent need to achieve far greater outcomes from Alliance
programs and operations. The culprit here is the unavoidable political
processes that are necessary for the Alliance to function at all. The solu-
tion is greater cooperation and more effective leadership, not just by the
Secretary General and the United States but by all members. No member
should merely “show up” and be minimally engaged. Representatives
• 216 •
must know the processes and prepare well. Military commands should
receive all the properly trained and skilled personnel nations promised.
Leaders and staffs alike should lean in and be willing to support initia-
tives even as they protect essential prerogatives.
NATO, the European Union, and Brexit

Though U.S. relations with Europe are primarily through NATO, since
the mid-1990s U.S.-EU relations have been part of the mix, broadening
cooperation in the economic, financial, political, and even security are-
nas.50 The growing power of the EU as a partner in nonmilitary global
affairs has been at the heart of these developments. The EU is a full
member of both the G-7 and the G-20 with global influence. It elabo-
rates Europe’s collective foreign and security policy interests. It maintains
139 delegations around the world, including in most nations and with
the United Nations, African Union, Organization for Security and Co-
operation in Europe, International Atomic Energy Agency, World Trade
Organization, and others. The EU has steadfastly cooperated with NATO
in postconflict stabilization in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia,
Afghanistan, and, in the near future, perhaps Libya.
The United States gains substantial benefit from a healthy EU econo-
my and stable EU financial picture because Europe and the United States
are each other’s most significant investment and job-creating partner. A
stable, politically cohesive Europe free from conflict will be America’s
strongest partner in global affairs. For example, EU economic sanctions
against both Iran and Russia have helped further U.S. security interests.
Achieving the same result through myriad bilateral negotiations across
Europe would be difficult if not impossible. A strong EU depends on
good relations among members that are themselves politically and eco-
nomically vibrant. When this is the case, the EU is a force for global
stability and a reliable partner for the United States, including in the
prevention and resolution of conflicts worldwide.
Today, the United States should be concerned. The EU has been buf-
feted by too many crises over the past several years: the 2008 economic
recession and the subsequent euro financial crisis; a series of tragic and
seemingly unending terrorist attacks in Madrid, London, Paris, Brussels,
Nice, and beyond; a political crisis triggered by the unprecedented result
of the Brexit referendum in June 2016; and a refugee invasion from the
south spawning mass encampments, riots, renationalization of borders,
and the rise of xenophobia across the Union. Were the EU to unravel, the
impact would be global—economic and political uncertainty, but also in
terms of peace and security. The United States should take three steps to
help the EU find its way back to sound political and economic health.51
• 217 •
First, the United States and the EU should agree on a new 21st-cen-
tury pact to replace the limited and ancient 1995 New Transatlantic
Agenda that still defines their relationship. There is much to build on
through transatlantic cooperation in diplomatic, political, and economic
realms. Development aid is one area. Prevention of and recovery from
crises and conflict are other portfolios. And there are myriad other issues
from terrorism (a mainstay of the 1995 agreement that should endure)
to environmental, social, and poverty issues among the disenfranchised.
Second, the United States should actively collaborate with the EU on
strategies to alleviate its most acute problems. This might include work-
ing with the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to find new
approaches to the euro crisis, within the context of a recovering global
economy. This might also include collaboration on border security to
address overwhelming refugee flows.
Third, the United States should work with the EU to preserve its co-
hesion in the face of persistent attempts by Russia to divide Union mem-
bers on a host of issues from energy supplies to sanction support related
to Russian aggression against Ukraine. Closer transatlantic ties will help
ward off hybrid attacks against the EU by partnering on cyber security,
energy security, strategic communications, and counterterrorism.
NATO-EU relations have unquestionably been affected by the June
2016 Brexit referendum vote to leave the EU, a historic event. Though
future EU-UK relations are a matter for the parties to negotiate, the United
States should make known to both sides its major interests in a strong EU
as well as a healthy United Kingdom. We can neither take solace nor be
a disinterested party in seeing the EU unravel politically, a potential that
Brexit may portend as anti-EU sentiments strengthen into political move-
ments within other members’ polities. We cannot know whether Brexit
will ultimately be a positive for the United Kingdom. However, it is already
positive for a Russia intent on eroding EU solidarity on economic sanc-
tions and its overall political resolve. Spillover into NATO decisionmaking
and cohesion cannot be ruled out, and in fact should be anticipated.
No one anticipates the EU disintegrating, and the immediate risk of
further “leave” votes appears low. However, Brexit has strengthened sim-
ilar political movements across Europe, most notably in France, Ger-
many, and Spain, and it would be unwise to ignore their genesis. For
Brussels, the UK “leave” vote should kindle determination to build a
more politically credible EU, one less focused on regulating and more
intent on addressing the day-to-day concerns of its citizenry. The United
States should urge the EU to move in that direction. No matter its faults,
it is hard to see how disintegration could best the status quo ante, even
for the United Kingdom.
• 218 •
The United Kingdom has made clear its desire to maintain access to
the EU’s single market. The most probable path will be arduous negotia-
tions between London and Brussels on bilateral agreements rather than,
for example, rejoining the European Free Trade Association or otherwise
coordinating trade relations as a member of a group. The United King-
dom must also negotiate new agreements around the globe, heretofore
arranged for it by the EU. However, negotiating any new trade relations
must await completion of the Brexit separation process that the United
Kingdom will initiate by invoking Article 50 of the Treaty on European
Union (also called the Lisbon Treaty). That step is expected to be tak-
en in spring 2017. Negotiations are anticipated to take 2 years. During
that time Brexit will be the dominant preoccupation in UK-EU relations,
demanding much top-level attention by both sides. The United States
should take account of the magnitude and duration of this distraction
over the next several years.
The future foundation for transatlanticism should be a mutual U.S.-
EU commitment to NATO as the primary security provider for Europe.
This will allow mutual cooperation in a host of nonmilitary yet urgent
priorities essential to regional and global prosperity. The United States
should design programs that highlight the mutual value of a strong part-
nership with the EU to spread global prosperity. U.S.-EU cooperation
should also help surmount the final obstacle (the Cyprus conflict) to
building a collaborative and comprehensive NATO-EU transatlantic cri-
sis response capacity.52 This is sorely needed. The EU has superb capacity
for conflict prevention and postconflict recovery, and NATO has taken
on the heavier lifting of the in-between mission of crisis response. As the
two institutions learned in Kosovo, they will eventually find modalities
of cooperation during a crisis, but they can do so much better if they can
plan ahead.
Conclusion: Building Beyond Warsaw

The new administration will have to engage from the beginning in hands-
on leadership of the NATO alliance. That necessarily includes tangible
commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty’s Article 5 and endorsement of
agreements reached most recently at the Warsaw Summit. Executive-lev-
el personal relationships across the Atlantic should be sought out early
in 2017. NATO and EU portfolios should be passed on, hand-to-hand,
between outgoing and incoming U.S. administrations. The aim is to es-
tablish assured U.S. leadership of an Alliance from the beginning and to
confirm that NATO remains the cornerstone of U.S. engagement abroad
on security matters.
• 219 •
Solid transatlantic cohesion should be consciously woven into a

positive and active agenda. The best start will be to follow through on
commitments already under way. Allies will react positively to initial
consistency, especially on top priorities such as Russia and crises to the
south. Managing consensus should be eased by working informally and
regularly with a select group of NATO members to propose and hone
positions favorable to the Alliance as a whole. The discrete small group
concept has proved acceptable in the past, and such a group need not
be exclusive in every case. This is an effective way to expedite Alliance
business. A corollary to the small group method is that it is incumbent
on group members to be aware of the positions of nonmembers and
keep them informed. This is particularly important for the United States
because of its geographic distance from and unique role in the Alliance.
Beyond NATO’s internal cohesion, the United States should encour-
age NATO to invest in deepening the quality of its vast and valued part-
nerships. That so many nations desire to work with NATO is a treasure
to be preserved: members and partners who have indicated a willingness
to operate together using NATO procedures. With solid leadership, a
cohesive membership, and a strong participating partner cohort, NATO
will always have the fundamentals in place to maintain interoperable
capabilities, to respond to Russia, and to address crises to the south.
The end of the Cold War led many to believe that NATO’s fundamen-
tal raison d’etre no longer existed. Since then, NATO has proved resilient,
enduring, and essential. For the United States, NATO represents by far
the most important link in a chain of security alliances and partnerships
that span the globe. The Alliance is a bedrock of U.S. national security
and, with care and attention, will remain so for many years to come.
Notes
1
This point is brought out in an excellent piece on developing strategy, advising that
one strategic consideration is that “it is always better with allies.” See R.D. Hooker, Jr.,
“‘The Strange Voyage’: A Short Précis on Strategy,” Parameters 42, no. 4/43, no. 1 (Winter/
Spring 2013), 67.
2
For more elaboration on the many ways the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) continues to serve U.S. interests, see W. Bruce Weinrod, “We Still Need NATO,”
The American Interest, January 15, 2016, available at <www.the-american-interest.
com/2016/01/15/we-still-need-nato/>.
3
Julian Lindley-French, The North Atlantic Treaty Organization: The Enduring Alliance,
2nd ed. (Milton Park, UK: Routledge, 2015), chapter 7.
4
As an example, President Barack Obama did not formally meet with new NATO
Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg until May 2015, 8 months after Stoltenberg took
office, in spite of the ongoing crisis with Russia, a request to do so from NATO, and a
multiday Stoltenberg visit to Washington, DC, in the interim. See Josh Rogin, “Obama
• 220 •
Snubs NATO Chief as Crisis Rages,” Bloomberg.com, March 24, 2015, available at <www.
bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-24/obama-snubs-nato-chief-as-crisis-rages>.
5
Examples of NATO’s global engagement include its cooperation with China in
anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden, airlift and training with the African Union in
Addis Ababa, earthquake relief operations in Pakistan in 2005, and humanitarian relief
airlift operations for earthquake victims in the Philippines in 2013. See NATO Web site at
<www.nato.int/>.
6
S.R. Covington, Putin’s Choice for Russia (Cambridge, MA: Belfer Center for Science
and International Affairs, 2015), 12. See also February 2016 National Public Radio
(NPR) interview with Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, USA, commander, U.S. Army
Europe, who made the same point as firsthand experience; available at <www.npr.
org/2016/02/05/465672051/u-s-presence-in-eastern-europe-is-vital-commanding-gener-
al-says>.
7
Paul Gallis, NATO Decision-Making Procedure, RS21510 (Washington, DC: Congres-
sional Research Service, updated May 5, 2003).
8
Christof Bertram, “Toward 2015–Institutions Matter,” in Visions of the Atlantic Alli-
ance, ed. Simon Serfaty (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies,
2005), 82–83.
9
The informal “quad” was formed as the Berlin group, the three occupying powers
and Germany, to deal with issues related to the security of Berlin during the Cold War. It
continued as the quad after the Cold War but was abandoned during strong disagreement
over requests from the United States for NATO support for the invasion of Iraq. It has not
been functional since 2003.
10
The method of Alliance decisionmaking is not specified in the Washington Treaty
except with regard to Article 10 dealing with the acceptance of new members. In that one
case, the Alliance must be unanimous. Consensus was adopted early to reflect collective
decisions of sovereign members. See “Consensus Decision-Making at NATO,” March 14,
2016, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49178.htm>.
11
Edgar Buckley and Kurt Volker, NATO Reform and Decision Making, Issue Brief
(Washington, DC: Atlantic Council, February 2010), 2
12
Leo G. Michel, NATO Decisionmaking: Au Revoir to the Consensus Rule? INSS Strategic
Forum 202 (Washington, DC: NDU Press, August 2003), 6–7.
13
Lindley-French, chapter 5. Operation Allied Force was a bombing campaign against
Serbia, a Slavic partner of Russia, from March 24 to June 10, 1999. Its success forced
withdrawal of Serbian forces from the province of Kosovo, allowing its protection from
Belgrade by NATO forces to this day. The bombing had a significant adverse effect on
Russian perceptions of NATO.
14
See Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation, December 26, 2014, para. 12
(“The Main External Military Dangers”), a. (NATO), available at <www.scribd.com/
doc/251695098/Russia-s-2014-Military-Doctrine>.
15
See Weinrod for congressional testimony statement by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff General Joseph Dunford. For U.S. and NATO, see General Phillip M. Breedlove,
USAF, United States European Command Theater Strategy (Stuttgart-Vaihingen, Germany:
Headquarters U.S. European Command, October 2015), 4.
16
Bridget Kendell, “Rhetoric Hardens as Fears Mount of a New Cold War,” BBC.com,
November 14, 2014, available at <www.bbc.com/news/uk-30010263>; Dmitri Trenin,
“Welcome to Cold War II,” Foreign Policy, March 4, 2014, available at <http://foreignpoli-
cy.com/2014/03/04/welcome-to-cold-war-ii/>.
17
Covington, 21; NPR, Hodges interview.
• 221 •
18
Charles Barry, interviews with national defense officials in Lithuania, Latvia, and
Estonia, February 2015.
19
F. Stephen Larrabee and Peter A. Wilson, “NATO Needs a Southern Strategy,”
National Interest, January 27, 2014, available at <http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/
nato-needs-southern-strategy-9769>.
20
All data are for actual expenditures in 2014, unless otherwise noted.
21
Wallace J. Thies, Friendly Rivals: Bargaining and Burdenshifting in NATO (Armonk,
NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2003).
22
Europe used here means the 28 European Union (EU) countries plus non-EU
NATO members Albania, Norway, and Turkey (31 countries). See World Bank, “European
Union,” available at <http://data.worldbank.org/region/EU>; World Bank, “United States,”
available at <http://data.worldbank.org/country/united-states>.
23
Calculations based on data from Military Balance 2016 (London: Institute for Inter-
national Strategic Studies [IISS], 2016), chapter 4.
24
Ibid. All data in this section refer to 2014 actual defense spending, unless otherwise
noted.
25
An interesting fact is that, applying IISS data, Europeans would only need to
spend €1.86/person/day to reach 2 percent. Today they only average €1.24/person/
day. The difference: €0.6 euros. In contrast, the United States spends the equivalent of
€6.30/person/day.
26
For example, a force consisting of U.S., United Kingdom, French, Polish, and
German divisions, with brigades from Italy, Spain, Turkey, and the Nordic members and
battalions from the others, would constitute a full field army, larger than the Russian
Federation could deploy in the east.
27
This number includes Russia, whose partnership with NATO is suspended but has
not been dissolved by either party in a formal sense.
28
Breedlove, 6.
29
The initial partners invited at Warsaw to become “enhanced opportunity partners”
are Australia, Finland, Georgia, Jordan, and Sweden. See Warsaw Summit Communique,
para. 101.
30
At Warsaw, NATO also announced that its international staff will soon begin work-
ing-level ties with the international staff of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The four
Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) partners—Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United
Arab Emirates—are all members of the six-nation GCC, and NATO has long held open
invitations for the remaining GGC members, Oman and Saudi Arabia, to join the ICI.
31
NATO’s eight partners across the globe reveal two distinct groups: Afghanistan,
Iraq, and (to a lesser extent) Pakistan are partners seeking improvement of weak security
capacity; Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mongolia, and New Zealand are stable
partners contributing to NATO missions and pursuing interoperability.
32
Breedlove, 6.
33
NATO Wales Summit Declaration, September 5, 2014, para. 49. This affirmation
is also found in the 2012 Chicago Summit Declaration (para. 58) and the 2010 Alliance
Strategic Concept (para. 17) approved at the Lisbon Summit of that year.
34
John R. Galvin, Fighting the Cold War: A Soldier’s Memoir (Lexington: University
Press of Kentucky, 2015), 360. Writing about his thoughts as Supreme Allied Command-
er Europe after a discussion with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral William J.
Crowe in early 1990, General Galvin stated, “For my part, I had become convinced that
NATO could defend itself without the use of nuclear weapons at all.” For much fuller
treatment of military as well as political factors impacting theater nuclear weapons utility,
• 222 •
refer to Laurence T. Martin, “Concluding Remarks: Reflections on the Forty Years’ History
of TNF [theater nuclear forces],” in The History of NATO TNF Policy: The Role of Studies,
Analysis and Exercise Conference Proceedings, Volume II, Papers and Presentations, ed. R.L.
Rinne (Livermore, CA: Sandia National Laboratories, February 1994), 311–321, available
at <www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/26/072/26072023.pdf>.
35
Synthesis of March 5–6, 2012, roundtable featuring three European institutes—In-
stitut de Relations Internationales et Stratégiques (IRIS, France), Institut für Friedensfor-
schung und Sicherheitspolitik an der Universität Hamburg (Germany), British American
Security Information Council (United Kingdom)—and the Washington, DC–based Arms
Control Association. IRIS report, April 2012.
36
This is a good point at which to emphasize that TNF is the only nuclear capability
subject to NATO decisionmaking. The strategic nuclear forces of NATO’s nuclear mem-
bers—France, the United States, and the United Kingdom—are employed by national
decisions of those powers alone. NATO is tied to the U.S. strategic nuclear umbrella by
the North Atlantic Treaty. In an attack demanding a nuclear response, presumably NATO
would first attempt to secure its territory by conventional means and then by TNF. An
unlimited strategic nuclear war would call for the national decisions noted here.
37
Germany and Italy use the Panavia Tornado IDS fighter as a dual-capable aircraft
platform (DCA). Belgium and the Netherlands use the F-16A/B, and Turkey uses the
upgraded F-16C/D (Block 50). Both basic models were introduced in 1974, though all
are presumed updated to some degree. Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey are to purchase
the U.S. F-35A, a new DCA aircraft. Germany was to retire the Tornado in 2015 but will
keep it until 2020 at least. See Justin Bronk, “The Forced Evolution of Europe’s Tactical
Nuclear Capability,” RUSI Defense Systems, February 1, 2016, available at <https://rusi.
org/publication/rusi-defence-systems/forced-evolution-europe%E2%80%99s-tactical-nu-
clear-capability>.
38
The five European NATO members hosting an aggregate of fewer than 200
U.S.-controlled B61 gravity bombs are Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and
Turkey. Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey are already committed to purchase the
dual-capable U.S. F-35 Lightning II. Belgium is undecided and Germany has no plans
for the F-35.
39
The United States will convert current B61 Mod 3 and 4 TNF weapons to digital
Mod 12 weapons within 10 years, allowing the EF 2000 to be modified for the DCA role.
See Bronk.
40
The Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF) is similar to the Allied Com-
mand Europe Mobile Force–Land (AMF-L), NATO’s initial response force from the early
1960s until 2002. Both forces are broad-participation (14–22 nations) multinational
brigade-size units of 5,000, kept on high alert at home bases until called on. However,
AMF-L was comprised of assigned forces under a permanent active headquarters. VJTF is
comprised of units and a command that rotates each year, following an intense train-up
and certification process. Views differ on the merits of the two designs.
41
Charles Barry, Building Future Transatlantic Interoperability Around a Robust NATO Re-
sponse Force, Transatlantic Current Paper 7 (Washington, DC: NDU Press, October 2012).
42
Author discussion at NATO headquarters in July 2012 with a senior allied military
officer. Response to author’s question regarding force reconstitution and mobilization was
simply that “we have no such plans.”
43
The model for such a center is the Special Operations Forces (SOF) Coordination
Center that resulted from the 2006 Riga Summit initiative on SOF transformation. Today
that center has evolved into the very successful NATO SOF headquarters under Allied
Command Operations.
44
Lindley-French, chapter 6.
• 223 •
45
Breedlove, 10–11.
46
Julianne Smith, The NATO-Russia Relationship, Project Report (Washington, DC:
Center for Strategic and International Studies, November 2008), 13.
47
For more detailed information and a chronology of allied missile defense develop-
ment, see NATO, “Ballistic Missile Defense,” available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/
topics_49635.htm>.
48
NATO’s Warsaw Summit Declaration, para. 1, July 9, 2016, available at <www.nato.
int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_133169.htm>.
49
NATO Chicago Summit Declaration, paras. 69–73.
50
In the security arena, the United States has developed common efforts on assistance
to Africa through U.S. Africa Command and on common concerns in the areas of securi-
ty-sector reform, terrorism, and cyber security.
51
James G. Stavridis, “Once Again Europe Needs America,” Politico.com, January 21,
2016, available at <www.politico.eu/article/europes-security-disorder-demands-amer-
ican-help-pressure-refugees-social-strain-open-borders/>; also see Damon Wilson,
“Rallying the Transatlantic Community to a Greater Purpose,” Atlantic Council, February
3, 2016, available at <www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/rallying-the-transat-
lantic-community-toward-a-greater-purpose>.
52
Lindley-French, chapter 7.
• 224 •
11
Russia
Peter B. Zwack
U.S. and Western relations with Russia continue to deteriorate as Russia

increasingly reasserts itself on the global stage. Driven by a worldview based on
existential threats—real, perceived, and contrived—Russia, as a vast 11–time
zone Eurasian nation with major demographic and economic challenges, has
multiple security dilemmas both internally and along its vulnerable periphery
that include uncertain borders to its south and far east. Exhibiting a reactive
xenophobia curried from a long history of destructive war and invasion along
most of its borders, the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991, the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization’s peaceful enlargement, and perceived Western slights,
Russia increasingly threatens or lashes outward with its much improved but
still flawed military. Time is not on Russia’s side, however, as it has entered
into a debilitating status quo that includes unnecessary confrontation with the
West, multiple unresolved military commitments, and a sanctions-strained
economy. In a dual-track approach, the U.S. and its allies must deter Russian
aggression while simultaneously rebuilding atrophied conduits between key
U.S. and Russian political and operational military leaders to avert incidents
or accidents that could lead to potential brinksmanship.
I n recent years Russia has dramatically reasserted itself on the glob-

al stage, drawing attention to a complex and increasingly tense rela-
tionship with the United States that has never been fully resolved. De-
spite the complexities, U.S. national security interests in the region are
clear. The United States must deter Russia from further aggression in
Eastern Europe, bolster the security of North Atlantic Treaty Organiza-
tion (NATO) Allies and partners, reconstitute direct conduits for frank
dialogue and deconfliction while aggressively countering Russian dis-
information campaigns, and reestablish and reinvigorate languishing
arms control regimes. These interests are directly linked to the turbulent
course Russia has charted as it struggles to break out of a status quo that
• 225 •
Zwack
it views as debilitating and threatening. As this chapter explores, the

resulting security dilemmas that have emerged are grounded in Russia’s
historic perception of what it considers to be an existential threat, and
in the growing number of both real and perceived vulnerabilities facing
the Russian state.
In 2014 Russia set into motion a turbulent course with its illegal an-
nexation of Ukraine’s Crimea that by year’s end left it isolated, hemor-
rhaging resources, and under a heavy international sanctions regime.
The euphoria from the Sochi Olympics and the invasion of Crimea rap-
idly dissipated as Russian proxy separatists became bogged down in an
increasingly bloody conflict within eastern Ukraine, culminating with
Air Malaysia MH-17 being shot down by a Russian-provided Buk mis-
sile.1 In the interim Russia had been thrown out of the prestigious Group
of Eight and was suffering from increased sanctions by the European
Union (EU) and the United States. Additionally, NATO moved to reassert
its Article 5 mission. The EU coalesced behind a strong sanctions regime,
despite the threat of Russian disruption of energy supplies. Ukrainians
found a sense of national purpose and patriotism. Oil prices, from which
Russia derives the bulk of its revenue, collapsed while the ruble lost over
50 percent of its value.2
For these reasons, the Putin regime, a pseudo-democratic autocratic
kleptocracy, was forced to confront the prospect that its domestic legiti-
macy was beginning to erode from 2014 to mid 2015. Despite a purport-
ed 85 percent approval rating for President Vladimir Putin, polls did not
necessarily translate to full public approval of the Russian regime and its
actions abroad, or even internally. The regime no doubt remembered the
large and primarily middle-class “Bolotnaya” protests in Moscow and St.
Petersburg during the winter of 2011–2012.3 Despite the strident disin-
formation that dominated Russian airwaves, Russia simmered internally
with disparaging international news and difficult economic conditions
that stressed its generally loyal population. Even this patriotic majority
became troubled by stories of egregious corruption and by disconcert-
ing information about Russian soldiers and intelligence operatives being
captured or killed in eastern Ukraine.4
During much of 2015 Russia remained isolated internationally. The
sanctions continued to bite and NATO continued to regain its confidence
and strategic balance, taking measures to increase shared spending while
reasserting its presence in and around those areas that felt threatened by
an increasingly confrontational Russia. Paradoxically, Russia did manage
to remain active within international organizations, notably the United
Nations (UN), the Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa association
of nations, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Collec-
• 226 •
Russia
tive Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), and the Eurasian Economic

Union. Russia also was instrumental as a member of the P5+1 consortium
(China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United
States) that negotiated the Iran nuclear deal.5 Perhaps most important
was Russia’s deepening but utterly transactional “strategic partnership”
with China. Despite a flawed natural gas deal, this gave both nations the
opportunity to focus their attention and efforts toward different fronts
and not against each other.6
In late October 2015 Russia undertook a gamble to break out of its
perceived containment by aggressively asserting itself in the Middle East
as both a diplomatic and military actor. With its sharp-elbowed military
intervention in Syria, Putin and his regime, for the first time since 1979
in Afghanistan, successfully reasserted Russia’s military presence beyond
the confines of the Former Soviet Union (FSU), establishing Russia as
once again a key actor in the Middle East.7 By restoring the near-term
viability of the Bashar al-Asad regime and securing bases at Tartus and
Latakia, Russia is showing the region, the world, and its own citizens that
it remains a powerful nation on the world stage.8 The widely reported
“shock and awe” demonstration of military firepower using heavy bomb-
ers and long-range cruise missiles from the Caspian Flotilla accentuated
this narrative.9 This phenomena may in part explain the sortie of Russia’s
sole aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, and flotilla from its Northern
Fleet to the eastern Mediterranean.10
In so doing, Russia has partially broken out of the debilitating status
quo of late 2014–2015. The Russian population, suffering the effects of
sanctions and collapsing oil prices, responded positively to Putin’s deci-
siveness and verve through the eastern Ukrainian and Syrian interven-
tions. The destruction of Russia’s civilian Metrojet by Islamic State of
Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) entities and the Turkish downing of a Russian
warplane sent tremors into Russia, however, ending the easy phase of
intervention and signaling that Russia may face a long, hard slog. Despite
the apparent success in Syria, this may be the new status quo for Putin’s
Russia. Russia is now deeply and violently enmeshed in an open-ended
Syrian civil and sectarian war that has a long way to go before any ces-
sation of hostilities. It is also internationally tarred by its indiscriminate
bombing of Aleppo that brutally breached any mainstream adherence to
international laws of war. Furthermore, Russia has the added burden of
being stuck with a violent, expensive, and increasingly frozen conflict in
eastern Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian coffers dwindle, food imports are
reduced, and despite slight increases oil prices remain low with the ruble
inflated. These external and domestic factors will continue to put increas-
ing pressure on Russia and Putin. What will Russia do next to break out
• 227 •
Zwack
of the status quo? While it is difficult to predict Russian actions, it is clear

Russia will be looking for every way to keep “the narrative”—both in-
ternationally and domestically—assertive, positive, and forward moving.
The single main event that undermined the 2009 political “reset” be-
tween the United States and Russia and set off Russia’s strategically de-
fensive, tactically preemptive military actions of early 2014 was the Feb-
ruary ouster of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine.11
For many observers, it is difficult to comprehend how inclusion into a
peaceful economic union could set off a violent reaction and invasion by
a dominant neighbor. Called a Western-backed coup by the Russian dis-
information machine, this vociferous and dogged expression of majority
Ukrainians hit at the core of the Putin regime’s existential fear of internal
regime change.12 In fact Russia exists in and in some ways is trapped by
its historical worldview. It lives in a world full of existential threats, real
and perceived—and contrived.
Russia and Its Perception of Existential Threats

Russia is Eurasia. It touches or influences about 70 percent of the world
where the United States has serious economic and security interests. Any
discussion about Russia must first begin by recognizing the role geog-
raphy and history have played in determining the Russian perspective.
How does one rule a barely cultivatable, permafrost-heavy nation of 144
million people spread out over 11 time zones, where all trains depart
on centralized Moscow time through lands mostly cut out of the hide of
former nations and civilizations?13
In prior generations, ideological struggle was represented by the great
“isms,” namely capitalism, communism, socialism, and fascism. These
drove great power dynamics and conflict. Tomorrow’s conflicts will be
resource-driven. Russia is a warehouse of yet untapped natural resources
and, as competition grows, will perceive its increasing vulnerability to
energy and resource-dependent neighbors.14
Given these challenges, a Russian general staff planner conducting an
objective strategic assessment out to 2050 would necessarily be highly
concerned about the future of his nation. Foremost Russia has a looming
demographic challenge. Whether the population increases, any growth
will be marginal at best.15 A significant portion of Russia’s population,
about 74 percent, lives in urban areas primarily west of the Ural Moun-
tains where greater Asia becomes greater Europe.16 This gives the state
a predominately Western feel even in Siberia and the Far East. The na-
ture of the population is also changing, becoming increasingly ethnically
Central Asian or from the Caucasus. Much of this population “supple-
• 228 •
Russia
ment” will be Muslim, which has to be concerning to the Russian Or-

thodox Church that is enjoying a “renaissance” of faith and worship with
up to 73 percent of the “Great Russian” population.17 The conflicts along
Russia’s periphery and within the Middle East involving Sunni Islam
threaten to intensify anti-Russian sentiment both externally and among
Russia’s approximately 15 million predominantly Sunni Muslims.18 The
dynamics of Chechnya, and the incipient Sunni insurgency in Dagestan,
can only become more complicated and dangerous for Russia as surviv-
ing jihadists fighting in Syria and Iraq eventually return home.
Russia’s petroleum-based economy must adapt as access to oil and
natural gas becomes more challenging in the years ahead. With ex-
traction increasingly difficult and costly in the high latitudes of the fro-
zen but melting tundra, the economy will increasingly struggle with few-
er barrels extracted at higher cost.19 This is a major catalyst driving Arctic
development—an area of potential cooperation—and concomitant mil-
itary basing to expand and secure its claims. These claims include the
Lomonosov Ridge and access to natural resources along the widening
Northern Sea Route.20 Additionally, much of the Russian population is
unhealthy. This is exacerbated by high alcohol and tobacco use, plus the
ecological blight that came with Soviet-era rust belt industrial develop-
ment and poorly regulated nuclear reactor development and storage.21
A Short Geostrategic Survey Around Russia’s Periphery

The Far East and Asia
The Russian Far East is currently calm though geostrategic fault lines
persist. One should not forget that Russia is also an Asian power, al-
beit on a scale smaller than in the West. Though armed with plenty of
deterrent capability, particularly within its Rocket Forces and Pacific
Fleet, Russia is playing pure defense and has no territorial ambitions
in the east. The heart of its defensive posture is built around a capable
antiaccess/area-denial (A2/AD) posture that the Chinese are working
to adopt.22 Russia’s principal active Asian territorial issue beyond the
dormant Chinese border remains the Kurile Island dispute with Japan.
Far from being resolved, the dispute has lingered for over 70 years after
the southern four islands were occupied by the Soviet Union.23 Despite
resettlement efforts by the Russian regime, regional demographics are
overwhelmingly in China’s favor. While a scant seven million Great
Russians live between Siberian Irkutsk on Lake Baikal to Vladivostok
on the Pacific Ocean, longitudinally there live several hundred million
Chinese, including a large minority living and trading on Russia’s side
• 229 •
Zwack
of the border.24 The border dispute along the Ussuri River that culmi-
nated in bloody clashes between the Soviet Union and China in 1969
was pragmatically resolved in 2004.25 Additionally, trade and military
contact have increased, including the signing of a natural gas deal.26
With Russia embroiled in eastern Ukraine and Syria and China increas-
ingly committed to exerting influence and control within the Spratley
and Senkaku islands, these arrangements relaxed tensions over their
2,700-mile land border.27
Looking long term, however, one could see a natural tension reoccur-
ing along this resource-rich zone, especially on the Russian side. Russia’s
Far East and Eastern Siberia are rich in natural resources beyond oil and
gas that resource-starved China could covet. For years Russian locals along
the border have complained about illegal Chinese logging activity along
their remote border regions.28 Notably a huge chunk of the Russian Far
East, including those lands that encompass Vladivostok east of the Amur
River, was annexed by Imperial Russia from the weak Qing Dynasty in the
mid-1800s and formalized by the Treaties of Aigun (1858) and Peking
(1860)—a fact that has not been forgotten by Chinese historians.29 While
the Russians and Chinese are both practicing prudent foreign policy re-
garding one another, they are not natural friends or allies, with a history,
culture, religion, and ethnicity that are different from one another.
Central Asia
In Central Asia Russia sees the five independent FSU nations of Kazakh-
stan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan within its
“privileged sphere of influence” and will take firm action to ensure that
no excessive foreign military presence takes root in the region.30 What-
ever its post-Soviet imperial desires, Russia does not have the military
means to retake and occupy these diverse states. Therefore, it has taken
measures to maintain a strong and influential regional suzerainty among
them. There is little doubt that Russia has military contingency plans to
prop up Central Asia’s existing regimes and is prepared to counter a wide
range of scenarios, including extremist Islamists or so-called color rev-
olutions, that might lead toward some form of local liberal democracy.
This is a major reason that the Russian-controlled CSTO exists, whose
members include Kazakhstan, Krygyzstan, and Tajikistan (Uzbekistan
withdrew in 2012) as well as Belarus and Armenia.31 While likely impos-
sible today due to an extreme trust deficit, it could be far-sighted to offer
exchanging modest observer missions among Russia-controlled CSTO,
Chinese-led SCO, and U.S.-NATO.
The dynamics of Central Asia have evolved since the Soviet Union’s
breakup in 1991. In the 1990s, with Russian power and influence di-
• 230 •
Russia
minished, major Western initiatives were undertaken economically,

most notably in 1994 through accession into NATO’s Partnership for
Peace. These relationships, with Russian acquiescence, were leveraged to
support the swift U.S.-allied invasion of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan
after 9/11.32 The Russians were generally uncomfortable with U.S. ac-
tivity and airbases in Central Asia (Karshi-Khanabad in Uzbekistan and
Manas in Kyrgyzstan); however, their initial support of the war on ter-
ror and concern about militant Sunni Islam triumphing in Afghanistan
superseded those worries, allowing (at considerable financial benefit)
the establishment of the Northern Distribution Network in 2008. The
network brought substantial nonlethal materiel and personnel through
Russia and Central Asia into Afghanistan.33 This logistics arrangement,
which included the brief establishment of a Russian-operated NATO lo-
gistics hub at Ulyanovsk in 2012, gradually eroded as relations degen-
erated between NATO and Russia.34 For example, under major Russian
pressure, Kyrgyzstan forced the United States to close its logistics base at
Manas in 2013.35 The paradox is that Russia does not want the United
States and its allies to depart Afghanistan, fearing the possibility that
the fragile Afghan government would ultimately implode and releasing
a flood of radical Sunni Islam, drugs, crime, and illegal migration into
its buffer zone of regional partners. Russia dreads the destabilizing effect
this might have, potentially spreading into an already demographically
and ethnically vulnerable southern Russia.36
The Caucasus
This complex, fractious region of both Russia and the FSU looms as dy-
namic and contentious in the years ahead. An ethnic, religious, and mi-
gratory crossroads for centuries, the Caucasus bifurcates both the Black
and Caspian seas and presents significant current and future security
challenges for Russia. The issues are not only geostrategic and economic,
but also ethnic, linguistic, and religious.
The clumsy Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 served notice to the
region and the world that Russia would remain engaged in the FSU and
not tolerate what it perceived to be discrimination against ethnic Rus-
sians living outside Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union. South
Ossetia and Abkhazia, wrested into autonomous “statelets” by force of
arms, remain a frozen conflict between Russia and Georgia.37 The Rus-
sian 102nd Military Base garrison in Armenia, consisting of about 3,000
troops, remains the guarantor of Christian Armenia that borders hostile
Azerbaijian.38 Smarting and revanchist over their 1990’s losses in still
simmering Nagorno-Karabagh, Azerbaijan in April 2016 launched ma-
jor incursions using late model Russian-provided weapons that shook
• 231 •
Zwack
Armenian trust in Moscow. Meanwhile, neighboring Turkey still refuses

to acknowledge the Armenian genocide.39
The gravest danger to Russia is within the Russian Caucasus. Moun-
tainous Chechnya, site of two horrific campaigns commencing in 1995
and 1999, remains under Russia’s thumb under the guise of the Rus-
sian-enabled President Ramzan Kadyrov, who staunchly supports most
of Putin’s actions, including sending Chechen fighters into the Donbass
in 2014.40 This support could be severely challenged, however, when
the several thousand Chechen jihadists in Syria return to fight Russia in
Chechnya and elsewhere.41 In adjacent Dagestan, the Russian Ministry
of Internal Affairs has been fighting a low-boil insurgency for years. It is
likely this insurgency will increase in intensity as fighters return home
and radical Wahhabist Islam spreads in the overall region.42 There is
significant concern that this radical cancer could “metastasize” from the
Caucasus and Central Asia into Southern Russia, where in contrast to
Russia’s overall demographic stagnation, the Muslim population is rapid-
ly growing via high birthrates and illegal migration.43 Additionally these
concerns have been stoked by several pointed ISIL statements branding
Russia as an enemy.44 This is a dangerous long-term threat to Russia and
another reason Russian forces have been ordered into Syria to fight Is-
lamic extremists while supporting an old ally.45
The Middle East

The Russian intervention in late September 2015 on behalf of Bashar
al-Asad’s Baathist regime in Syria signaled a major geostrategic shift in
Russia’s military activity since the end of the Cold War. This was a bold,
high-risk endeavor that could leave Russia enmeshed in a hornet’s nest
of competing regional factions and interests that has taken on a Sun-
ni-Shiite sectarian flavor involving Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.46 Up
until then, direct Russian military action had been confined to within
territorial Russia, notably in Chechnya and Dagestan, and then within
states of the FSU.
Not since the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan during Christ-
mas 1979 has Russia moved so aggressively “out of area.”47 For Russia
watchers, this intervention should not have been a surprise. As one of his
unstated “Red Lines,” similar to Donets and Lugansk in eastern Ukraine
from summer 2014, President Putin repeatedly signaled Russia’s full sup-
port for the Syrian Baathist regime, an unbroken Soviet-Russian-Syrian
relationship that dates back continuously since 1956.48 Preservation of
the Syrian regime was a major reason in 2013 that Russia acceded to
assisting the removal of the bulk of Syria’s chemical munitions that pre-
cluded a U.S.-led coalition bombing of Syrian regime installations and
• 232 •
Russia
bases.49 With Asad’s forces significantly weakening in late summer 2015,

the Russians went through a “go and no/go” intervention criteria and risk
assessment before launching their operation in late September with the
intent to save the Syrian regime and batter the Islamic rebels most threat-
ening to its immediate viability.50 It should be no surprise, therefore, that
the Russians first went after anti-regime rebels, the so-called moderates,
most lethal to the Asad regime. While the Russians loathed ISIL, their
first priority in Syria was to stabilize the Asad regime and consolidate
longstanding interests in Syria such as the Tartus Naval Base, their only
functioning port facility outside of the FSU.51 Their key equity is the
perpetuation of a stable and allied Syrian regime and regional platform,
and not necessarily over time the persona of Asad.
Putin also wanted to take the fight against militant Sunni Islam be-
yond Russian borders. Only time will tell if this preemptive strategy will
prevent attacks both against and within the Russian homeland by its
large Sunni minority.52 Woven into this entire situation is a supporting
narrative that asserts Russia’s role as a serious global player beyond the
confines of the FSU, while simultaneously promoting a narrative of U.S.
and Western weakness.53
The Russian intervention in Syria also created the conditions to test
and showcase the resurgence of Russian military prowess, capability, and
systems. These include the swift, opportunistic deployment into Syria of
the lethal long-range S-400 air defense system with its formidable A2/AD
capability in the stunned aftermath of the Turkish downing of a SU-24
bomber in November 2014. This deployment, along with recently inserted
S-300s, has changed the regional airpower equation.54 On top of the rapid
deployment of air and ground assets into Syria in late September 2015,
coupled with air- and naval-launched Kalibr precision missile strikes and
bombing by strategic bomber assets, this was definitely a regional, domes-
tic, and international demonstration and testing of firepower reminiscent
of the 1936 Spanish Civil War. It signaled to the world that the Russian
military was back.55 Essentially a laboratory for its evolving tactics, tech-
niques, and procedures across a wide spectrum of conventional warfare
and a training ground for a new generation of military leaders, Syria, and
more subtly Eastern Ukraine, has reaped numerous near-term benefits for
the Russian military. Russian arms exporters are also benefiting from the
successful demonstration of their leading-edge systems.56
The West
Any discussion about the West must begin with the Russian psychosis
toward what it perceives as a liberal democratic and economic system of
governance and finance that is totally at odds with, and perceived to be
• 233 •
Zwack
an existential threat to, the Russian state. NATO and the EU are seen as
the hard-power and soft-power agents that threaten Putin’s regime. With
a false narrative designed to present and pump up external threats and re-
inforce Russian self-reliance and internal controls, the regime sees Russia
in a permanent state of competition and confrontation with the West. As
events have shown since Georgia in 2008, Russia will use force, overt or
nonattributed, if it feels its direct interests are threatened, especially with-
in the FSU. Russia does not want to go to war with NATO or the United
States, but certainly feels threatened by them, and has singled out the
Alliance as its principal adversary.57 As such it prepares its military and is
mobilizing its societal base for what some would say is inevitable war.58
Russia’s obsession with so-called color revolutions and regime change
reveals Putin’s deep insecurity concerning the legitimacy of his regime
within the eyes of Russia’s own domestic population.59 Secure nations,
comfortable with their governance and secession processes, do not obsess
and talk about regime change. Since Muammar Qadhafi’s fall in 2011 in
Libya, and the large-scale and apparently frightening Bolotnaya protests
in Moscow in 2011–2012, the Russian media and official pronounce-
ments have sounded increasingly strident.60 In spring 2014 a main theme
at the Moscow Security Conference, and again in 2015 and 2016, was
the perceived threat to Russia of Western-backed color revolutions. Some
Russian variation of President Yanukovych’s ignominious February 2014
fall from power in Ukraine is likely what “keeps Putin up at night.”
Anyone in Russia over 45 years old remembers the fall of Communism,
when a restive Soviet population induced by deteriorating economic con-
ditions, a discredited ideology, and the unpopular conflict in Afghanistan
pressed Soviet leaders such as Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin to take
bold reform measures. Those measures unintentionally led to the breakup
of the Soviet Union in December 1991 and to a new Russia—shorn of 14
of its republics comprising one-third of its landmass and half its popu-
lation including 25 million ethnic Russians. This remarkable event was,
and still is, a bitter pill for many Russians. The difficult and mismanaged
economic reforms in the 1990s saw the rise of the first wave of oligarchs.
Western political chortling following victory in the Cold War, and poorly
handled insurgencies and conflicts in Chechnya and the Russian “near
abroad,” helped pave the way for a strong no-nonsense leader when Putin
became President of Russia in 2000.
From the Western perspective, NATO enlargement focused on the in-
corporation of newly sovereign states into a democratic, market-based
system with only defensive intentions. The Alliance worked hard to
bring Russia into its fold as a partner in the 1990s, resulting in the NA-
TO-Russia Founding Act and NATO-Russia Council.61 Both Russia and
• 234 •
Russia
the United States signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, guarantee-

ing Ukrainian sovereignty in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear
weapons.62 Russian paratroopers were even integrated into NATO oper-
ations in Bosnia.63 This was a challenging, difficult process that ended
with the NATO bombing of Belgrade and intervention to stop genocide
in Kosovo in 1999.64 Even moderate Russians were deeply upset by the
U.S.-NATO intervention despite the righteousness of Western actions to
prevent a Kosovar Albanian genocide. This was the real break, and the be-
ginning of the downward spiral of post–Cold War NATO-Russia relations.
From a Russian perspective, the problems concerning NATO’s en-
largement began after Germany’s reunification. While no official doc-
ument exists, the Russian narrative contends that verbal promises were
made at high levels that NATO would not expand to the east.65 Most
Russians, stoked by their state-controlled press, genuinely believe this.
By 1990, reunited Germany was in NATO, and in 1999, Poland, Hunga-
ry, and the Czech Republic entered the Alliance.66 Throughout the pro-
cess, the Russians were consulted, and to any informed observer, the
militaries joining the Alliance were not a conventional threat to Russia.
In 2004 a second major tranche joined the Alliance. Estonia, Latvia, and
Lithuania were invited into the Alliance along with Bulgaria, Romania,
Slovakia, and Slovenia.67 It has long been the policy of NATO to dictate
that no external state should interfere with the accession process. Rus-
sia’s direct interference in this process by issuing incendiary statements
over Montenegro’s recent invitation to join NATO further damaged the
NATO-Russia relationship.68
While a natural progression from the Western perspective, this ad-
vance was seen by the Russians ominously through a prism steeped in
the historiography of contemporary Western threats. In 1989 the Warsaw
Pact extended deep into central Europe. While providing a menacing of-
fensive platform for huge Soviet and satellite country armies, xenophobic
Soviets also saw the borders as a major buffer separating the Soviet Union
from the West, which in the lifetime of senior Russian and FSU citizens
perpetuated a war of annihilation by Nazi Germany that led to the deaths
of a staggering 20–26 million Soviets, many of whom were civilians. The
1989 East-West German border was 880 miles from Leningrad and sur-
rounded West Berlin 800 miles away. Today the distance from NATO’s
Estonian-Russian border at Narva to St. Petersburg is only 85 miles.
A deep suspicion toward EU soft power exists as well. It was, after
all, Russia’s response to the EU’s offer of Association to Ukraine in late
2013 that began the slide into today’s difficult confrontation.69 Russia’s
reaction following Yanukovych’s ouster—committing special forces to
seize Crimea and backing proxy forces in eastern Ukraine—shed light
• 235 •
Zwack
on evolving Russian geostrategic thinking, especially around its periph-

ery. The idea that color revolutions spurred by NATO/EU enlargement
are the greatest existential threat to Russia has likely played a major role
in all Russian interventions since.70 In each, Russia took both overt and
covert military action to achieve its objectives, which should give poli-
cymakers and planners insight into how Russia might preemptively re-
act over future events involving FSU nations Belarus, Georgia, Kazakh-
stan, Transnistria, Ukraine, and, most dangerously, NATO’s Baltic allies.
Watching what transpires in Uzbekistan, after the elderly President Islam
Karimov’s recent death, will be instructive.
Much has been written about the dramatic events that transpired be-
tween Russia and Ukraine after the fall of its pro-Russian regime in 2014.
While the Russians appeared successful with their masked invasion and
annexation of Crimea, follow-on efforts to secure large tracts of eastern
Ukraine on behalf of its large ethnic Russian population bogged down
after initial successes.71 Efforts to use variations of hybrid, nonlinear war-
fare, seemingly so effective in Crimea, failed to create the conditions to
seize Kharkiv, Mariopol, and Odessa. The downing of Air Malaysia MH-
17 in July 2014 signaled a nadir for Russian efforts in eastern Ukraine.72
From 2014 through 2016, four new strategic factors emerged and
continue to influence the conflict today:
• Catalyzed by aggressive Russian actions, a sense of mainstream

Ukrainian patriotism beyond former right-wing splinter nationalism
coalesced among the bulk of the Ukrainian population and especially
with Ukrainian elites.73 Over 32 million Ukrainians, while not nec-
essarily anti-Russian, were now proudly pro-Ukrainian. They would
fight. This was a significant strategic miscalculation by Russia.
• The EU managed to implement effective, sustained sanctions that

have remained in place despite Russian countermeasures and even
beyond Brexit, adding pressure on both the Russian economy and
public well-being.74
• NATO sharpened its strategic Article 5 focus after withdrawal from

Afghanistan. This was another strategic development Russia had not
counted on.
• Russia had not anticipated the simultaneous fall in oil prices and the
inflation of the ruble. These, combined with EU sanctions, placed
great stress on the Russian economy.75
• 236 •
Russia
Despite the apparent success in Syria and elsewhere, these four strate-
gic developments will continue to extract a high cost in exchange for
limited gains.
The Russian Military

The Russian military, though much improved as an overall fighting force,
is not the juggernaut it is sometimes made out to be. With a defense bud-
get only one-ninth of the U.S. budget, and few true allies, Russian leaders
and planners must think carefully before employing the military.76 There-
fore, the aggressive intervention into Syria was of major significance.
Russia’s current demographic challenges make it difficult to sustain
large standing field forces.77 Short of a mobilization, it is hard-pressed
to put a million active-duty personnel under arms. Russia’s robust secu-
rity services, even before factoring in the omnipresent Federal Security
Service, include roughly a quarter-million Ministry of Internal Affairs
troops, which compete in the same Russian personnel pool as the regu-
lar armed forces. The role of the ministry will likely further change with
the announcement of a new “national guard” that could be employed
internally or beyond Russia’s borders.78 While major strides have been
made under its “New Look” initiative in reducing its bloated structure
and streamlining the military into a more lethal and deployable force
as displayed in Syria, major inconsistencies remain.79 Despite its major
and partially successful effort to create a contract (volunteer) force, the
expense as well as social challenges have slowed progress.80 The Russian
military, especially the Land Forces, still consist of over 30 percent con-
scripts who are called up in annual drafts for a service term of 1 year.
This was reduced from 18 months in 2008.81 Conscription is generally
unpopular, though the popularity of the Russian military has grown in
recent years. However, for career leaders and trainers, the challenges of
annually bringing in and assimilating several hundred thousand new
1-year recruits into formed units is daunting.82 Dedovshina (hazing) of
recruits still occurs, and Russian decisionmakers have to think long and
hard before deploying conscript-heavy ground units that are connected
to social media into complicated, sensitive, and potentially divisive are-
nas such as eastern Ukraine, the Baltics, or even Syria.83
Russia’s standing nuclear forces (Strategic Rocket Forces, Strategic
Aviation, and Navy) still command the crème of the Russian military per-
sonnel system. Additionally, elite forces such as the Main Intelligence
Agency and FSB Spetsnaz, airborne forces, and Naval Landing Infantry,
which do most of the hard “out of area” work, continue to improve their
capabilities and are increasingly battle hardened across a broad spectrum
• 237 •
Zwack
and direct and indirect (hybrid) conflict in Crimea, Donets-Lugansk, and

Syria. These forces have been heavily used in the past 2½ years and likely
are in major need of rest and refit. Cracks have appeared in the facade of
even elite elements, as revealed by their occasional capture and unpopu-
lar nonattribution in Russia.84
The Russians have stated that they do not want to go to war with the
United States and NATO, as demonstrated in the recent rewrite of their
Strategic Doctrine85 and recently announced National Security Strategy.86
However, they are preparing for conflict against the West. The Russians
are well aware of their overall deficiencies and lack of allies.87 Therefore,
any prospective action must invoke surprise and be fast, deep, precise
and multispectral. While there are those who wish for the geographic
reknitting of the Soviet Union, most practical Russian military thinkers
realize this is impossible. Instead the military is being rebuilt to maintain
credible strategic nuclear retaliation, conventional area and maritime de-
nial using precision munitions, and swift deployable forces that could,
for example, overturn a looming color revolution within a failing former
FSU capital or even conduct limited out-of-area operations in strategical-
ly important regions such as Syria. Without a significant mobilization, the
Russian military, especially conscript-heavy ground forces, cannot hold
large expanses of contested ground as would have been the case if it made
an attempt at seizing Crimea’s Perekop Isthmus via Mariopol.88 An added
factor to consider—an enormous tactical-to-strategic leap—is the emer-
gent Soviet doctrine of using tactical nuclear weapons to “deescalate” a
conflict.89 Finally, Russia still must contend with the challenges posed by
extremely long and chronically difficult-to-defend borders with the Cau-
casus, Central Asia, and the Far East. Unfortunately, due to its reactive
behaviors based on obsolete threat perceptions, Russia views the Ukraine
and Baltic border regions as tense—as reinforced by the recent deploy-
ment of SS-26 Iskander short-range ballistic missiles to Kaliningrad—
even though these areas should be the quietest and most peaceful.90
Possible Worst-Case Scenarios

If Russia saw war as inevitable, much as Japan did before World War
II, it would attempt to strike first and fast using maskirovka (deception)
and disinformatsiya (disinformation) to mask its intent. War could be
sparked by the fear of regime change, a bordering color revolution, some
incendiary incident that rapidly moves to brinksmanship, or, worst case,
a failed attempt to subvert the Baltic states protected by NATO Article
5. While preparing its population and the world with an intense me-
dia and disinformation campaign, Russian moves would also involve an
• 238 •
Russia
initial cyber and electronic warfare onslaught to blind and deafen U.S.
command and control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, as
well as space and navigational capabilities. Kinetic strikes would follow
to attack U.S. and allied capital ships and forward-based aviation with
an opening barrage of precision munitions. The loss of these symbols
of Western power and prestige would be followed by a declaration of
Russian readiness to use nuclear weapons if the United States were to
respond in kind.91 These approaches suggest a defensive mindset by a
nation that understands it is globally outmanned and outgunned, except
in the nuclear realm. In any initial phase of a conflict, Russia will use sur-
prise and shock as a decisive force multiplier. For any major preplanned
scenario, Russia will have to stage a discreet mobilization and call-up of
reserves to buttress its standing forces.
Russia’s military buildup and modernization are hampered by the
effects of ongoing sanctions and the overall weakened state of the Rus-
sian economy.92 This resulted in the announcement of a 5 percent re-
duction in the 2016 modernization budget.93 Relatedly, since the Cold
War, the diplomatic ties holding together much of global arms develop-
ment and proliferation have been unraveling. At an impasse over mis-
sile defense and increased Russian obsession about strategic U.S. global
conventional strike capabilities, the possibility for a tactical-to-strategic
nuclear exchange triggered by an accident or incident is now greater
than during the Cold War.94 The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
and Open Skies Agreement are increasingly questioned, the Nunn-Lu-
gar Cooperative Threat Reduction initiative is history, the Convention-
al Armed Forces in Europe treaty is suspended, and the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty is scrapped.95 Furthermore, a longstanding agreement
signed in 2000 between the United States and Russia for the mutual
disposal of dangerous military plutonium stockpiles was recently can-
celed by Russia.96 Besides actively working to reduce nuclear arsenals
and to moderate the building and testing of new destabilizing weapons,
these treaty regimens (with their associated communities of diplomats,
scientists, and bureaucrats that met nearly every working day) were
confidence-building measures that reduced tensions and enhanced un-
derstanding between the United States and the Soviet Union/Russia.
The same could be said for U.S. and Russian (diminished but still ac-
tive) cooperative space programs.
Where is all this headed? The United States and Russia remain at odds
both officially and in much of written and spoken media. Russia contin-
ues to work to divide Western allies and partners politically, domestical-
ly, and economically (principally through energy deliveries). Its disinfor-
mation machine, modulated directly by the Putin regime, is a good way
• 239 •
Zwack
to track the nature of the currently troubled relationship. Tangible lines

of stress, confrontation, and even potential cooperation are well demar-
cated. While eastern Ukraine simmers in Donets and Lugansk, further
seizing and holding larger tracts of Ukrainian territory would require a
large-scale use of conscripts against an improved Ukrainian military that
would extract high financial and domestic costs. Russia could emerge
victorious against Ukraine but would then be forced to confront a large,
seething fellow-Slavic population, broken economy, and a hostile global
community. Greater Russian pressure on Ukraine will drive Western up-
grades to the Ukrainian military, adding modern defensive weapons to
Ukraine’s arsenal. Furthermore, Russia could expect added sanctions by
an increasingly resolute West reinforced by the return of U.S. units and
capabilities to Europe.
The Russians also know that if they try to destabilize the Baltic states
with a variation of their hybrid Crimea operation, they will at some point
face the invocation of NATO’s Article 5. The Baltic states could be over-
run in 48 to 72 hours, but the results would be too unpredictable for
even Putin’s regime to calculate. This would also open a NATO-enabled
and expensive partisan ulcer on the Baltic periphery that Russia could ill
afford to maintain for long. It would also shake the neutrality of Sweden
and Finland.
An adventure in Transnistria would also bring more trouble than
progress for Russia. Russia could easily subvert Moldova, but again, to
what end? To support any such adventure, Russia would be forced to
support with main force Russian units in an area bounded by NATO
forces. And then there is an angry Turkey, a strategic nation and NATO
Ally with a strong military. Even after its internal failed coup and warm-
ing relations with Russia, Turkey will always—due to difficult history,
geography, and increasingly conservative Sunni religious orientation—
present future challenges for Moscow.
The Russians are in a strategic bind. If they continue to use military
force to change the status quo in the name of protecting ethnic Russian
populations and maintaining unwilling buffer states, they will likely fail
as a nation. Eastern Ukraine will limp along in an increasingly expen-
sive, frozen status. Syria, which is becoming a public relations and legal
disaster internationally, will continue to be challenging for Russia due to
its unpredictability and volatility. Syria does, however, despite Russia’s
brutal bombing campaign and failed diplomatic efforts, present a poten-
tial opportunity to build a real international effort to address the conflict.
Without international cooperation leading to a sustained ceasefire, even
the Russian people will eventually demand to bring troops home. As
history has repeatedly proved, bad things happen to foreign militaries
• 240 •
Russia
that remain fighting and indefinitely exposed within Middle Eastern civil
and sectarian wars.
To navigate this complex relationship, the following recommenda-
tions might warrant consideration by U.S. policymakers:
• Develop a dual-track policy regarding the Russian Federation. First,

push back hard on transgressions against NATO Allies and partners,
and breaches of international law. Second, rebuild direct, cogent
conduits between key civilian and operational military leadership
to increase understanding on issues, activities, and incidents that
could reduce the enormous and increasingly dangerous trust deficit
between our nuclear-tipped nations.
• Support and reassure Allies and partners. Reinforce Europe militarily.

Place credible defensive forces in eastern European countries that feel
threatened by Russia. Work closely with framework nations such as
France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Add a U.S.-flagged com-
bat engineer company to each of the three NATO battalions in the
Baltic states. Ensure forward-based ground units have a short-range
air defense capability. Deter, remove, or mitigate any viable early stage
offensive military option from the Russian strategic calculus.
• Emphasize nuclear deterrence. Rebuild eroded U.S.-Russia arms

control and confidence-building regimens. Patiently and transpar-
ently chisel away at missile defense concerns.
• Improve strategic messaging. Aggressively counter Russian narra-

tives seeking to justify actions or divide Western opinion in a more
responsive and coordinated manner. Agree to exchange observers
for major exercises.
• Work with European allies toward agreement on ways to provide

defensive armaments to threatened partner states. In tandem with
such, establish direct conduits for messaging to Russia to clearly
explain why.
• Continue to communicate to Russian officials why a strong NATO is

important for Russia as well. Make clear in every venue that Russian
attempts to erode and undermine peaceful Western stability-focused
institutions, such as the EU or NATO, will only end badly for a fun-
damentally vulnerable Russia. Russia should not want an unstable,
anxious, and possibly reactionary West as a result.
• 241 •
Zwack
• Enhance full-spectrum cyber capabilities for deterrence. Emphasize

to other cyber nations that the United States will aggressively respond
with the full range of possible options to proven state-sponsored cy-
ber attacks. Collectively avoid at all costs opening a state-sponsored
cyber “Pandora’s Box” while being ready for a worst-case scenario.
• Maintain sanctions and political isolation in coordination with the

EU until Russian actions deescalate in both Ukraine and Syria.
• Build political offramps to ensure that countries do not fall into stra-
tegic brinksmanship.
• Coordinate U.S. national and theater policy and activities to ensure

that they do not inadvertently drive China and Russia—not tradi-
tional allies—into a transactional temporal military pact.
• Buttress the U.S. role in a flawed and frustrating United Nations.

As primary donors, press for internal UN reform. Press Russia and
China to promulgate and support positive UN international actions
including joint peacekeeping.
• Reiterating the first point: Rebuild atrophied personal links and con-
duits between key Western and Russian political and military lead-
ers, despite inevitable disagreements and disinformation. Establish a
network of crisis “first responders” on both sides that could rapidly
intervene at the regional level in event of a fast-breaking accident or
incident.
The status quo remains ominous for Russia as current demograph-

ic, economic, political, and security trends play out. In medical terms,
all Russia’s vital signs are trending negatively into the next generation.
What comes next? If the United States and Russia, despite their huge
trust deficit, focus on core interests, with a reasonable appreciation for
the concerns and interests of each other, a stable relationship could be
regained. There is a clear danger, however, that Putin’s conflation of Rus-
sia’s interests with those of his regime may drive him to more and greater
military-backed adventurism. Continued Russian military use of force as
an increasingly preferred policy tool of choice in the face of economic
decline will raise the chances of open conflict with the West—an out-
come that represents a policy and strategy failure of the first order. Man-
aging this risk must rest at the very top of the administration’s foreign
policy and national security agenda. This task will require equal doses
• 242 •
Russia
of firmness and pragmatism; U.S. alliances and partnerships must be

stoutly upheld, while Russia’s core concerns on its periphery and insis-
tence on recognition of its great power status should be acknowledged.
Over time, rapprochement and economic reintegration with the West
represent Russia’s best option. Without such pragmatism, the future of
the Russian state, and therefore the stability of the international order
writ large, will be at peril.
Notes
1
“Malaysia Airlines Flight MH-17 Shot Down by Russian Built Buk Missile, Dutch
Report,” Reuters, October 13, 2015, available at <www.financialexpress.com/article/
india-news/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-shot-down-by-russian-built-buk-missile-dutch-
report/150745/>.
2
Michael Birnbaum, “Ruble Stabilizes in Russian Crisis, but Putin and Kremlin Re-
main at Risk,” Washington Post, December 17, 2014, available at <www.washingtonpost.
com/world/ruble-swings-against-dollar-putting-pressure-on-russias-putin/2014/12/17/
f8328bd8-8578-11e4-abcf-5a3d7b3b20b8_story.html>.
3
David Amos, “Russian Protests, December 10 As It Happened,” The Telegraph (Lon-
don), December 10, 2011.
4
David Herzenhorn, “Ukraine Says It Captured Two Russian Soldiers,” New York
Times, May 18, 2015, available at <www.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/world/europe/ukraine-
captured-two-russian-soldiers.html?_r=0>.
5
Anna Borshevskaya, How Russia Views the Iran Nuclear Talks, PolicyWatch 2383
(Washington, DC: The Washington Institute, March 12, 2015), available at <www.wash-
ingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/how-russia-views-the-iran-nuclear-talks>.
6
Gordon G. Chang, “China and Russia, Axis of Weak States,” World Affairs, March/
April 2014, available at <www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/china-and-russia-axis-weak-
states>.
7
Tom Kutsch, “The Risks of Russia’s Intervention in Syria,” Al Jazeera America,
October 2, 2015, available at <http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/10/2/the-risks-
of-russias-intervention-in-syria.html>.
8
Jonathan Marcus, “Russia S-400 Syria Missile,” BBC, December 1, 2015, available at
<www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34976537>.
9
Mike Eckel, “Russia’s Shock and Awe,” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, October 7,
2015, available at <www.rferl.org/content/russia-syria-shock-awe-military-air-strikes-in-
formation-warfare/27293854.html>.
10
“Russia to Send Its Aircraft Carrier to Eastern Mediterranean,” Associated
Press, September 21, 2016, available at <www.foxnews.com/world/2016/09/21/rus-
sia-to-send-its-aircraft-carrier-to-eastern-mediterranean.html>.
11
Natalia Antonova, “Why Russia Fears Ukraine,” The Moscow Times, August
28, 2014, available at <www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/why-russia-fears-
ukraine/506072.html>.
12
Peggy McNerny, “Putin Regime Unable to Change Course,” UCLA International
Institute, March 16, 2015, available at <www.international.ucla.edu/Institute/Arti-
cle/151035>.
• 243 •
Zwack
13
Joseph Chamie and Barry Mirkin, “Russian Demographics: The Perfect Storm,” Yale
Global Online, December 11, 2014, available at <http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/rus-
sian-demographics-perfect-storm>.
14
Kurt Hepler, “Russia’s Far East, Future Opportunities and Challenges,” The Kennan
Institute of the Wilson Center, October 11, 2015, available at <www.wilsoncenter.org/
publication/the-russian-far-east-future-opportunities-and-challenges-to-russias-win-
dow-the-pacific>.
15
World Population Review, “Russian Population 2016,” available at <http://world-
populationreview.com/countries/russia-population/>.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
18
M. Zuhdi Jasser, “Russia Should Embrace Its Religious Diversity,” The Moscow Times,
July 26, 2015, available at <https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/russia-should-em-
brace-its-religious-diversity-op-ed-48531>.
19
Deborah Gordon, “Opportunities and Challenges Facing Russian Oil,” Carnegie En-
dowment for International Peace, May 28, 2013, available at <http://carnegieendowment.
org/2013/05/28/opportunities-and-challenges-confronting-russian-oil/#>.
20
David Francis, “The Race for Russian Oil,” The Week, February 27, 2014, available
at <http://theweek.com/articles/450318/race-arctic-oil-russia-vs>.
21
Nicholas Eberstadt, “Russia, the Sick Man of Europe,” The National Interest, no. 158
(Winter 2005).
22
Rakesh Krishnan, “China Emulates Russian Military Strategy in the Pacific,” August
20, 2015, available at <http://rbth.com/blogs/2015/08/20/china_emulates_russian_mii-
tary_strategy_in_the_pacific_48627.html>.
23
Justin McKurry, “Russia Says It Will Build on Southern Kurile Islands Seized from
Japan,” The Guardian (London), June 9, 2015, available at <www.theguardian.com/
world/2015/jun/09/russia-build-southern-kuril-islands-seized-moscow-tokyo-abe>.
24
Liz Bagot and Josh Wilson, “The Russian Far East, Gateway to Asia,” School of Rus-
sian and Asian Studies, May 31, 2016, available at <www.sras.org/russian_far_east>.
25
“China, Russia: An End to an Island Dispute,” Stratfor.com, July 17, 2008, available
at <www.stratfor.com/analysis/china-russia-end-island-dispute>.
26
“Russia, China Agree to Natural Gas Deal,” Stratfor.com, May 21, 2014, available at
<www.stratfor.com/analysis/russia-china-agree-natural-gas-deal-0>.
27
Dragos Turnoveanu, “Russia, China and the Far East,” The Diplomat, January 20,
2016, available at <http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/russia-china-and-the-far-east-ques-
tion/>.
28
Howard Amos, “Chinese Thirst Drives Illegal Logging in Russian Far East,” The
Moscow Times, December 5, 2012, available at <www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/
chinese-timber-hunger-drives-illegal-logging-in-russias-far-east/472587.html>.
29
Igor Denisov, “Aigun, Russia and China’s ‘Century of Humiliation,’” Carnegie En-
dowment for International Peace, June 10, 2015, available at <http://carnegieendowment.
org/2015/06/10/aigun-russia-and-china-s-century-of-humiliation/i9o6>.
30
“Understanding the Russian Sphere of Influence,” UKEssays.com, March 23, 2015,
available at <www.ukessays.com/essays/politics/understanding-the-russian-sphere-of-in-
fluence-politics-essay.php>.
31
Alexander Cooley and Marlene Laruelle, The Changing Logic of Russian Strategy in
Central Asia: From Privileged Sphere to Divide and Conquer, Program on New Approaches
to Russian Security (PONARS) Policy Memo 261 (Washington, DC: Elliott School of
• 244 •
Russia
International Affairs, July 2013), available at <www.ponarseurasia.org/memo/changing-

logic-russian-strategy-central-asia-privileged-sphere-divide-and-rule>.
32
Arif Bagbaslioglu, “Beyond Afghanistan NATO’s Tangled Partnership with Central
Asia and South Caucasus: A Tangled Partnership,” Journal of Eurasian Studies 5, no.
1 (October 2013), 88–96, available at <www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1879366513000274>.
33
Andrew C. Kuchins and Thomas M. Sanderson, The Northern Distribution Network
and Afghanistan: Geopolitical Challenges and Opportunities (Washington, DC: Center for
Strategic and International Studies, January 2010), available at <http://csis.org/files/publi-
cation/091229_Kuchins_NDNandAfghan_Web.pdf>.
34
Nicholas van Twickel, “Ulyanovsk Hub Not Getting Much Use by NATO,” The
Moscow Times, February 21, 2013, available at <www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/
ulyanovsk-hub-not-getting-much-use-by-nato/475885.html>.
35
Dan Murphy, “Why Closure of Kyrgyzstan Air Base Is Point of No Return for
Afghan War,” Christian Science Monitor, June 5, 2014, available at <www.csmonitor.com/
World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0605/Why-closure-of-Kyrgyzstan-air-base-is-
point-of-no-return-for-Afghan-war>.
36
Nastia Suquet, “Russia Prepares for NATO Withdrawal from Afghanistan,” Global
Risk Insights, June 23, 2013, available at <http://globalriskinsights.com/2013/06/rus-
sia-prepares-for-nato-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/>.
37
Michael Cecire, “Georgia Misses Chance on Russia Overreach in Abkhazia, South
Ossetia,” World Politics Review, February 6, 2015, available at <www.worldpoliticsreview.
com/articles/15032/georgia-misses-chance-on-russia-overreach-in-abkhazia-south-osse-
tia>.
38
“Russian 102nd Military Base,” 2013, available at <www.digplanet.com/wiki/Rus-
sian_102nd_Military_Base>.
39
Robert Coalson, “Armenia Looks West, Tries to Loosen Moscow’s Grip,” Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty, April 9, 2016, available at <www.rferl.org/content/armenia-rus-
sia-relations-eu/25005446.html>.
40
Liz Fuller, “The Unstoppable Rise of Ramzan Kadyrov,” Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty, January 19, 2015, available at <www.rferl.org/content/profile-ramzan-kady-
rov-chechnya-russia-putin/26802368.html>.
41
Brandee Leon, “A View of Chechens in Syria,” The Bridge, June 22, 2014, avail-
able at <https://medium.com/the-bridge/a-view-of-chechens-in-syria-db74d4585a77#.
usq5e9dbf>.
42
Lawrence A. Franklin, “Dagestan: New Epicenter of Terrorism in Russia,” The
Gatestone Institute, February 14, 2014, available at <www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4172/
dagestan-terrorism-russia>.
43
Ivan Kurilla, Southern Russia: The Heartland or Russia’s Soft Underbelly, PONARS
Policy Memo 120 (Washington, DC: Elliott School of International Affairs, April 2000),
available at <www.gwu.edu/~ieresgwu/assets/docs/ponars/pm_0120.pdf>.
44
Jack Moore, “ISIS Tells Vladimir Putin: We are Coming to Russia to Free Chechn-
ya,” International Business Times, September 3, 2014, available at <www.ibtimes.co.uk/
isis-tell-vladimir-putin-we-are-coming-russia-free-chechnya-1463874>.
45
“2,200 Russian Jihadists Fight in Syria, Iraq—Russian Foreign Ministry,” Russia
Today, July 7, 2015, available at <www.rt.com/news/272299-russia-jihadists-syria-iraq/>.
46
The Right Honorable Lord of Baglan, “Putin’s Gamble in Syria,” Chatham House,
October 6, 2015, available at <www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/putin-s-gam-
ble-syria>.
• 245 •
Zwack
47
Bruce Riedel, “Vlad and Yuri: How Putin Is Applying the Lessons of Afghanistan to
Syria,” al.Monitor.com, October 5, 2015.
48
Alexey Eremenko, “Why Russia’s Vladimir Putin Is Standing by Syria’s President
Assad,” NBC News, September 26, 2015, available at <www.nbcnews.com/news/world/
why-russias-vladimir-putin-standing-syrias-embattled-bashar-assas-n432936>.
49
Anne Gearan, “U.S., Russia Reach Agreement on Seizure of Syria’s Chemical
Arsenal,” Washington Post, September 14, 2013, available at <www.washingtonpost.
com/world/us-russia-reach-agreement-on-seizure-of-syrian-chemical-weapons-arse-
nal/2013/09/14/69e39b5c-1d36-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html>.
50
Lizzie Dearden, “Russia Launches First Air Strikes in Syria as Non-ISIS Rebels
Claim They Are Being Targeted,” The Independent (London), September 30, 2015.
51
Josh Cohen, “Russia’s Vested Interests in Supporting Assad,” The Moscow Times,
October 23, 2014, available at <www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/russia-s-vest-
ed-interests-in-supporting-assad/509979.html>.
52
Egor Lazerev and Anna Biryukova, “20 Million Muslims Seething about Putin
Bombing Syria,” Washington Post, March 7, 2016, available at <www.washingtonpost.com/
news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/07/are-russias-20-million-muslims-seething-about-putin-
bombing-syria/>.
53
Dmitri Trenin, “The Revival of the Russian Military: How Moscow Reloaded,” For-
eign Affairs, May/June 2016, 26.
54
Jonathan Altman, “Russian A2/AD in the Eastern Mediterranean,” Naval War College
Review, 69, no. 1 (Winter 2016), 75.
55
Andrew Roth, “Syria Shows That Russia Built an Effective Military. Now How Will
Putin Use It?” Washington Post, March 18, 2016.
56
Alec Luhn, “Russia’s Campaign in Syria Leads to Arms Sale Windfall,” The Guardian
(London), March 29, 2016, available at <www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/29/rus-
sias-campaign-in-syria-leads-to-arms-sale-windfall>.
57
Karl-Heinz Kamp, “From Wales to Warsaw: NATO’s Future Beyond the Ukraine
Crisis,” American Foreign Policy Interests 36, no. 6 (2014), 362.
58
Andrew Monaghan, “Russian State Mobilization: Moving the State onto a War
Footing,” Chatham House, London, June 3, 2016, available at <www.chathamhouse.org/
event/russian-state-mobilization-moving-country-war-footing>.
59
David Matsaberidze, “Russia v. EU/US through Georgia and Ukraine,” Connections
14, no. 2 (Spring 2015), 79.
60
Michael Weiss, “Rights in Russia: Navalny and the Opposition,” World Affairs 176,
no. 4 (November 2013), 73.
61
“Russia’s Accusations,” NATO Fact Sheet, NATO Public Diplomacy Division, April
2014, 1.
62
David Yost, “The Budapest Memorandum and Russia’s Intervention in Ukraine,”
International Affairs 91, no. 3 (May 2015), 505.
63
James Hughes, “Russia and the Secession of Kosovo,” Europa-Asia Studies 65, no. 5
(July 2013), 1005.
64
Ibid., 994.
Michael Ruhle, NATO Enlargement and Russia: Die-Hard Myths and Real Dilemmas
65
(Rome: NATO Defense College, 2014), 3.

66
Ibid.
• 246 •
Russia
67
“Seven New Members Join NATO,” March 29, 2004, available at <www.nato.int/
docu/update/2004/03-march/e0329a.htm>.
68
“Moscow Warns Montenegro of Possible Consequences of Joining NATO—Russian
Foreign Ministry,” Interfax, November 23, 2015, available at <www.interfax.com/newsinf.
asp?id=635054>.
69
Nicholas Ross Smith, “The EU and Russia’s Conflicting Regime Preferences in
Ukraine: Assessing Regime Promotion Strategies in the Scope of the Ukraine Crisis,”
European Security 24, no. 4 (April 2015), 528.
70
Dave Johnson, Russia’s Approach to Conflict—Implications for NATO’s Deterrence and
Defence, NATO Defense College Research Papers No. 111 (Rome: NATO Defense College,
April 2015).
71
Igor Sutyagin, Russian Forces in Ukraine, Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)
Briefing Paper (London: RUSI, March 2015), 1.
72
Ian Bremmer, “What MH17 Means for Russia-Ukraine,” Reuters, July 18, 2014,
available at <http://blogs.reuters.com/ian-bremmer/2014/07/18/what-mh17-means-for-
russia-ukraine/>.
73
Trenin, 26.
Sergei Guriev, “Russia’s Constrained Economy: How the Kremlin Can Spur
74
Growth,” Foreign Affairs, May/June 2016, 19.

75
Ibid.
76
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), SIPRI Military Expen-
diture Database, available at <www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/milex_database/
milex_database>.
77
Mikhail Barabanov, Konstantin Makienko, Ruslan Pukhov, “Military Reform: To-
ward the New Look of the Russian Army,” Analytical Report, Valdai Discussion Club, July
2012, 12.
78
“Russia: Putin Orders Creation of National Guard,” Situation Report, Stratfor.com,
April 5, 2016, available at <www.stratfor.com/situation-report/russia-putin-orders-cre-
ation-national-guard>.
79
Barabanov, Makienko, and Pukhov, 32.
80
Ibid., 25.
81
Iva Savic, “The Russian Soldier Today,” Journal of International Affairs 63, no. 2
(Spring/Summer 2010), 223.
82
Ibid., 221.
83
Ibid., 219.
84
“Ukraine Crisis: Russian Special Forces Captured,” BBC News Europe, May 17,
2015, available at <www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32776198>.
85
Jaroslaw Adamowski, “Russia Overhauls Military Doctrine,” Defense News,
January 10, 2015, available at <www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/poli-
cy/2015/01/10/russia-military-doctrine-ukraine-putin/21441759/>.
86
Olga Oliker, “Unpacking Russia’s New National Security Strategy,” Center for Strate-
gic and International Studies, Washington, DC, January 7, 2016, available at <www.csis.
org/analysis/unpacking-russias-new-national-security-strategy>.
87
Stephen Kotkin, “Russia’s Perpetual Geopolitics: Putin Returns to the Historical
Pattern,” Foreign Affairs, May/June 2016.
88
Sutyagin, 2.
• 247 •
Zwack
89
Dmitry Adamsky, “If War Comes Tomorrow: Russian Thinking About Regional
Nuclear Deterrence,” The Journal of Slavic Military Studies 27, no. 1 (2014), 168.
90
Jonathan Marcus, “Russia’s Missile Deployment in Kaliningrad Ups the Stakes
for NATO,” BBC.com, October 9, 2016, available at <www.bbc.com/news/world-eu-
rope-37600426>.
91
Steven Collins, “Russia and China Now Able to Sink All American. Aircraft Carri-
ers?” Gog Magog War, available at <http://stevenmcollins.com/WordPress/russian-and-chi-
na-now-able-to-sink-all-american-aircraft-carriers/>.
92
Dmitry Gorenburg, “Impact of the Economic Crisis,” The CIPHER Brief, April
8, 2016, available at <www.thecipherbrief.com/article/europe/impact-economic-cri-
sis-1090>.
93
“In Russia, Defense Cuts Were Inevitable,” Stratfor.com, March 11, 2016, available at
<www.stratfor.com/analysis/russia-defense-cuts-were-inevitable>.
94
Julian Borger, “Nuclear Weapons Risk Greater than in Cold War, says Ex-Pentagon
Chief,” The Guardian (London), January 7, 2016, available at <www.theguardian.com/
world/2016/jan/07/nuclear-weapons-risk-greater-than-in-cold-war-says-ex-pentagon-
chief>.
95
Mark R. Wilcox, “Russia and the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe
(CFE Treaty)—A Paradigm Change?” The Journal of Slavic Military Studies 24, no. 4
(2011), 568.
96
Andrew E. Kramer, “Russia Withdraws from Plutonium Disposal Treaty,” New York
Times, October 3, 2016, available at <www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/world/europe/rus-
sia-plutonium-nuclear-treaty.html?_r=0>.
• 248 •
12
The Middle East
Denise Natali
U.S. national security interests in the Middle East are threatened by weak
and failed states, sectarianism and geopolitical disorder, and the frozen Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. Although these threats are unlikely to break up external
state borders in the near term, they have reconstituted the nature of states and
regional politics. The United States should recognize the deeply rooted nature
of these threats and the limitations of its leverage in the Middle East. Rather
than seeking to fix weak and failed states and attempt to comprehensively
resolve protracted conflicts, the United States should project power defensively,
contain instability, and selectively engage and support traditional partners
who can serve as strategic anchor points in the region.
T he primary U.S. national security interests in the Middle East are

to protect the U.S. homeland from terrorism (particularly the glob-
al jihad of the Islamic State’s millenarian ideology), bolster the security
and stability of regional allies such as Israel, prevent mass migration that
can destabilize European allies, and assure the development and free
flow of energy resources to world markets. These interests are directly
threatened by security dilemmas that have emerged over the past decade:
failed governance and weak states, sectarianism and geopolitical disor-
der, and the frozen Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mitigating the causes and
potential consequences of these threats requires an explicit formulation
of U.S. national security priorities that recognize the depth of Middle
Eastern security dilemmas and the opportunities and limitations of U.S.
leverage in affecting change. It suggests that the United States should
pursue pragmatic policies that sustain the territorial integrity of states,
limit the damage of instability, and balance the growing influence of Iran
with support for traditional Middle Eastern partners that can serve as
strategic anchor points in the region.
• 249 •
Natali
Strategic Environment
For the first time in a century, no major foreign power exercises dom-
inant influence in the Middle East. U.S. foreign policy that emphasizes
greater selectivity and multilateralism in major military interventions
overseas has also left a vacuum of global leadership.1 Competing region-
al states such as Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia are attempting to fill this
vacuum; Russia too is interested in renewed influence.2 The Middle East
is also being redefined by the strategic consequences of externally driven
regime change and popular uprisings against failed governance. Highly
centralized “deep” states are no longer the major threat to international
order; rather, weak states that are unable to effectively govern, control
populations, or secure borders are the danger. Failed governance has
destabilized Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Libya and is unsettling traditionally
stable U.S. regional partners such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt.
These trends, alongside the Iranian nuclear deal (that is, the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action [JCPOA] signed with the P5+1 countries
in July 2015), have aggravated sectarian schisms based on Sunni and
Shia Islam. Sectarian power struggles are also being fueled by regional
actors and are playing out through local proxies in weak and failed states.
These conditions have encouraged the proliferation of local militias and
become drivers of terrorism; jihadist groups such as the Islamic State of
Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and al Qaeda affiliates have taken root in Iraq,
Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Egypt/Sinai and threaten other regions where
state authority and governance have broken down. Centrifugal forces are
fragmenting states and their societies, causing ongoing political dysfunc-
tion in national and regional level governance.
The Middle East’s sectarian polarizations, however, have not created
strong or unified regional alliance structures that could effectively balance
power. Rather, different gradations of sectarianism coexist with domestic
security priorities, state nationalisms, commercial interests, and distinct
interpretations of Islam.3 Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the Arab Gulf states
may converge in their aim to replace the regime of Bashar al-Asad in Syria
and challenge Iranian hegemony, but they are not unified as a Sunni bloc.
The conflict in Libya is being driven by tribal divisions and competing
Sunni Muslim powers; Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE)
back former president Muammar Qadhafi’s supporters while Turkey and
Qatar are reinforcing Muslim Brotherhood groups. Syria’s civil war is also
embedded in power struggles between Sunni Muslim opposition and ji-
hadist groups. The result has been geopolitical disorder, local instability,
and economic stagnation or collapse in key regional states.
These destabilizing dynamics have reconstituted the nature of Mid-
dle Eastern states and regional politics. Although external state borders
• 250 •
The Middle East
are unlikely to dissipate—no powerful regional state wants to see states

break up—internal boundaries are being reordered by opportunistic state
and nonstate actors seeking to create spheres of influence. These spheres
do not represent cohesive ethnosectarian entities that can replace failed
central governance, but rather are hyper-fragmented enclaves of commu-
nities that have their own militias and that seek different forms of local
self-rule and economic gain. Substate actors are also engaged in territo-
rial and demographic engineering, which is setting the groundwork for
new and renewed conflicts over territories and resources.
Failed Governance and Weak States

U.S. allies are increasingly vulnerable to domestic and regional unrest
that undercuts their security. The most important source of instability is
failed governance, or the inability of governments to adequately provide
services, security, jobs, and political freedoms to their citizenry. The fall-
out of failed governance varies according to the strength and durability
of state institutions and the influence and personality of ruling leaders.
Most significant are states wherein governance has failed outright: Iraq,
Syria, Yemen, and Libya. In these cases, externally driven regime change
and/or civil war have destroyed existing state institutions without replac-
ing them with viable alternatives. Political and security vacuums have
been filled by subnational groups and violent nonstate actors (includ-
ing ISIL and al Qaeda) that directly target or threaten to target the U.S.
homeland and Europe. These subnational entities and nonstate actors
thrive on illicit economies, porous borders, and warlordism, all of which
further undermine state authority and internal stability.
Failed governance also threatens traditionally stable regional part-
ners. Gulf state monarchies reliant on oil revenues and/or authoritarian
rule to pacify societies are significantly challenged by depressed world
oil prices, population increases, expanded energy consumption, calls for
greater political freedoms, and costly regional conflicts.4 In Saudi Arabia,
where oil represents 85 percent of state revenues, the government has in-
curred a $100 billion deficit since 2015 and risks depleting its sovereign
wealth fund by 2020. Kuwait has lost $20 billion over the same period.
The future stability of Gulf oil monarchies will depend on their ability
to adapt to the changing political and economic order through fiscal
reforms, greater political openness, and control of ISIL and al Qaeda
extremists inside the kingdoms and in Yemen.5
Turkey, a U.S. ally in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is deeply
unsettled. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has failed to consolidate dem-
ocratic governance and address the country’s decades-old Kurdish prob-
• 251 •
Natali
lem. The resumption of an insurgency by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party

(Partiya Karkerên Kurdistanê, or PKK) against the Turkish government in
July 2015 after a 2-year ceasefire has paralyzed portions of the country’s
southeast, while spreading to some city centers in western and central
Turkey.6 The Kurdish insurrection and unresolved Kurdish problem have
also become a leading transborder threat. PKK insurgents have estab-
lished bases in the Kurdish regions of northern Iraq, Syria, and Iran, and
they enjoy popular support among millions of Kurds in these territories
who seek greater autonomy or statehood. Coalition support for Kurdish
forces in Syria tied to the PKK has aggravated Turkey’s threat perceptions
and commitment to prioritizing the PKK over countering ISIL. The July
2016 attempted coup in Turkey has also greatly complicated U.S.-Turkey
relations, adding a further distraction to an already complex equation.
In Egypt, the state remains brittle after the overthrow of President
Hosni Mubarak in 2011. The ouster of the short-lived Muslim Broth-
erhood government under President Mohamed Morsi, absence of po-
litical space for legitimate opposition under the successor military gov-
ernment of President Abdul Fattah El-Sisi, and economic crises have
deepened the country’s secular-Islamist divide. Egypt’s new authoritar-
ianism without reforms risks exacerbating these crises. Another key
security risk is the military’s crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood.
Tighter restrictions will likely embolden Islamist extremists, much
the same way that Egypt’s “successful” defeat of the Islamic Jihad and
Gamaat Islamiyya in the early 1990s resulted in the emergence of al
Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri and Muhammed Atta, chief hijacker
of the September 2001 terrorist attack against the United States. Egypt
faces a drawn-out battle against terrorist threats that will reverberate
throughout the country.
Sectarianism and Geopolitical Disorder

Regional stability is further undermined by sectarianism and geopolitical
disorder. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003 revived regional
sectarian divisions by removing a strongman without a viable replace-
ment. It also disenfranchised Sunni Arabs who had governed the Iraqi
state for nearly a century. These dramatic changes have emerged in con-
junction with hardened feelings of sustained injustice, absence of Arab
unity, weakening of secular ideologies, undeveloped economies, govern-
ment corruption, and youth bulge unemployment. They have reinforced
local resentment against central governments, polarized communities
along sectarian lines, and fragmented groups internally over leadership
and influence.
• 252 •
The Middle East
Sectarianism has become most salient in Middle Eastern states with

Sunni Muslim majorities and leaders that espouse fundamentalist inter-
pretations of Sunni Islam. These states fear a territorially contiguous Shia
arc encompassing Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon that would permit Teh-
ran to establish itself as a regional hegemon. Saudi Arabia is particularly
sensitive to Iran becoming a dominant regional power and acquiring
a nuclear weapon. The Kingdom is challenged by Iranian-backed Shia
groups in its eastern province, Iranian-supported Houthi rebels in neigh-
boring Yemen, and Iranian attempts to undermine the minority Sunni
monarchy in Bahrain.7 Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar also regard Iran’s
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Lebanese Hizballah as
the main cause of the Syrian conflict.8 Iran, in turn, is reacting to radical-
ized Sunni Arab communities and the propagation of Salafist and Wah-
habist ideology that directly targets Shia and non-Sunni Arab commu-
nities across the Middle East. These tensions have hardened with Saudi
Arabia’s termination of diplomatic relations with Iran in January 2016.
Weak and failed states have become playing fields for sectarian power
struggles. Regional actors are backing local proxies in Iraq, Syria, Yemen,
and Libya in an effort to advance their political and economic inter-
ests, which include creating Sunni and Shia spheres of influence. Iranian
hardliner influence has filled part of the political vacuum in post-Sadd-
am Iraq and in neighboring states with Shia populations or leaders that
support Tehran, such as Syria and Lebanon. Turkey also seeks to benefit
from the weak Iraqi state by extending its influence in northern Iraq as
a counterweight to Baghdad and Iran, to check the PKK, and to enhance
Ankara’s access to Iraq’s oil and gas resources.
Similar trends are occurring in Syria. What commenced as a popular
local revolution against the regime of President Asad has morphed into
a sectarian proxy war. To ensure Sunni Islamic governance and to chal-
lenge Iranian influence, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar have become
leading sponsors of the Syrian opposition and some jihadist groups.
Their aim is to overthrow Asad, an Alawite and longtime beneficiary of
Iran. Tehran, in turn, has sent IRGC–Quds Force advisors and fighters to
support Asad regime forces, alongside Shia fighters from Iraq, Afghani-
stan, Pakistan, Lebanon, and central Asia.9 Russian military intervention
has also proved essential in saving Asad’s regime and further weakening
opposition forces.
In Yemen, regional political interests, internal power struggles be-
tween tribal groups, and renewed sectarianism are feeding off the failed
state. Most Sunni Arab states regard the civil war as an Iranian-inspired
effort backed by the Houthis and former President Ali Abdullah Salih
to overthrow the Saudi-backed government of President Abd Rabuh
• 253 •
Natali
Mansur Hadi. Iran and the Lebanese Hizballah view the conflict as driv-
en by tribal rivalries and supported by Saudi Arabia.10 These sectarian
tensions, if not a protracted civil war, are likely to continue as Saudi
Arabia and the UAE remain militarily engaged and Iran extends support
to Houthi rebels.11 Saudi Arabia has also retaliated against Hizballah’s
support for the Houthis by withdrawing $3 billion in pledged military
support to Lebanon.
Powerful sectarian spheres of influence, however, have not led to
Sunni or Shia Muslim blocs that could effectively balance power in the
Middle East. Sunni Muslim–dominant states are also driven by domes-
tic security priorities, state nationalisms, economic opportunities, and
different interpretations of Islam that prevent cohesive action. For in-
stance, instead of supporting Turkey against the Shia-led government
in Baghdad, most Sunni Arab Iraqis strongly oppose Ankara’s military
interventions in northern Iraq as a violation of state sovereignty. The Syr-
ian civil war has also become embedded in conflicts between Sunni Arab
opposition and jihadist groups, while fueling tensions between Kurds
and Arabs, regardless of shared Sunni Muslim affiliations.
Similarly, Iran has been unable to fully circumvent state nationalisms
and export its brand of revolutionary Islam to Shia populations in the
Middle East. In Iraq, most Shia Arabs are committed to Iraqi nationalism
and oppose becoming a satellite of Tehran. These distinctions are also
doctrinal; the Iraqi Shia religious establishment (marja-iyya) under the
guidance of the influential Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani rejects the Ira-
nian practice of vilayet-e faqih (rule by Islamic clerics and fundamentalist
legal views) and follows a moderate approach of limited clerical engage-
ment in political affairs. In Lebanon, some Shia organizations project
both religious and secular perspectives that do not necessarily align with
Iranian clerical rule. Nor have Houthis in Yemen or Alawites in Syria,
which are Shia offshoots, shown any indication of supporting vilayet-e
faqih, even though they have aligned with and accepted Iranian military
support to assert power against opposing forces.
Frozen Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Bolstering the stability and security of regional allies includes supporting
the state of Israel. The leading existential threats to Israel are a potentially
nuclear-armed Iran and the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The
second is a far greater threat than the first. The vanishing feasibility of
a two-state agreement leaves both Israelis and Palestinians more vulner-
able to escalating conflict, while exposing Israel to greater internation-
al censure. Failure to reach a settlement has also left the government
• 254 •
The Middle East
of Israel increasingly reliant on mitigating internal terrorist threats by

“managing the conflict” without a clear strategic endstate. This approach
means continuing to occupy the West Bank and maintaining a blockade
on the Gaza Strip, which is controlled by the Palestinian terrorist group
Hamas.12
The frozen Israeli-Palestinian conflict leaves Tel Aviv dependent on
the twin pillars of external economic support for the Palestinian Author-
ity and security cooperation with the U.S.-funded Palestinian Authori-
ty Security Forces (PASF).13 Both components lower the direct financial
costs of the occupation to Israel; the bulk of revenues that sustain the
Palestinian Authority is derived from outside donors. Similarly the PASF
is largely responsibility for security in the West Bank.14 The problem is
that if either of these pillars falters, the daily costs of the occupation to
Israel would increase dramatically.
Even if these security structures remain intact, they do not guarantee
Israel’s internal stability. The Palestinians continue to loathe what they
regard primarily as “the occupation”; in the occupied territories unem-
ployment is about 40 percent—the world’s highest—with youth unem-
ployment at more than 60 percent.15 Absence of hope for a final status
settlement, tensions over claims to religious sites, Israeli security mea-
sures, and deep intra-Palestinian divisions have caused a recent upsurge
in violence from both sides. Ongoing violence may work in Palestinian
leader Mahmoud Abbas’s favor by reminding Israel and the international
community of the potential outcome of changing the status quo.16 These
consequences are inadvertently encouraging a single, binational state.
The problem, however, is that this state will eventually be either Jewish
or democratic, but not both. Demographic shifts within the next decade
are such that Israel is expected to have a greater number of Arabs than
Jews in the territories lying between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan
River.17
Israel also remains vulnerable to violent nonstate actors despite its
qualitative military edge,18 conventional military superiority, and un-
acknowledged nuclear program.19 Terrorist organizations and malign
groups that vehemently oppose Zionism pose dramatically different
threats than the strong states that used to surround Israel. In addition to
Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad operating in Gaza, Israel is confront-
ed with ISIL penetrations into Libya, Egypt’s Sinai region, and potentially
the Gaza Strip.20 Israel is further exposed to destabilized neighboring
states. Most important is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, considered
Israel’s most important neighbor and its strategic depth. Infiltrations of
ISIL and radical jihadists from Iraq and Syria into Jordan, some of which
seek to overthrow King Abdallah II and tap into the country’s socioeco-
• 255 •
Natali
nomic crisis, have gained domestic sympathy and support. In Lebanon

the Syrian war has brought Hizballah in direct confrontation with the
al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, and reinvigorated militant
Sunni Arab jihadist groups.21 A strengthening of Hizballah would pose
grave threats to Israel itself.
Israel regards its most significant regional security threat as an em-
powered Iran developing a nuclear program that could directly target the
Israeli state. Although most Iranians do not seek Israel’s demise, leading
conservative hardliner Iranian leaders continue to call for the destruction
of the state. Some Israeli security leaders fear that a nuclear-armed Iran
would be far more likely to attack Israel conventionally. Consequently,
while some Israeli officials regard the nuclear deal as a best option to de-
ter Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, other leaders harshly oppose
it. A key criticism is that the provisions are less likely to deter or detect
incremental Iranian cheating, such as covert nuclear weapons research
or advanced centrifuge research.22 Even if strong safeguards are enacted,
many fear that the lifting of sanctions would further empower the IRGC,
which controls about 30 percent of the Iranian economy, and its regional
proxies. Iranian-backed threats against Israel have already occurred in
Lebanon and the Gaza Strip and through other Palestinian organizations
such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Spillover on Regional Allies

These security dilemmas have created massive refugee flows that can
destabilize regional and European allies. By January 2016 the Syrian civil
war had resulted in 4.6 million refugees who fled to Turkey, Jordan, Leb-
anon, Iraq, and Egypt with an additional 6.6 million internally displaced
persons.23 Host countries have assumed large-scale costs of integrating
and maintaining refugee populations that are expected to continue over
the long term. The spillover of the Iraq and Syrian conflicts has under-
mined fragile regional economies. By December 2014 Lebanon had lost
more than $20 billion in direct costs from the Syrian civil war, mainly
in foregone infrastructure development and the costs of hosting the over
one million Syrian refugees that account for 25 percent of its popula-
tion.24 Jordan’s 800,000 Syrian refugees comprise 10 percent of its popu-
lation and are compounding the country’s socioeconomic crises.
Turkey currently hosts the world’s largest refugee population of about
2.7 million, with 250,000 Syrians living in 20 camps managed by the
Turkish government. While Syrian refugees represent only about 3 per-
cent of Turkey’s total population, they have created demographic shifts
in mixed localities in southeastern Anatolia where ethnic and sectarian
• 256 •
The Middle East
tensions are salient. In some areas Syrian refugees have helped boost
local production and local labor markets; however, the long-term impact
on growth and stability depends on how they can be integrated into local
and regional labor markets and society.
Mass migration from failed states also threatens European security.
By 2015 about one million migrants had fled to Europe, mainly from
Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. In contrast to the large-scale refugee flows
caused by the wars of Yugoslavia, which gradually brought over two mil-
lion refugees from 1992 to 2000, the massive and sudden population
displacements from Syria to Europe have reached levels not seen since
World War II. From April 2011 to November 2014, over 775, 000 Syr-
ians applied for asylum in Europe, more than two-thirds of whom are
young adult men. The total number of asylum seekers to Europe during
the first 10 months of 2015 increased to about one million, more than
twice the amount of the same time period in 2014.25 Instability in Libya
and its proximity to Europe’s Mediterranean shores threaten another mi-
gration spike, with Italy being increasingly vulnerable.
Massive refugee flows are occurring amid Europe’s ongoing eco-
nomic slowdown and ISIL-inspired terrorist threats. They have further
heightened Europe’s financial and security burdens and strained recipi-
ent countries’ capacities to process asylum requests, meet humanitarian
needs, and integrate refugee communities into society.26 Demographic
changes and economic pressures have fueled a populist backlash from
anti-immigration and anti–European Union parties, creating conditions
for marginalization and potential radicalization. Regional trade and en-
ergy flows have also been negatively affected. Turkey’s trade to Syria has
declined by 70 percent since 2011, while Jordan has lost about 75 per-
cent of its trade to Syria.27 Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey have
realized losses in tourism and total household income while military and
border security costs have increased.28
Moreover, weak and failed states and geopolitical disorder are hinder-
ing the development and export of hydrocarbons to regional and global
markets. Although Iraqi oil exports have increased to over four million
barrels per day since 2003, the country’s energy sector is vulnerable to
instability and conflict. Nearly 85 percent of Iraqi oil exports rely on the
Iranian-controlled Strait of Hormuz. A sustained closure of this strategic
chokepoint would instigate the economic collapse of Iraq as well as of
Arab Gulf oil economies.
Oil and gas exports are also susceptible to contentions over state
sovereignty and ownership of resources. In Iraq the Kurdistan Regional
Government (KRG) has taken de facto control of some oil and gas fields
in disputed territories, as well as the Iraqi government pipeline, for its
• 257 •
Natali
own legally contentious oil exports to Turkey. The pipeline is prone to

terrorist attacks and closures, often due to the PKK insurgency and An-
kara’s bombing campaigns against PKK bases in the Kurdistan region.
Libyan oil sector development has confronted similar obstacles. Since
the overthrow of the Qadhafi regime and ISIL threats, Libya has seen its
oil production plummet from about 1.6 million to 360,000 barrels per
day in April 2016 due to the absence of a strong, unified government,
ongoing rivalries between tribal and militia groups, and limited storage
capacity. Even if the eastern ports are reopened, Libya may realize just
half of its Qadhafi-era production levels and see significant losses in oil
export revenues.29
In the Levant, protracted conflict has prevented Lebanon and Syria
from tapping into vast offshore gas discoveries while the Israeli-Pales-
tinian conflict has hindered gas development in the Gaza Strip. Egypt’s
gas export agreements with Israel have been canceled due to opposition
from the Muslim Brotherhood and local populations. These untapped
markets could potentially source regional energy hubs, as well as Turk-
ish and European economies that rely on Russian gas and are exposed
to high energy insecurity.30 Assuring the free flow of energy resources to
regional and global markets also depends on security of supply issues,
individual country gas pricing policies, and the absence of integrated
regional and domestic gas markets. Without any change in these con-
ditions, intra-regional gas trade will likely remain limited to gas exports
from Qatar to the UAE and Oman, and through the Arab Gas Pipeline
from Egypt to Jordan, Israel, Syria, and Lebanon.
Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

Failed governance, sectarianism and geopolitical disorder, and a frozen
Israeli-Palestinian conflict pose protracted long-term threats to U.S. na-
tional security interests in the Middle East. The breakdown of strong
state institutions that can secure borders and effectively provide public
services has created conditions in which terrorism, illicit economies, and
political conflict breed. These security dilemmas are occurring at a time
when the United States has limited leverage in the Middle East, lacks
domestic and financial support to engage in large-scale and long-term
interventions, and has strained relations with traditional partners such
as Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Under these conditions and constraints, the United States should not
attempt to fix failed states. Nor should it seek to resolve protracted con-
flicts without the necessary requisites in place, namely political condi-
tions and regional actors committed to making necessary compromises.
• 258 •
The Middle East
Rather, the United States should be prepared to project power defensive-

ly within the parameters of sustained regional chaos and limited influ-
ence. This defensive policy approach demands selective and pragmatic
engagement in the Middle East that is grounded in a clear commitment
to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of states, no matter how weak-
ened they have become, and traditional regional partnerships. It can in-
clude preventive measures to help regional partners stem refugee flows,
develop economies, and tap energy resources needed for domestic and
external consumption. There are several key U.S. policy options.
Support Strategic Anchor Points

It is in the interest of the United States that its traditional Middle East
partners are politically stable, militarily cooperative, and economically
strong, and serve as strategic anchor points that can contain terrorism
and geopolitical disorder. To this end, the United States should work
to reverse the image of a fickle ally by affirming and/or resuming full
security cooperation with regional partners that can help diminish the
prospects of terrorist threats penetrating Gulf monarchies and the region,
including Jordan, Lebanon, Yemen, Turkey, Egypt, and Israel. Enhancing
the capabilities of regional partners also entails hard choices; there may
be aspects about these countries that the United States does not necessar-
ily support, but these strategic partnerships should be regarded in terms
of the stability they could provide. Developing strategic anchor points
should take precedence over short-term tactical alliances with substate
actors that undermine state sovereignty.
Contain Instability and Limit Damage
Iraq and Syria: Defeat ISIL and Stabilize. The United States should con-
tinue to support regional and local partners to defeat ISIL and stabilize
ISIL-free territories. This effort can include reconstruction and humanitar-
ian assistance, technical expertise to assist with services and capabilities,
reconciliation efforts, training Iraqi Security Forces and federal and local
police forces, and tapping energy resources needed for domestic and ex-
ternal consumption. Support for the KRG could be included in this effort
but should be based on the condition that the Kurds remain committed to
the Iraqi state and that all support continues to be channeled through and
be approved by central and federal authorities. The United States should
more carefully leverage the KRG and avoid enabling the Kurds to the point
where they do not think they have to negotiate with Baghdad. The United
States should also be prepared for ongoing Kurdish threats to declare in-
dependence and the regional and local backlash that may elicit.
• 259 •
Natali
The United States should support Shia leaders in Iraq who are driven
by Iraqi nationalism, seek to bridge ethnosectarian divides, and engage
in reforms. This effort should include regular and frequent engagement
at the executive level that openly supports the Haydar al-Abadi govern-
ment (and any successor inclusive, Iraqi-nationalist government) and
affirms the U.S.-Iraq strategic partnership. To diminish the influence of
Iranian-backed hardliner factions, the United States should assist Iraqi
government efforts to incorporate “reconcilable” popular mobilization
units (Shia militia) into the Iraqi Security Forces command and control
structure, and/or as a distinct counterterrorism force, while excluding
Quds Force–supported factions aligned with Iran. The United States
should also tacitly support Iraq’s marja’iyya to ensure that Najaf’s “qui-
etism” and Iraqi nationalism are sustained, particularly in the event that
the aged Ayatollah Sistani passes away.
In Syria the United States should continue efforts to negotiate a cease-
fire with the overall aim of defeating ISIL and maintaining state institu-
tions and Syria’s territorial integrity. It should not actively seek regime
change without a negotiated settlement among leading regional and local
actors and a viable transitional government in place. Turkey’s engage-
ment in stabilizing Syria and negotiating a strategic endstate is essential
and should take priority over unconditional tactical assistance to Syrian
Kurdish groups. The United States should also engage diplomatically
with Turkey to negotiate a ceasefire with the PKK and assuage Turkey’s
threat perceptions about the territorial integrity of its southern borders.
Israel-Palestine: Break and Resume Later. Under current dynamics, the

negotiation process for a two-state solution is not viable. The sustained
tumult in the region has heightened Israeli and Palestinian concerns
about security, terrorism, and political instability and has diminished
interest to compromise on security and territorial matters. A negotiat-
ing climate is further undermined by Palestinian weakness and disunity
and Israeli settlement expansion. In the absence of a clear commitment
from both sides toward a two-state solution, the United States should
not reengage in the peace process. It should, however, watch closely for
indicators that signal a major shift in the political climate that would
be more propitious for negotiations. Key triggering conditions include,
at minimum, political realignment in Israeli politics that moves away
from a hard-right to a centrist government; the departure of Palestinian
Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and a viable leader to replace him;
and willingness of both sides to engage in meaningful negotiations.
During the interim period, the United States should help neutralize
threats to Israel, provide economic incentives to Palestinians, and ensure
• 260 •
The Middle East
the continuation of a Jewish and democratic state. This effort could focus
on building economic interests through natural gas development and
revenue and resource-sharing in Palestine between the Israeli and Pales-
tinian governments. It should also raise civil society funding and com-
munity level projects while continuing to support long-term objectives
of Israeli-Palestinian peace. The United States should revisit the situation
when conditions change and are amenable to negotiation.
Assist European Partners. The United States should assist European al-
lies that are most vulnerable to refugee flows and ISIL foreign fighters
returning to Europe through political and operational support. It should
enhance intelligence-sharing, joint security measures in refugees’ home
and host countries, and financial support to Turkey and “frontline Eu-
ropean countries” to support comprehensive asylum and humanitarian
needs. The U.S. Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean should cooperate with
the European Commission’s liaison (European Union Naval Force) to
help interrupt refugee smuggling operations, support Libyan and Turk-
ish coast guards and border authorities, and provide diplomatic pressure
on Arab Gulf states to increase their support of Syrian refugees.
Engage with and Deter Iran

The United States should pursue a two-track approach in dealing with
Iran that includes negotiating with Tehran and checking Iranian ambi-
tions. In one track, the United States should develop a constructive bi-
lateral relationship with Iran. It should respect Iran’s position as an im-
portant Middle Eastern country, bring it into multilateral forums in the
effort to establish standards and resolve differences, and make measured
statements that could incentivize societal opening and reform. This effort
should also encourage economic and commercial interdependence be-
tween Iran and Arab Gulf states that could enhance moderate structures,
institutions, and regional relations.
In a second track, the United States should push back hard on Iranian
regional terror and guerrilla networks. It should work to diminish the
Islamic Republic’s continuing revolutionary mission, primarily through
IRGC–Quds Force activity in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen and its relationship
with Lebanese Hizballah, to establish itself as a regional hegemon. This
effort should also actively target and attempt to break up Iranian ter-
ror networks. Additionally, U.S. policymakers must rigorously monitor
Iranian compliance with the JCPOA nuclear agreement and act swiftly
to exact consequences in the event of any Iranian violation that would
threaten the security of Israel and regional Sunni Arab allies. Further-
more, the United States should support Saudi Arabia’s efforts to defeat
• 261 •
Natali
the IRGC–Quds Force-backed Houthi rebels and stabilize Yemen, and

the Kingdom’s efforts to counter IRGC–Quds Force machinations in Sau-
di Arabia’s eastern province and in Bahrain. The United States should not
let Iran or Sunni Arab states think it is equidistant.
Summary
The Middle East will be unstable and prone to conflict for the next de-
cade, even after ISIL is defeated. External borders are likely to remain
officially intact, but the nature of states will be reconstituted in ways that
demand new security and political arrangements at national and local
levels. These shifts may encourage politically and economically expedi-
ent pacts between substate and nonstate actors, but they are also likely
to stir or deepen conflict over control of territories, hydrocarbons, and
revenues. Although the United States cannot be expected to resolve these
problems, it can play a more effective leadership role that reaffirms its
commitment to state territorial integrity and shores up traditional re-
gional partners. There is no realistic or viable alternative from which to
choose; state breakup is not supported by any key regional government
and would only lead to greater bloodshed and instability.
While seeking to project its power defensively, the United States
should be prepared for events that could trigger dramatic shifts and force
it to engage in the Middle East at higher levels. Some key triggering
events include but are not limited to an official merger of al Qaeda and
ISIL; catastrophic collapse of the Mosul Dam; civil war in Egypt; violent
uprisings and/or civil war in Jordan; major escalation of ISIL-inspired
violence in the West Bank; Iranian nuclear or ballistic missile attacks on
Israel; and large-scale terrorist attacks inspired by Iran, ISIL, and/or al
Qaeda affiliates in Saudi Arabia. The United States should also reconsid-
er its level of engagement in the case of a mass casualty terrorist attack
in the U.S. homeland linked to core al Qaeda or ISIL operations in Iraq
or Syria. This threat is particularly pertinent if it occurs during the final
days of an outgoing administration concerned with its legacy or the be-
ginning of a new administration vulnerable to the hazards of transition.
The author acknowledges the important assistance of Institute for Na-

tional Strategic Studies (INSS) Senior Fellows Colonel Richard H.M. Ou-
tzen, USA, Colonel Kris Bauman, USAF, Ph.D., and INSS Distinguished
Visiting Fellow Regis Matlak in preparing this chapter.
• 262 •
The Middle East
Notes
1
Jeffrey Goldberg, “The Obama Doctrine,” The Atlantic, April 2016, available at
<www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/>.
2
Owen Harries and Tom Switzer, “Leading from Behind: Third Time a Charm?”
The American Interest 8, no. 5 (2015), available at <www.the-american-interest.
com/2013/04/12/leading-from-behind-third-time-a-charm/>.
3
Gregory F. Gause III, “Ideologies, Alliance and Under-balancing in the New
Middle East Cold War,” Project on Middle East Political Science, August 26, 2015,
available at <http://pomeps.org/2015/08/26/ideologies-alliances-and-underbalanc-
ing-in-the-new-middle-east-cold-war/>.
4
Luay Al-Khateeb, The GCC in 2020: Resources for the Future (Geneva: The Econ-
omist Intelligence Unit, 2010), 4, available at <http://graphics.eiu.com/upload/eb/
GCC_in_2020_Resources_WEB.pdf>; “Gulf States Face Hard Economic Truth About
Subsidies,” Palestine News Network SHFA, December 18, 2012, available at <www.
shfanews.net/en/index.php/component/content/article/76-i/13490-gulf-states-face-hard-
economic-truth-about-subsidies>.
5
Rami G. Khouri, “Gulf States Face Their Biggest Challenge,” The Cairo Review of
World Affairs, December 30, 2015, available at <http://thecairoreview.com/tahrir-forum/
gulf-states-face-their-biggest-challenge/>; David Rosenberg, “As a Pillar of Stability, the
Gulf Arab States Are Starting to Look Pretty Shaky,” Haaretz.com, September 17, 2015,
available at <www.haaretz.com/blogs/david-s-harp/1.676403>.
6
Metin Gurcan, “Are Clashes Spreading to Western Turkey?” al-Monitor.com, Decem-
ber 30, 2015, available at <www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/12/turkey-kurd-
ish-militant-clashes-pkk-tak.html>.
7
“Bahrain Arrests ‘Iran-linked’ Cyber Group,” Al Jazeera, June 13, 2013, available at
<www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/06/201361393933204365.html>; Claude
Salhani, “Bahrain Places Hezbollah on Terror List,” Oilprice.com, April 9, 2013, available
at <http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/Bahrain-Places-Hezbollah-on-Terror-
ist-List.html>.
8
James Zogby, Elizabeth Zogby, and Sarah Hope Zogby, Middle East 2015: Current and
Future Challenges (Washington, DC: Zogby Research Services, November 2015), available
at <www.zogbyresearchservices.com/new-gallery-1/>.
9
Christopher Kozak, “An Army in All Corners”: Assad’s Campaign Strategy in Syria, Mid-
dle East Security Report 26 (Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of War, April 2015),
available at <http://understandingwar.org/report/army-all-corners-assads-campaign-strat-
egy-syria>.
10
Zogby, Zogby, and Zogby.
11
“Houthi-Saleh Advance to Overthrow President’s Aden-based Government Raised
Risk of Saudi-led Military Intervention,” IHS Jane’s 360, March 23, 2015, available at
<www.janes.com/article/50149/houthi-saleh-advance-to-overthrow-yemeni-president-s-
aden-based-government-raises-risk-of-saudi-led-military-intervention>.
12
“The Five Major Threats Facing Israel,” Israel Defense Forces blog, April 6, 2015,
available at <https://www.idfblog.com/blog/2015/04/06/5-major-threats-facing-israel/>.
13
Fourteen international laws stipulate that occupying powers provide functioning
administration and security. See International Committee of the Red Cross, “Treaties,
States Parties and Commentaries,” available at <www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.
xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=3741EAB8E36E9274C12563CD00516894>;
and <www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documen-
tId=9B46D996E36A0809C12563CD005168DC>.
• 263 •
Natali
14
Jim Zanotti, U.S. Foreign Aid to the Palestinians, RS22967 (Washington, DC: Con-
gressional Research Service, July 3, 2014), available at <www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/
RS22967.pdf>; United Nations Relief Works Agency, “How We Spend Funds,” available at
<www.unrwa.org/how-you-can-help/how-we-spend-funds>.
15
“Gaza Economy on the Verge of Collapse, Youth Unemployment Highest in the
Region at 60 Percent,” The World Bank, May 21, 2015, available at <www.worldbank.org/
en/news/press-release/2015/05/21/gaza-economy-on-the-verge-of-collapse>.
16
Aaron David Miller, “Is Abbas Trying to Ride a Wave of Violence?” CNN.com, Janu-
ary 1, 2016 available at <www.cnn.com/2016/01/01/opinions/miller-abbas-violence/>.
17
“Israel National Security Project,” available at <www.israelnsp.org/what-they-say/
status-quo-is-dangerous/israels-demographic-challen.html>.
18
Ronald Reagan was the first U.S. President to explicitly commit to Israel’s qualitative
military edge—an assurance that every subsequent administration has repeated. The
commitment to maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge was only formally written
into law in September 2008, with the passage of the law commonly known as the Naval
Vessel Transfer Act of 2008. It has been expanded in several pieces of legislation since
2008, especially in several National Defense Authorization acts. For a comprehensive
review of qualitative military edge in U.S. law, see “Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge: Leg-
islative Background,” MilitaryEdge.org, available at <http://militaryedge.org/israels-qualita-
tive-military-edge-legislative-background/>.
19
Anthony Cordesman, The Arab-Israeli Military Balance: Conventional Realities and
Asymmetric Changes (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies,
June 29, 2010), available at <http://csis.org/files/publication/100629_Arab-IsraeliMilBal.
pdf>.
20
“Islamist Militancy in Egypt,” Council of Foreign Relations, available at <www.cfr.
org/global/global-conflict-tracker/p32137#!/conflict/islamist-militancy-in-egypt>.
21
William Young et al., Spillover from the Conflict in Syria: An Assessment of the Factors
that Aid and Impede the Spread of Violence (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2014), 25–28,
available at <www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR600/RR609/
RAND_RR609.pdf>.
22
Gary Samore et al., The Iran Nuclear Deal: A Definitive Guide (Cambridge, MA: Belfer
Center for Science and International Affairs, August 2015), 6, available at <http://belfer-
center.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IranDealDefinitiveGuide.pdf?webSyncID=1a99034c-3b8e-
563e-598e-d62d490a1635&sessionGUID=b2942431-616d-71dc-b0bb-49391b025b4a>.
23
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, “Syria,” April
2015, available at <www.unocha.org/Syria>.
24
“Syria Crisis Has Cost Lebanon $20 bln,” Al-Arabiya English, December 22, 2014,
available at <http://english.alarabiya.net/en/business/economy/2014/12/22/Syria-crisis-
has-cost-Lebanon-20-bln-.html>.
25
“The Refugee Surge in Europe: Economic Challenges,” International Monetary
Fund Staff Discussion Note, January 2016, available at <www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/
sdn/2016/sdn1602.pdf>; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees,
“Europe: Syrian Asylum Applications,” November 2015, available at <http://data.unhcr.
org/syrianrefugees/asylum.php>. The main European destination countries of asylum
seekers are Austria, Germany, and Sweden. In the first 6 months of 2014 about 50,000
people crossed from North Africa to Italy, twice the amount from 2013.
26
“The Refugee Surge in Europe,” 6.
27
Ülkü Özel Akagünduz, “Istanbul Fears ‘Arabization’ with Syrian Refugee Influx,”
Today’s Zaman, September 27, 2014, available at <www.todayszaman.com/anasayfa_istan-
bul-fears-arabization-with-syrian-refugee-influx_359862.html>; Akmehmet M. Hande,
• 264 •
The Middle East
“The High Cost to Turkey of the Syrian Civil War,” Newsweek, December 10, 2015, avail-
able at <www.newsweek.com/high-cost-turkey-syrian-civil-war-403535>.
28
Elena Lanchovichina and Maros Ivanic, The Economic Impact of the Syrian
War and the Spread of ISIS, Quick Note Series 140 (New York: The World Bank,
January 2015), available at <https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/han-
dle/10986/22586/938810BRI0QN140D0virtual0collection.pdf?sequence=1>.
29
Sara Sjolin, “Why Libya Could Be the Biggest Threat to Recovering Oil Prices,”
MarketWatch.com, May 17, 2016, available at <www.marketwatch.com/story/why-libya-
could-be-the-biggest-threat-to-recovering-oil-prices-2016-05-16>.
30
Chi-King Chyong and Vessela Tcherneva, “Europe’s Vulnerability on Russian Gas,”
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 17, 2016, available at <www.ecfr.eu/
article/commentary_europes_vulnerability_on_russian_gas>.
• 265 •
13
South Asia
Thomas F. Lynch III
In late 2016, the United States has four major national security interests in
South Asia. Three of these are vital security interests with more than a decade of
pedigree. They will require new administration policies and strategy to prevent
actions that could gravely damage U.S. security: a major conventional war
between India and Pakistan, the return of global terrorist safe havens in the
region, or the proliferation of nuclear weapons or materials into the hands of
America’s enemies. The challenge will be “to keep a lid” on the potential for a
major terrorist strike of the U.S. homeland emanating from South Asia or from a
major interstate war that could risk nuclear fallout, involvement of China, the loss
of nuclear material to terrorists, or a combination of all three. A fourth objective
is relatively new, but rising in importance. It requires the new administration
to pursue a flexible strategy and proactive but patient security initiatives that
enable the responsible rise of an emerging American security partner, India, in
a manner that supports U.S. security objectives across the Indo-Pacific region
without unintentionally aggravating the Indo-Pakistan security dilemma or
unnecessarily stoking Chinese fears of provocative encirclement.
S outh Asia will not be a glamour portfolio for the incoming U.S. ad-
ministration’s security team in January 2017, but it will be one of top-
five importance. Critical U.S. national security interests are at stake that
can be compromised gravely should the South Asia security portfolio be
misappreciated or improperly managed. South Asia will require non-
trivial defense expenditure and a focused, cohesive security framework
advancing four major U.S. national security interests during the period
from 2017 to 2020.
Running from Afghanistan in the northwest to Sri Lanka in the south-
east, South Asia includes the second most populous country in the
world, India, and the sixth most populous one, Pakistan. It is the only
region in the world where two independent nuclear weapons states with
• 267 •
Lynch
major security disagreements border each other—India and Pakistan—

and sits astride a third—China. Pakistan and India have a seemingly
intractable border security dilemma that has produced four general wars
and two near-wars since 1947. India and China have an equally vexing,
unresolved border demarcation and territory dispute involving 133,000
square kilometers of ground that precipitated a month-long interstate
war between them in late 1962.1 South Asia also is plagued by an in-
creasingly deadly mixture of local, regional, and international terrorist
organizations, some state-sponsored and others, such as al Qaeda, with
a global span and aspirations.
Historically South Asia has been a region of certain distraction for
U.S. security interests and defense resources. Since World War II, Wash-
ington has aimed to minimize its security profile and defense role in the
region. But it has found itself drawn into expensive and lengthy mili-
tary ventures there. Despite the successive efforts of Presidents George
W. Bush and Barack Obama to withdraw American military forces, the
persistence of international terrorist organizations across the Afghani-
stan-Pakistan region, the fragile nature of the security situation within
Afghanistan, and the highly unstable political and security situation in
Pakistan have kept the United States substantively engaged into 2016.
As the Cold War gave way to the war on terror in defining American
security interests with Pakistan and Afghanistan, those same security in-
terests in India evolved, too. Throughout the Cold War, America pur-
sued a wary-to-hostile relationship with India guided by a fundamental
mistrust of India’s Cold War nonalignment posture, especially after New
Delhi inked a 1971 Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with Moscow.2
U.S. mistrust slowly gave way after 1991 as India began a deliberate
move away from the defunct Soviet bloc and toward a market-based
economy and greater connectivity with the modernized Western world.
The United States has four major national security interests in South
Asia. Three of these are vital security interests with more than a decade of
pedigree. The fourth is relatively new, but rising in importance.3
First, the incoming administration will be faced with the growing
complexities associated with the decades-old, vital counterterrorism
(CT) interest of preventing any return to the region of a terrorist group
safe haven—especially one in Afghanistan and Pakistan—from where
acts of catastrophic global terrorism against the homeland or American
interests abroad might be planned and facilitated. Return of an al Qaeda
safe haven is of special concern. The new administration will confront
a second vital interest: the increasingly difficult challenge of trying to
reduce the risks from nuclear weapons proliferation within the region
and the potential loss of nuclear weapons material to those with aims to
• 268 •
South Asia
use that material there and beyond. The administration also will inherit
a third vital interest, the decades-old security interest of trying to prevent
a fifth major general war between Pakistan and India. Mitigating the risks
to these three vital U.S. national security interests requires a proper and
balanced U.S. military and intelligence presence in Afghanistan along
with a sustained, albeit somewhat reduced, U.S. CT partnership with
Pakistan focused on verifiable transactional outcomes.4
The next administration will face a fourth major (but not vital) inter-
est: it must actively manage India’s rise as an international security stake-
holder. India’s emerging military strength and diplomatic confidence best
assist America’s important national interest of constraining China’s use of
military might in any manner that would threaten the territorial integrity
or sovereignty of its neighbors, or that would hamper free trade, liberal
commerce, human rights or the peaceful resolution of grievances in the
Indo-Pacific region. American strategy to realize this national security
interest should expand upon already accelerating bilateral defense and
security initiatives, and, at the same time, it should encourage growing
Indian bilateral security activities with long-time U.S. defense partner
states in the Asia-Pacific region.
Vital Interest 1: Reducing the Risks of War on the Subcontinent

The United States has a historic, albeit underappreciated, vital national
security interest in preventing a major interstate war between India and
Pakistan. The disruption of trade and commerce as well as the loss of life
from such a conflagration would be severe in the region and ripple across
the globe. The consequences would multiply infinitely if either antago-
nist chose to use even a fraction of its nuclear arsenal in the fight, or if
China, Pakistan’s 40-year security ally against India, were to directly en-
gage in the hostilities. Worse yet, the potential for terrorist acquisition of
nuclear weapons increases greatly in the event of their deployment onto
a chaotic wartime battlefield. At a minimum harm to the U.S. homeland
would come from economic and ecological fallout.
Neither India nor Pakistan wants the certain and massive disruption
from such a nation-on-nation war and some in India predict that the
circuit breakers in place would prevent a major clash.5 Yet despite fre-
quent declarations of a desire to remain at peace, India and Pakistan
have fought four major wars between 1947 and 1999, and nearly came
to blows in 2001–2002 and in 2008.6 The 1947–1948 war over Jam-
mu-Kashmir ended indecisively, with that region remaining in dispute
between the two nations today (see figure 1).
The 1965 Indo-Pakistan war, which began with subconventional and
conventional military activity in Jammu-Kashmir, ended without a clear
• 269 •
Lynch
Figure 1. Jammu-Kashmir Region of Dispute
Source: Arun Ganesh/Planemad
victor while featuring the largest single clash of armored and air forces
witnessed since 1945. The 1971 war began as ugly civil strife in what
was then East Pakistan and concluded with Indian military intervention,
the defeat of a 90,000-man Pakistani army, and the establishment of the
sovereign nation of Bangladesh—stripping away half of Pakistan’s pop-
ulation and one-third of its land mass. The short, sharp 1999 war in the
Kargil district of Jammu-Kashmir was the fourth formal war fought be-
tween the two antagonists. It was fought under the nuclear umbrella af-
ter both Pakistan and India tested nuclear weapons successfully in 1998.
Islamist terrorist strikes in the Indian Parliament in December 2001
and against multiple venues in Mumbai, India, in November 2008—
both of which India blamed on the Pakistani state—brought India and
Pakistan to the brink of major interstate war once again. In each of
these near-miss incidents, India stepped back from a major conven-
tional retaliatory attack against Pakistan after close consultation with
American political and military officials.7 Significant American military
presence in the region (in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and environs) and
unparalleled American leadership access the key civilian and military
decisionmakers on both sides of the security divide helped avert a fifth
dramatic conflagration.
• 270 •
South Asia
Escalating Indo-Pakistani animus during 2014–2016 and growing

military capabilities assure that the new U.S. administration will be chal-
lenged to sustain the peace. The spark for a general Indo-Pakistan war
could come from at least three separate sources. Islamist terrorism strikes
inside India like those of 2001 or 2008 could again serve as the catalyst
for miscalculation leading to major conventional or nuclear war. The
government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a Hindu nation-
alist one, has made it clear that it would not be compelled to show the
restraint of its predecessor governments should terrorism with suspected
Pakistani origins again occur in India.8
Military-on-military clashes between Pakistani and Indian forces
along the disputed Line of Control (LOC) in Jammu-Kashmir could, like
in 1947 and 1965, lead to such a conflagration.9 The number and sever-
ity of cross-LOC direct and indirect fire incidents rose steadily during
2014–2016.10 In early 2016, militants presumed from the Pakistan-res-
ident, Islamist terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammed stormed Pathankot
Indian Air Force Base in Jammu-Kashmir, killing at least seven Indian
security personnel and signaling that Pakistan-based militant groups re-
main willing and perhaps enabled by Pakistan military and intelligence
to derail attempts at normalization of relations between national civilian
leaders.11 The deadly cross-LOC exchanges also demonstrate how long-
standing tensions in Jammu-Kashmir can erupt into stability-threatening
military exchanges between the two nuclear armed adversaries.
An escalating proxy war between India and Pakistan in Afghanistan
is a third possible catalyst for general war. India and Pakistan treat influ-
ence in Afghanistan as a zero-sum game. Islamabad believes that India
has established increasingly effective political and economic influence
there, believing that Afghans collude with the Indian national intelli-
gence agency (the Research and Intelligence Wing) to weaken Pakistan
from within.12 Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency supports
the Afghan Taliban and affiliates as a security proxy counterweight. The
potential for Afghanistan to become a catalyst for major interstate war
was demonstrated in an early January 2016 attack by Afghan Taliban
elements on the Indian consulate in the north Afghan town of Ma-
zar-i-Sharif.13 Like the suspected Jaish-e-Mohammed militant attack into
Pathankot Indian Air Base days earlier, this strike by a Pakistan-affiliated
jihadist group was perceived by many in India as a proxy attack aimed
to aggravate India and disrupt any prospects of reduced tensions or a
normalized relationship between India and Pakistan.14
New Delhi preferred not to provoke Pakistan while the prospect of se-
curity and stability generated by the United States and the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) in Afghanistan was present. Nonetheless,
• 271 •
Lynch
India has longstanding enmity toward the Afghan Taliban and a silent
resolve to see that it never again rules from Kabul or governs sufficient
space in Afghanistan to become a conduit for anti-Indian terrorist activ-
ities.15 As Western security forces stand down across Afghanistan, India
has proffered more direct lethal support to Afghan security forces. In late
2015, India began offering more overt offensive weapons support to the
Afghan air force, “gifting” it with four Russian-made Mi-25 “Hind D”
attack helicopters for the first time.16
New Delhi also has been expanding and extending its military and in-
telligence footprint at locations in Tajikistan that can be used to provide
logistical, medical, equipment, and intelligence support for an Afghan
government fight against the Afghan Taliban or other Pakistani militant
proxies.17 New Delhi will support Afghan government efforts to remain
sovereign and to safeguard Indian personnel and investments in Afghan-
istan. It also is setting the diplomatic conditions in Iran and the mili-
tary-intelligence access arrangements in Tajikistan necessary to support
organized proxy resistance should the Afghan government suddenly col-
lapse under the weight of Pakistani-abetted insurgency.18
The means for deadly warfare between India and Pakistan have been
growing for more than a decade. India’s increasing military spending and
its evolving conventional offensive warfare doctrine contribute to this
increasing lethality and instability. India has become the world’s largest
arms importer, accounting for 14 percent of global international arms
imports from 2009 to 2013.19 India is expected to spend more than $130
billion on arms imports between 2014 and 2020 to upgrade its dete-
riorating weapons stock.20 Its modernization efforts put at risk critical
components of Pakistan’s conventional defenses.
Ever since its frustrating inability to rapidly mobilize forces against
Pakistan during the 2001–2002 Indo-Pakistan crisis, India has been
slowly updating its offensive conventional military doctrine into one
known as “Cold Start.”21 In concept, Cold Start would enable a critical
mass of conventional Indian military forces to strike Pakistan in a puni-
tive manner within 48 hours in the event of irregular militia or terrorist
provocation.22 Cold Start remains in 2016 an Indian military aspiration
rather than a reality. But its impact on Pakistan’s defense psyche has been
profound.23 Cold Start caused Pakistan to reshape its nuclear weapons
arsenal toward one usable for both deterrence and warfighting.24
Since 2006, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons arsenal has grown dramati-
cally and its capabilities have become ever more oriented toward assured
survival and short-range, accurate use in a battlefield warfighting scenar-
io.25 In 2008, Pakistan had an estimated 70–90 nuclear weapons, rough-
ly equivalent to the 60–80 operational weapons estimated for India.26
• 272 •
South Asia
Table. Pakistan’s Growth in Mid- and Short-Range Nuclear Weapons Delivery Systems
Mid-Range Ballistic Short-Range Ballistic
Aircraft Missiles Missiles Cruise Missiles
F16 A/B (1998) Ghuari (2003) Shaheen-1 (2003) Babur (2011)
1,600 kilometers 1,200+ kilometers 450+ kilometers 600 kilometers
Mirage Vs (1998) Shaheen-2 (2011) Ghaznavi (2004) Ra’ad (2012)
2,100 kilometers 2,000+ kilometers 400 kilometers 350+ kilometers
Abdali (2012)
180 kilometers
Nasr (2014)
60 kilometers
By early 2009, Pakistan began a much more focused effort on smaller

plutonium-warhead designs with battlefield capability.27 It also devel-
oped short-range warhead delivery capability and increased fissile ma-
terial production.28 By mid-2012, Pakistan’s half-decade focus on devel-
opment of nuclear-capable, short-range and cruise missiles had doubled
its number of different nuclear missile warhead delivery systems from
four to eight, with three of the four newest delivery systems capable of
operating in the short ranges necessary for tactical battlefield delivery29
(see table30).
It is hard to disentangle the difference between Pakistani tactical
nuclear capabilities that are robust enough to signal India of its intent
to fight a limited nuclear war in response to an Indian conventional
incursion into Pakistan from those capabilities that can actually execute
a nuclear attack.31 But there are many sobering clues that suggest Paki-
stan is resolved to use tactical nuclear weapons in the event of a major
clash with India.32
The incoming U.S. administration will face the ongoing challenges of
trying to educate Pakistan about the counterproductive nature of tactical
nuclear weapons and dissuading Pakistan from continuing down a path
of reliance upon battlefield nuclear weapons use as its means to deter a
major Indian conventional military strike.
Vital Interest 2: Prevent Reset of International Terrorist Haven in the Region

South Asia will remain a top-tier location for international terrorist or-
ganizations seeking safe haven from which to launch catastrophic global
attacks against U.S. and Western interests. Standing U.S. CT strategy
applied to South Asia aims at preventing al Qaeda’s return to safe haven,
denial of any other Salafi jihadist group successor access to unfettered
sanctuary, and U.S. assistance to partner-nation capabilities to counter
terrorist group activities.33 The enduring challenge for U.S. CT strategy
in South Asia is to prevent a reset of a safe haven for international terror-
ist outfits in Afghanistan and western Pakistan.34
• 273 •
Lynch
Bowed but unbroken from the U.S.-led ground force and drone attack
“surge” during 2009–2013 into Afghanistan and Pakistan, many Sala-
fi jihadist group leaders remain in the region, intermixed with jihadist
outfits that transit Central Asia and Iran, waiting for the right moment
to regenerate sanctuary in what they believe to be an ideal location from
which to manage global jihad.35 In his September 2014 announcement
of al Qaeda of the Indian Subcontinent, al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawa-
hiri prominently praised the Afghan Taliban mujahideen, telling all Salafi
jihadist groups in South Asia to fully resource the Afghan Taliban-led
effort to reestablish a Salifist emirate in Afghanistan.36 At the same time,
a growing array of South Asian–based jihadist groups have been infesting
eastern Afghanistan under pressure from a 2014–2015 Pakistani mili-
tary offensive against terrorists in its North Waziristan border province.
Many in the remaining leadership of al Qaeda complicit groups such as
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi, the
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the East Turkmenistan Movement, and
others have established new operational nodes in Nuristan, Kunar, and
Nangarhar provinces in Afghanistan.37
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is also a terrorist player
in eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan.38 However, ISIL-Khorasan,
as it calls itself, remains small in number, with inspiration but no direct
material support from ISIL in Iraq or Syria and little traction when com-
pared to the dozens of Salafi jihadist outfits in the Afghanistan-Pakistan
region with solid ties to al Qaeda.39 ISIL-Khorasan’s fate notwithstanding,
Afghanistan and Pakistan will remain highly contested spaces for bruised
but unrepentant international jihadist organizations.
Since assuming the major role in fighting the insurgency and localized
terror groups in January 2015, the 352,000-man strong Afghan National
Security and Defense Forces (ANSDF) has struggled against a Taliban re-
surgence in Afghanistan’s south, its east, and in Kabul itself. In the south
and east, Afghan security units have been challenged to secure hard-won
U.S./NATO territory contested during the surge fights of 2009–2011.40
In its December 2015 semi-annual report to Congress, the Pentagon ad-
mitted that despite ANSDF abilities to consistently retake major ground
lost to the Taliban, the overall security situation in Afghanistan had dete-
riorated, indicating a robust and resilient insurgency.41
The unmistakable growth of Taliban power across southern and
eastern Afghanistan in 2015–2016 carved out space for precisely the
kind of international terrorist training safe haven that the United States
swore to prevent.42 Al Qaeda reportedly established two new terrorism
training camps in Kandahar Province, one of which covered nearly 30
square miles. A joint U.S.-Afghan special operations attack raided these
• 274 •
South Asia
camps in the fall of 2015, reportedly killing 100 terrorists in training

and wounding 50 more.43 But this episode confirmed the continuing
challenge of inhibiting the return of terrorism safe havens in Afghanistan
absent a more robust U.S. military intelligence and operational presence.
In recognition of these great and growing challenges in the CT strug-
gle in South Asia, President Obama extended the U.S. military mission
in Afghanistan for a longer time and at a larger level of American troops
than previously announced.44 In his fall 2015 announcement, Obama
promised to maintain some 9,800 U.S. military forces in Afghanistan
through most of 2016, tapering to about 5,500 troops by early in 2017.
Pentagon officials also indicated that American forces will retain bases of
operation beyond Kabul: in Bagram Air Field, at Kandahar, and in Jalala-
bad.45 These announcements leave it to the next administration to decide
on an appropriate U.S. military footprint thereafter.
The incoming administration also will be left to determine the terms
of its CT relationship with Pakistan. Enduring although troubled,
U.S.-Pakistan collaboration has continued since 2001 against selected
regional and international terrorist organizations. The Obama admin-
istration, as the Bush administration before it, used a direct support
program for Pakistani military, paramilitary, and law enforcement CT
activities. American financial support for Pakistani military CT efforts
largely consists of a reimbursement program for CT expenditures by
the Pakistani military known as Coalition Support Funds (CSF).46 U.S.
military CSF dispersed to Pakistan from 2002 to 2015 totaled almost
$13 billion.47 Over the same period, indirect support for Pakistan’s mili-
tary and intelligence services totaled $7.6 billion, and economic-related
aid to Pakistan linked to U.S. CT objectives totaled some $10 billion
more.48 Pakistan continues to view U.S. compensation and assistance
sums as insufficient for its disproportionate losses as “a victim of ter-
rorism,” seeking full reparation for what it contends to be more than
$52 billion dollars in physical damages and lost economic activity in its
15-year-old fight of “America’s War on Terror.”49
Despite its 2014–2015 Zarb-e-Azb offensives against the anti-Pakistan
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and selected international terrorist groups in
North Waziristan, Pakistan’s military-intelligence organizations have not
broken ties with many longstanding jihadist outfits viewed as beneficial
to its state security mission. Chief among these many groups are Lash-
kar-e-Tayibbah and the Afghan Taliban.50 The incoming administration
is likely to see a continuation of the Pakistani national security narrative
in the years 2017–2020: CT cooperation against selected Salafi jihadists
terrorist groups while protecting those deemed as most essential to Pa-
kistan’s existential battle against real and perceived threats from India.51
• 275 •
Lynch
The U.S. record of success in fighting terrorist actors in South Asia

with Pakistan as an ally is not entirely positive. Yet the record of CT
success without Pakistan’s participation during the period 1992–2001 is
much worse. The delicate and dangerous situation calls for some form of
continuing U.S. military engagement with Pakistani military headquar-
ters in Rawalpindi, albeit at a reduced level, rather than a total cutoff of
CT support or military-to-military interactions championed by some.52
The new administration should commit to provide the ANSDF with
sufficient direct operational support in the key counterinsurgency ca-
pabilities these units inherently lack and will continue to lack through
at least 2020: aeromedical casualty evacuation, aerial troop transport to
crisis areas, timely heavy indirect fire support from air and artillery, rap-
id and reliable logistical resupply, and reconnaissance and intelligence
support down to brigade and regimental levels.53 The 2016 U.S. military
presence in Afghanistan still does too little in support of the ANDSF
and has insufficient operational or strategic intelligence assets to inde-
pendently monitor the increasingly negative interplay of Indian and Pa-
kistani proxy agents or to track the ever-evolving cross-border terrorist
milieu. A proper post-2016 residual American military presence should
be composed of 20,000 personnel, not 9,800 or 10,800. It should feature
much more intelligence capability. This kind of a commitment would not
be inexpensive. It would likely cost U.S. taxpayers about $20 billion a
year in direct military costs and another $3 to $4 billion a year in indirect
costs to pay for sustainment of the ANDSF.54 But this would be less than
a $10 billion increase for a capable force from the $15 billion spent in
2015 for the sustainment of an under-resourced and insufficiently capa-
ble one scheduled to fall to 5,500 troops in late 2016.55
Across the border, a prudent policy moving forward would sustain
U.S.-Pakistan CT collaboration with annual CSF authorities of up to, but
not exceeding, $750 million per year, along with sustained economic-re-
lated support authority of up to $500 million a year and another $300
million a year in broader security assistance programs.56 These amounts
would not make the Pakistani military and intelligence services end their
unhelpful relationships with Salafi jihadist militant outfits. However, the
sums would help sustain U.S.-Pakistani dialogue in both military-to-mil-
itary and civilian-to-civilian forums and keep open the possibilities for
critical terrorist information exchange and—if needed—crisis response.
Vital Interest 3: Constrain Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons on the Subcontinent

Although related to those above, this is a distinct U.S. vital regional se-
curity interest. India and Pakistan have been vexing to American nuclear
• 276 •
South Asia
nonproliferation interests for more than 40 years. India and Pakistan

acquired nuclear weapons despite American and international blandish-
ment and warnings. Both withstood international military and econom-
ic sanctions after their announced testing of nuclear weapons in 1998.
But in the mid-2000s, their nuclear weapons trajectories diverged. In-
dia, championed by the George W. Bush administration as a responsible
steward of its nuclear weapons arsenal, gained exceptional status as a
nuclear weapons state in 2008. Pakistan remained an international nu-
clear pariah without formal recognition for its nuclear arsenal, which
continues to grow and is feared to be at growing risk from loss to a ter-
rorist organization.57
For most of the past 60 years, American Presidents have been strong
advocates of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to countries be-
yond the original “nuclear weapons states club”: the United States, Sovi-
et Union (Russia), China, Great Britain, and France.58 Since 1972, most
American administrations have been verbal proponents of halting the
growth of standing nuclear weapons arsenals or reducing their size de-
spite the massive growth of the U.S. nuclear arsenal during the height of
the Cold War. From at least 1992 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union,
American Presidents also have focused on preventing the spread of nucle-
ar weapons to international criminal organizations and terrorist groups.59
The Obama administration’s comprehensive approach to nuclear non-
proliferation differed in form from the pragmatic flexibility pursued by the
administration of George W. Bush in South Asia.60 Under President Bush,
the United States in September 2001 lifted the nuclear-related sanctions
imposed on both India and Pakistan following their nuclear weapons tests
in 1998.61 The lifting of sanctions against Pakistan was a quid pro quo for
an urgently required U.S.-Pakistan partnership in the American-led war
on terror and imminent American attacks against the Taliban and al Qaeda
in Afghanistan. The near-simultaneous lifting of sanctions against India set
the conditions for something even bigger: a pathbreaking India-U.S. civil
nuclear deal. Announced as an aspiration in July 2005, negotiated and
signed by 2006, and ratified in 2008, this India-U.S. Civil Nuclear Agree-
ment (or 123 Agreement) moved India from international nuclear outcast
to insider.62 It also worried China and upset Pakistan.
China fretted over the deal because of its obvious pathway for great-
er Indian strategic interaction with the United States. Beijing protested,
briefly, that the deal unfairly excluded Pakistan, arguing that Islamabad
should be accorded a similar exception. When the United States and
other nations countered that Pakistan had a highly checkered record of
safeguarding its nuclear weapons technology, Beijing backed off.63 But
China then sold Pakistan additional civil nuclear reactors in what was
• 277 •
Lynch
seen as a violation of nuclear sanctions against Pakistan, but what Beijing

argued was an allowed “grandfathered exemption” to its 2004 accession
to the Nuclear Suppliers Group non-transfer prohibitions for Pakistan.64
India, as does the rest of the world, worries that these new reactors will
augment Pakistan’s ability to harvest nuclear weapons fuel for its ex-
panding nuclear weapons arsenal.
The new administration will have three major nonproliferation con-
cerns with Pakistan. First, the continuing overall growth of Pakistan’s
nuclear weapons arsenal is historic and destabilizing. In 2015 Pakistan
had a nuclear weapons stockpile of 110 to 130 warheads, up from an es-
timated 90 to 110 in 2011.65 This gave Pakistan the world’s sixth largest
nuclear weapons arsenal—only behind the arsenals of the original six
pre–Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty nuclear weapons states. Pakistan’s
presumed mastery of the processes for building lighter, smaller tactical
nuclear weapons (miniaturization) means that it now has the potential
to produce up to 15 tactical nuclear systems a year, which is forecast to
grow to an additional 30–35 per year from 2020.66
Second, Pakistan continues to develop smaller nuclear warheads and
more accurate short-range delivery systems for these warheads, clearly
setting the conditions for their use in a battlefield scenario. This increas-
es both the risk of nuclear weapons use in the event of a general Indo-Pa-
kistani war and the risk of accidental loss or theft of these more widely
dispersed nuclear devices.
Finally, domestic radicalization and proliferating Islamist terrorist and
violent extremist groups in Pakistan put it at serious risk of national frag-
mentation and severe domestic violence. In these extreme but entirely
plausible scenarios, the risks of terrorists or rogue international actors
acquiring nuclear weapons or material grows precipitously.67
The new U.S. administration should continue CT engagement as well
as offers of assistance to Pakistan to safeguard its nuclear arsenal. At
the same time it should sustain recent U.S. practices of discouraging
Pakistan from its nuclear weapons growth trajectory with information
sessions and earnest discussion about the dangers from and counter-pro-
ductivity of tactical nuclear weapons.68 There can be no illusions that Pa-
kistan will be easily dissuaded from its present nuclear weapons course.
At the same time, Pakistan is nowhere near ready for consideration as a
civil nuclear deal (123 Agreement) partner. Yet discussions about where
and how far Pakistan must go to be viewed as a responsible player offer
more promise for eventual reversal of Islamabad’s dangerous course than
does a policy of isolation.
There also are concerns with India’s nuclear weapons nonprolifera-
tion standards, although not as acute as those concerns with Pakistan.
• 278 •
South Asia
Three stand out. First, when compared to Pakistan, India’s nuclear weap-
ons safeguards are not independently verified and feared to be somewhat
weak despite Indian insistence to the contrary.69 While treading gently
so as not to excite a negative Indian response, the new administration
should encourage greater Indian transparency. Second, India has a long-
standing policy of “no first use” (NFU) of nuclear weapons, meaning
that India will not use nuclear weapons first, but if its opponents do,
then India’s response would be overwhelming.70 Incoming Prime Minis-
ter Modi ruled out change of the NFU policy in August 2014, but some
in the Indian military community continue to agitate for a revision away
from massive retaliation and toward “punitive” retaliation if struck first.71
Any such change in Indian nuclear use policy would be unhelpful for
strategic stability between India and Pakistan and between India and
China. The new American administration should take every opportunity
to encourage the Indian government to sustain its NFU doctrine.
Finally, the nuclear ballistic missile competition between Pakistan and
India is close to spurring a serious arms race. Both have flight-tested
ballistic missiles with short- and longer range delivery capability for nu-
clear warheads. Pakistan’s ballistic arsenal can now reach targets in all of
India. India’s can now reach targets throughout China. India and China
have the technical know-how to place multiple warheads atop some of
their missiles and to deploy limited ballistic missile defenses.72 Any se-
rious move by India to pursue even a limited ballistic missile defense
(BMD) against Pakistan’s growing nuclear arsenal—as some in its hawk-
ish minority now advocate—would have major ripple effects. Growth
in Indian BMD coupled with testing of multiple reentry vehicle nuclear
warhead technology could be seen as threatening by China, igniting an
undesirable and dangerous nuclear missile versus antiballistic missile
arms race.73 In addition, investments by India and Pakistan in sea-based
nuclear weapons delivery capabilities are increasing and create greater
uncertainty and instability in the region.74 American nonproliferation
interests require that the incoming administration conduct an earnest
dialogue with the Indian government about the advisability of restraint
in these areas.75
Given the multivariate challenges to nuclear weapons nonprolifera-
tion in Pakistan and India, the new administration will be best advised
to pursue prudent pragmatism as its regional nonproliferation approach.
Major Interest 4: Nurture the Rise of India as a Strategic Partner

In early 2012, the Obama administration announced its “Rebalance to
the Asia-Pacific Strategy.”76 By the summer of 2012, senior American de-
fense officials like then–Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and then–U.S.
• 279 •
Lynch
Pacific Command Commander Admiral Samuel Locklear made it clear

that this region included India—speaking openly about the rebalance
focusing on the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.77 With these clarifications of
geographic intent, the U.S. rebalance to the Indo-Pacific incorporated its
decade-old emerging strategic engagement with India.
The warming relations between the two countries had an economic
baseline. But they also had a security and defense component influenced
by India’s growing financial ability to purchase American military hard-
ware and informed by India’s potential to be a defense partner in balanc-
ing against the possible rise of a militarily assertive and anti–status quo
China.78 From 2004 to 2008, the Bush administration set the conditions
for this growing security collaboration.79
The Obama administration significantly extended these Bush ad-
ministration advances and simultaneously linked a decade of bilateral
U.S.-Indian defense and security interactions with the U.S. rebalance
strategy when it signed the Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and
Indian Ocean Region (JSV) with India in January 2015.80 The U.S.-India
JSV put on paper the basic framework for U.S.-Indian security coopera-
tion, emphasizing the common interests between Washington and New
Delhi in assuring that the entire Indo-Pacific region remains one where
the following conditions prevail:
• maritime security is safeguarded
• freedom of navigation and overflight remains unfettered, including

in the South China Sea
• all parties choose peaceful means for the resolution of territorial and
maritime disputes
• the interests of peace, prosperity, and stability are underpinned by a

common commitment to human rights.81
Although it will not become a military ally in the foreseeable future,

India is a good bet to become a valuable security partner of the United
States and other East Asian countries against an aggressive and anti–
status quo China. While India remains a strong trading partner with
China—and relies upon this partnership to meet its ambitious annual
gross domestic product growth goals—India’s geopolitical issues with
China make it plausible that India could become adversarial with China
at some point in the future.82
• 280 •
South Asia
Figure 2. Disputed Border and Territory

Areas Between India and China
Source: CIA
Geopolitical strains between India and China are evident in five major
areas. First, India and China have a large and seemingly intractable land
border dispute over 133,000 square kilometers of contested land83 (see
figure 2). They fought a short, sharp war over these borders in 1962.
Despite decades of halting diplomatic talks, the borders remain unre-
solved.84 Second, even though India recognized Chinese territorial sov-
ereignty over Tibet in the 1950s—with the caveat that China respect the
cultural, religious, and social uniqueness of Tibet—New Delhi has been
aggravated by Chinese treatment of Tibet, offering the Dali Lama safe
haven in the late 1950s and supporting the Lama’s ownership of his Bud-
dhist successor selection. India views the growing presence of Chinese
military units and construction outfits there to be menacing.
Third, India chafes over China’s decades-long role as an enabler of
Pakistan’s military. From the 1960s, China has been the main channel
for information and equipment necessary to advance Pakistan’s heavily
embargoed nuclear power program and its nuclear weapons activities.85
For the past two decades, China has been a key conduit of information
to Pakistan on the design of ballistic missiles and, more recently, tactical
nuclear weapons.86 Almost all security observers in India are wary that
China would become party to a two-front war with India should any
combination of the three come to blows.
• 281 •
Lynch
Fourth, India worries greatly about Chinese maritime activities in

the Indian Ocean. Many Indians believe that ongoing Chinese efforts at
acquiring deep water berthing ports for commercial activities there are
actually a step toward building a “string of pearls” to encircle India.87
In 2015 and 2016, the government of Prime Minister Modi moved to
assert its soft-power tools, courting neighboring countries such as Ban-
gladesh, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, and the Seychelles with lucrative com-
mercial port alternatives to those from China. At the same time, more
Indian voices advocate the use of hard power against Chinese maritime
encroachment in the Indian Ocean maritime space.
Finally, India has great and growing concerns about Chinese respect
for freedom of navigation on the high seas. New Delhi has been worried
about Chinese aggressive claims and its threats of force to gain control
over the important international navigation space in the South China Sea.
India has been a critic of Chinese actions and acted as a friend to the states
of Southeast Asia who challenge Chinese hegemonic encroachment. India
has sent its warships into waterways astride Vietnam and China, and in
the vicinity of disputed South China Sea islands. India should be expected
to continue with these unilateral actions challenging China should Beijing
not desist in its assertive South China Sea activities.88
Since 2010, India has participated in more annual military exercises
with U.S. military forces than with any other nation in the world.89 It will
remain difficult for the new U.S. administration to dramatically acceler-
ate the pace or the scope of India’s bilateral engagement with America.
India’s historic preference for strategic autonomy remains strong and will
inhibit any formal alliance. This means that New Delhi will partner with
Washington in areas of common security and economic interest where
China’s actions do not align.
Anticipating the certainty of challenges with the pace and the depth
of U.S.-Indian bilateral security progress in the years from 2017 to 2020,
the incoming U.S. administration might best think in terms of how it can
help facilitate deeper Indian bilateral engagements with Washington’s
other security partners in the Indo-Pacific region. This approach—one
involving “third party facilitation” of an enhanced web of Indian security
partnerships across the wider Pacific region—should feature three areas
for administration attention: military technology, multilateral military
doctrine, and regional training partnerships.
The new administration should conduct a review of standing U.S. ex-
port constraints on certain military technology transfers. As an example,
India may become interested in purchasing Japanese submarines with
quiet propulsion technology.90 Existing U.S. export controls on this tech-
nology might constrain Japan’s ability to sell or license it to India. The
• 282 •
South Asia
U.S. critical technologies standards could—and should—be updated to

allow for this kind of a mutually beneficial exchange.
The incoming administration should be creative in its approaches to
military training and doctrinal development with India. In the area of
doctrine, the United States might work with India to establish regional
partnership forums to discuss the way ahead for shared doctrine in the
areas of military cyberspace, military operations in space, military op-
eration of remotely piloted vehicles, and other emerging defense areas.
Indian officials have expressed interest in becoming a “training node”
for Southeast Asia and Pacific states’ militaries seeking to become in-
teroperable in activities ranging from disaster management and relief to
coastal waterway security and beyond.91 The United States might look at
creative ways to encourage regional hub training centers for multilateral
military interactions.
At the end of the day, India’s rise as a hedge against malevolent Chi-
nese behavior in the Indo-Pacific region uniquely supports a vital U.S.
security interest. If the incoming administration can work around Indian
security peculiarities patiently, it can shape an Indo-Pacific Ocean securi-
ty architecture featuring India, Japan, Australia, South Korea, and others
capable of limiting malign Chinese behaviors and of safeguarding the
standards and norms of the post–World War II economic and security
architecture in the Far East—and at a bearable cost to U.S. taxpayers.
Major Implications for U.S. Security Policy in South Asia

Absent a truly unexpected event or an unlikely set of circumstances, the
United States will have four major national security interests in South
Asia from 2017 to 2020. Three of these interests are vital and will require
administration policy and strategy to prevent actions that could gravely
damage U.S. security. The challenge is “to keep a lid” on the potential
for a major terrorist strike of the U.S. homeland emanating from South
Asia—or, from a major interstate war that could risk nuclear fallout, in-
volvement of China, the loss of nuclear material to terrorists, or a com-
bination of all three. A fourth objective requires flexible administration
strategy and activities to enhance the natural trajectory of an emerging
security partner, India, in a manner that supports U.S. security objectives
in the Indo-Pacific region.
The incoming administration must work to inhibit the potential for
major conventional or nuclear war between India and Pakistan that
might embroil China. Success in this objective will require a mixture
of diplomatic acumen and properly positioned U.S. military forces in
countries that will host them—like Afghanistan.
• 283 •
Lynch
Simultaneously, the new administration will need to invest wisely in

policies and activities that prevent any return of safe havens for interna-
tional terrorist outfits in Afghanistan or western Pakistan. To attain this
challenging objective, Washington policymakers must do a thorough re-
view of the insufficient U.S. force structure in Afghanistan, increasing
the number and properly balancing the composition of U.S. forces, while
maintaining a proper basing structure throughout Afghanistan including
locations in Kabul, Bagram, Kandahar, and across the East and South-
east of the country. The incoming administration also should continue
to pursue CT cooperation with Pakistan, reframing it in a manner that
continues the beneficial aspects at a reduced cost and that sustains im-
portant military-to-military interactions and intelligence access.
The incoming administration also will be challenged to inhibit the
proliferation of nuclear weapons on the subcontinent. But a pragmatic
and discriminate nuclear nonproliferation approach could achieve the
most important regional aims. Limiting the potential for nuclear weap-
ons use in a major Indo-Pakistani war is a paramount objective. Con-
tinuing multilateral dialogue to educate Pakistan about the counterpro-
ductive nature of battlefield nuclear weapons use is a key element. The
new administration should work to assure Pakistani openness to nuclear
weapons security best practices and exchanges and to validation of the
security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Enabled by a proper balance of
U.S. intelligence assets in Afghanistan, the administration also should
seek to anticipate major risks for loss or compromise of Pakistani nuclear
weapons and materials, resolving to arrest any such compromise before
it can occur.
Finally, the incoming administration has an unparalleled opportunity
to extend and enhance India’s ongoing rise in the regional and inter-
national security system. It should steadily expand on already growing
bilateral defense initiatives in the areas of military hardware purchases,
military exercises and training, and military administration dialogues. It
also should abet third-party facilitation of Indian bilateral security ac-
tivities with longstanding American defense partners in the Asia-Pacific
region, especially Japan, South Korea, and Australia, in support of the
current Indo-Pacific security and economic order and as a hedge against
potential Chinese challenges to that order.
The first three vital regional U.S. national security interests share one
common theme: the need to establish a proper U.S. military and intel-
ligence presence in Afghanistan. Properly sizing—and paying for—an
American military presence in Afghanistan into 2020 enables key ele-
ments of the top three U.S. national security interests: preventing major
Indo-Pakistani war emanating from a proxy spiral from inside Afghani-
• 284 •
South Asia
stan, militating against the return of any globally capable terrorist combi-
nation to safe haven in Afghanistan or Pakistan, and thoroughly tracking
and—if necessary—responding to the loss or theft of nuclear weapons
material in Pakistan by terrorists or criminals.92
A properly scoped American military presence in Afghanistan com-
bined with a reduced but sustained U.S counterterrorism partnership
with Islamabad also helps keep the Pakistan military-intelligence com-
plex engaged in the regional fight against traditional and emergent ter-
rorist organizations with global reach. Sustained U.S.-Pakistan CT inter-
action also helps to enable military-diplomatic access to Pakistan military
leaders in order to monitor and/or help arrest dramatic escalation in a
future India-Pakistan military crisis or militate against an implosion of
security or stability in Pakistan itself.
South Asia should rank among the top-five focus areas for new ad-
ministration national security priorities. It will continue to engage vital
U.S. security interests in CT, nuclear nonproliferation, and the deter-
rence of major interstate war between nuclear weapons nations. It will
also involve a major interest in managing the rise of India in the shadow
of China. The costs to national treasure for sound management of these
vital security interests should come to about 20,000 U.S. troops and $25
billion in Afghanistan, 500 to 1,000 U.S. troops and about $2.5 billion
in U.S. CT and other aid in Pakistan, and a robust and growing mili-
tary-to-military exercise and exchange presence with India. The expense
will not be trivial, but the national security benefits will be great.
Notes
1
Bruce Riedel, JFK’s Forgotten Crisis: Tibet, The CIA and the Sino-Indian War (Washing-
ton, DC: Brookings Institution, 2015).
2
Shri Ram Sharma, India-USSR Relations, 1947–1971: From Ambivalence to Steadfast-
ness, Part-1 (New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House, 1999); Andrew Small, The Chi-
na-Pakistan Axis: Asia’s New Geopolitics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 9–16.
3
There are several other relatively new opportunities for increased American security
engagement across South Asia between 2017 and 2020. Burma (Myanmar) and Sri Lanka
are continuing to emerge from lengthy periods of international sanction for human rights
abuses and are anxious for greater direct American security engagements. Nepal is ready
for greater American assistance with security-sector reform. Bangladesh continues to
request more engagement in U.S. military naval and special operations forces exercises
along with continuing counterterrorism financial and maritime-shore security equipment
support. Worthy of American national security attention as these opportunities are, none
of them rise to the threshold of major American security interests in South Asia. See
Murray Hiebert, “Engaging Myanmar’s Military: Carpe Diem Part II,” CSIS.org, September
5, 2013, available at <https://csis.org/publication/engaging-myanmars-military-carpe-di-
em-part-ii>; David Brunnstrom, “U.S. General Eager for Myanmar Engagement, Awaiting
Policy Decision,” Reuters, December 8, 2015, available at <www.reuters.com/article/
us-usa-myanmar-military-idUSKBN0TR21B20151208>; Department of State Fact Sheet,
• 285 •
Lynch
“U.S. Relations with Sri Lanka,” February 25, 2015, available at <www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/
bgn/5249.htm>; Kadira Pethiyagoda, “Sri Lanka: A Lesson for U.S. Strategy,” The Diplo-
mat, August 26, 2015, available at <http://thediplomat.com/2015/08/sri-lanka-a-lesson-
for-u-s-strategy/>; Bruce Vaughn, Nepal: Political Developments and U.S. Relations, R44303
(Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, December 4, 2015), 1–3; Jenna
Bernhardson, “U.S. Security Assistance in Bangladesh,” Department of State Dipnote, Oc-
tober 21, 2014, available at <https://blogs.state.gov/stories/2014/10/21/us-security-assis-
tance-bangladesh>; Kevin Chambers, “U.S., Bangladesh Armed Forces Complete CARAT
2015,” U.S. Navy News Service, October 5, 2015, available at <www.navy.mil/submit/
display.asp?story_id=91356>.
4
This chapter identifies three vital and enduring U.S. national security interests in
South Asia. The author’s assessment of these as vital—meaning that a failure to meet them
would lead to significant harm to the American homeland—concurs with and extends
similar assessments found in James Dobbins et al., ed., Choices for America in a Turbulent
World (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2015), 108–110, 113–119, available at <www.rand.
org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1100/RR1114/RAND_RR1114.pdf>;
and “Threats to U.S. Vital Interests: Where Are U.S. Interests Being Threatened Around
the World?” 2016 Index of U.S. Military Strength (Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation,
2016), available at <http://index.heritage.org/military/2016/assessments/threats/>.
5
For example, see Bharat Karnad, Why India Is Not a Great Power (Yet) (London:
Oxford University Press, 2015).
6
See Stephen P. Cohen, Shooting for a Century: The India-Pakistan Conundrum (Wash-
ington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2013), 88–117; C. Christine Fair, Fighting to the End:
The Pakistan Army’s Way of War (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 136–153.
7
Polly Nayak and Michael Krepon, U.S. Crisis Management in South Asia’s Twin Peaks
Crisis (Washington, DC: Stimson Center, 2006); Polly Nayak and Michael Krepon, The
Unfinished Crisis: U.S. Crisis Management After the 2008 Mumbai Attacks (Washington, DC:
Stimson Center, February 2012).
8
“Everything Will Be Fine Soon: PM Modi on Kashmir Ceasefire Violations,” The
Times of India (Mumbai), October 8, 2014, available at <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.
com/india/Everything-will-be-fine-soon-PM-Modi-on-Kashmir-ceasefire-violations/arti-
cleshow/44713666.cms>; George Perkovich and Toby Dalton, “Modi’s Strategic Choice:
How to Respond to Terrorism from Pakistan,” The Washington Quarterly 38, no. 1 (Spring
2015), 23–45.
9
This scenario is cited as a feasible one leading to general Indo-Pakistani war in
Michael E. O’Hanlon, The Future of Land Warfare (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution,
2015), 109–116.
10
Violating the standing ceasefire agreement, units from Pakistan’s Punjab Rangers
and its X Corps exchanged artillery, mortar, rocket, and small arms fire with elements
of the Indian Army Northern Command in 60 incidents from July 2014 to November
2015. Both sides engaged in deadly violations. Their exchanges reportedly resulted in the
deaths of 22 Indian soldiers, 19 Pakistani soldiers, and nearly 90 civilians, with dozens
more military personnel wounded and hundreds of civilians wounded and displaced
from homes near the border. See Kamran Yousaf, “Pakistan, India Agree to Stop Ceasefire
Violations at Working Boundary,” The Express Tribune (Karachi), September 12, 2015,
available at <http://tribune.com.pk/story/955626/pakistan-india-agree-to-stop-cease-
fire-violations-at-working-boundary/>; Perkovich and Dalton, 23–26.
11
Niharrika Mandhana and Aditi Malhorta, “Indian Forces Hunt for Militants After
Deadly Attack on Air Force Base,” Wall Street Journal, January 3, 2016, available at
<www.wsj.com/articles/indian-forces-hunt-for-militants-after-deadly-attack-on-air-force-
base-1451820057>; Navjeevan Gopal, “Pathankot Attack: Parrikar Admits ‘Gaps’ in
Security, Says Terrorists Used ‘Pak-made’ Equipment,” The Indian Express (Uttar Pradesh),
• 286 •
South Asia
January 5, 2016, available at <http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/

terrorists-used-pakistan-made-equipment-in-pathankot-attack-manohar-parrikar/>.
12
See Umar Farooq, “Afghanistan-Pakistan: The Covert War,” The Diplomat, January
1, 2014, available at <http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/afghanistan-pakistan-the-co-
vert-war/>.
13
“Reports: Indian Consulate in Afghan City Attacked,” Radio Free Europe–Radio
Liberty, January 3, 2016, available at <www.rferl.org/content/afghanistan-indian-consul-
ate-attacked/27465427.html>.
14
“Pakistani Non-State Actors Backed by State Responsible for Pathankot Attack,
Says Parrikar,” FirstPost.com, March 1, 2016, available at <www.firstpost.com/world/
pakistani-non-state-actors-backed-by-state-responsible-for-pathankot-attack-says-parri-
kar-2650334.html?utm_source=FP_CAT_LATEST_NEWS>; “Pakistan Military Officers
behind Indian Consulate Attack: Afghan Police,” HindustanTimes.com, January 13, 2016,
available at <www.hindustantimes.com/india/top-afghan-official-says-pakistan-mili-
tary-officers-behind-indian-consulate-attack-in-mazar-e-sharif/story-tpMK8zHcCm-
Kiv4HY8FNBDM.html>.
15
Gareth Price, India’s Policy Towards Afghanistan (London: Chatham House, August
2013), 3, 9.
16
“Afghanistan Turns to India for Military Helicopters,” Dawn (Karachi), November 6,
2015, available at <www.dawn.com/news/1217859>; “Taking Ties to the Next Level—In-
dia Gifts MI-25 Helicopters to Afghanistan,” MotivateMe.in, December 24, 2015, available
at <http://motivateme.in/taking-ties-to-the-next-level-india-gifts-mi-25-helicopters-to-
afghanistan/>.
17
“Farhkhor Air Base: India’s Foreign Military Base,” Indian Aerospace and Defence
News, December 27, 2015, available at <http://iadnews.in/2015/12/farkhor-air-base-in-
dias-foreign-military-base/#.VoKlKf1IiM8>; “Tajikistan Entertains Indian Offer for
Air Base,” SilkRoadReporters.com, July 17, 2015, available at <www.silkroadreporters.
com/2015/07/17/tajikistan-entertains-indian-offer-for-air-base/>; Joshua Kucera, “India’s
Central Asia Soft Power,” The Diplomat, September 3, 2011, available at <http://thediplo-
mat.com/2011/09/indias-central-asia-soft-power/>.
18
For a discussion of India’s upgrades to its military and intelligence access in Tajiki-
stan, see Rajeev Sharma, “India’s Anyi Military Base in Tajikistan is Russia-locked,” Russia
and India Report, October 26, 2012, available at <http://in.rbth.com/articles/2012/10/26/
indias_ayni_military_base_in_tajikistan_is_russia-locked_18661.html>; “India, Tajikistan
to Step Up Counter-Terrorism Cooperation,” Business Standard (New Delhi), September
11, 2014, available at <www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/india-tajiki-
stan-to-step-up-counter-terrorism-cooperation-114091101203_1.html>.
19
Siemon T. Wezeman, “International Arms Transfers,” in SIPRI Yearbook (Stockholm:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2013), available at <www.sipri.org/
yearbook/2014/05>.
20
India is focused on modernization of its Soviet-era carrier-based aircraft systems, its
attack aircraft, its unmanned aerial vehicles, its antitank missiles, and its air mobility. See
Rama Lakshmi, “India Is the World’s Largest Arms Importer: It Aims to Be a Big Weapons
Dealer, Too,” Washington Post, November 16, 2014, available at <www.washingtonpost.
com/world/asia_pacific/india-is-the-worlds-largest-arms-importer-it-aims-to-be-a-big-
weapons-dealer-too/2014/11/15/10839bc9-2627-4a41-a4d6-b376e0f860ea_story.html>.
21
The detailed historical review of the 2001–2002 “Twin Peaks” crisis by researchers
also suggests that American diplomatic intervention proved a critical inhibitor to conflict
escalation in a pattern they found repeated in many respects during the 2008 Mumbai
Crisis. See Nayak and Krepon, U.S. Crisis Management; Nayak and Krepon, The Unfinished
Crisis.
• 287 •
Lynch
22
For a detailed description and analysis of India’s Cold Start doctrine, see Walter C.
Ladwig III, “A Cold Start for Hot Wars? The Indian Army’s New Limited War Doctrine,”
International Security 32, no. 3 (Winter 2007/2008), 158–190; also see Nitin Gokhal,
“India Military Eyes Combine Threat,” The Diplomat, January 17, 2012, available at
<http://thediplomat.com/2012/01/17/india-military-eyes-combined-threat/>. For more
on Indian limitations in attaining its doctrinal aims, see Shashank Joshi, “The Mythology
of Cold Start,” New York Times blog, November 4, 2011, available at <http://india.blogs.
nytimes.com/2011/11/04/the-mythology-of-cold-start/>. For an alternative name to
Cold Start, proactive doctrine, first observed in 2012–2013 Indian military writings, see
Dhruv Katoch, Looking Beyond the Proactive Doctrine (New Delhi: Centre for Land Warfare
Studies, September 2013), available at <http://strategicstudyindia.blogspot.com/2013/09/
looking-beyond-proactive-doctrine.html>.
23
See Feroz Hassan Khan, Eating Grass: The Making of the Pakistani Bomb (Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 2012), 381–382.
24
As observed by Indian national security adviser Shiv Shankar Menon in August
2012, India’s civilian leadership perceives Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program to be
aimed at reducing India’s conventional military advantage, not for deterrence against
nuclear weapons first use: “The possession of nuclear weapons has, empirically speaking,
deterred others from attempting nuclear coercion or blackmail against India . . . unlike
certain other nuclear weapons states, India’s weapons were not meant to redress a military
imbalance or some perceived inferiority in conventional terms.” Quoted in “India Faced
N-blackmail Thrice: NSA,” Hindustan Times (New Delhi), August 21, 2012.
25
Jaganath Sankaran, “Pakistan’s Battlefield Nuclear Policy: A Risky Solution to an
Exaggerated Threat,” International Security 39, no. 3 (Winter 2014/2015), 118–151; Tom
Hundley, “Pakistan and India: Race to the End,” Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, Sep-
tember 5, 2012, available at <http://pulitzercenter.org/reporting/pakistan-nuclear-weap-
ons-battlefield-india-arms-race-energy-cold-war>.
26
Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, “Pakistan’s Nuclear Forces, 2011,” Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists 67, no. 4 (2011), 83, available at <http://bos.sagepub.com/con-
tent/67/4/91.full.pdf+html>.
27
Joby Warrick, “Nuclear Experts Say Pakistan May Be Building a 4th Plutonium Reac-
tor,” Washington Post, February 9, 2011.
28
Cited in “Pakistan Successfully Test Fires Hatf-9 Nasr Missile,” The Nation (Lahore),
May 29, 2012, available at <www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-en-
glish-online/national/29-May-2012/pakistan-successfully-test-fires-hatf-9-nasr-missile>.
29
Kristensen and Norris, 93.
30
Table from Thomas F. Lynch III, Crisis Stability and Nuclear Exchange Risks on the
Subcontinent: Major Trends and the Iran Factor, INSS Strategic Perspectives 14 (Washing-
ton, DC: NDU Press, November 2013), 8.
31
On the dynamic of signaling versus credibility in relation to U.S. military historical
experience with battlefield nuclear weapons and the applicability to Pakistan, including
his conclusion that, “rather than improving Pakistan’s deterrence of India, these weapons
hold only the promise of lowering the nuclear threshold and guaranteeing a larger nucle-
ar exchange by both sides once they are used,” see David O. Smith, The U.S. Experience
with Nuclear Weapons: Lessons for South Asia (Washington, DC: Stimson Center, 2013),
especially 31–41. Also see Akhilesh Pillalamarri, “Confirmed: Pakistan Is Building ‘Bat-
tlefield Nukes’ to Deter India,” NationalInterest.org, March 24, 2015, available at <http://
nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/confirmed-pakistan-building-battlefield-nukes-de-
ter-india-12474>. On the degree to which Pakistan’s ambiguous and uncertain relation-
ship with Islamic militants and terrorist organizations acting in Jammu-Kashmir and
India render it a dubious “unitary actor” in the construct of nuclear weapons deterrence
• 288 •
South Asia
theory, see George Perkovich, The Non-Unitary Model and Deterrence Stability in South Asia
(Washington, DC: Stimson Center, November 13, 2012), 8–16.
32
See Zachary Keck, “Watch Out, India: Pakistan Is Ready to Use Nuclear Weapons,”
NationalInterest.org, July 8, 2015, available at <http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/
watch-out-india-pakistan-ready-use-nuclear-weapons-13284>; interview with a senior
Pakistani Strategic Plans Directorate official by author in Washington, DC, February
2011; Maria Sultan, “Cold Start Doctrine and Pakistan’s Counter- measures: Theory of
Strategic Equivalence-III,” The News (Karachi), September 30, 2011, available at <www.
thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=70218&Cat=2>; Vipin Naran, “Pakistan’s
Nuclear Posture: Implications for South Asian Stability (Cambridge, MA: Belfer Center
for Science and International Affairs, January 2010), available at <http://belfercenter.ksg.
harvard.edu/publication/19889/pakistans_nuclear_posture.html>; interview with former
Pakistani nuclear weapons program leader by author in Washington, DC, November
2012.
33
National Strategy for Counterterrorism (Washington, DC: The White House, June
2011), 2–3, 8–13. Also see Thomas F. Lynch III, The 80 Percent Solution: The Strategic
Defeat of bin Laden’s al-Qaeda and Implications for South Asian Security (Washington, DC:
New America Foundation, February 2012).
34
Terrorism and radicalism in Bangladesh continue to pose a threat to foreigners—
and often Westerners—residing there. There is some evidence that international terrorism
facilitators transit Bangladesh. See “U.S. Updates Security Alert in Bangladesh,” Dhaka-
Tribune.com, October 18, 2015, available at <www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2015/
oct/18/us-updates-security-alert-bangladesh>; The Role of Civil Society in Countering
Radicalization in Bangladesh (Dhaka: Bangladesh Enterprise Institute, September 2014). In
addition, India remains at moderate risk from attempts by al Qaeda of the Indian Subcon-
tinent to radicalize its Muslim youth for local terror activities and from the Islamic State
of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) to leverage sympathetic Indian Muslims for social media
support of its global recruiting quest. See Elizabeth Bennet, “A Comeback for al-Qaeda
in the Indian Subcontinent?” Foreign Policy Journal, May 12, 2015, available at <www.
foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/05/12/a-comeback-for-al-qaeda-in-the-indian-subconti-
nent/>; Praveen Swami, “Al-Qaeda Chief Ayman al-Zawahari Announces New Front to
Wage War on India,” Indian Express (New Delhi), September 4, 2014, available at <http://
indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/al-qaeda-leader-ayman-al-zawahiri-announc-
es-formation-of-india-al-qaeda/>. But these counterterrorism issues pale in comparison to
those in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
35
See Lynch, The 80 Percent Solution, 810.
36
See “Al-Qaeda Chief Zawahiri Launches al-Qaeda in South Asia,” BBC News Asia,
September 4, 2014, available at <www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29056668>; “Full Text
of Al Qaeda Chief Ayman al-Zawahiri’s Audio Message,” TheDailyStar.net, available at
<www.thedailystar.net/upload/gallery/pdf/transcription-zawahiri-msg.pdf>.
37
See “Pakistan Wants Afghanistan to Hand Over Maulana Fazlullah,” The Express
Tribune (Karachi), October 21, 2014, available at <http://tribune.com.pk/story/454861/
pakistan-wants-afghanistan-to-hand-over-maulana-fazlullah/>; Bill Roggio, “U.S. Military
Continues to Claim al Qaeda Is ‘Restricted’ to ‘Isolated Areas of Northeastern Afghan-
istan,’” The Long War Journal, November 19, 2014, available at <www.longwarjournal.
org/archives/2014/11/us_military_continue.php>; Zahir Shah Sherasi, “U.S. Drone Strike
Kills 7 on Pak-Afghan Border,” Dawn (Karachi), September 14, 2014, available at <www.
dawn.com/news/1131869/us-drone-strike-kills-7-on-pak-afghan-border>.
38
ISIL is the official name used by the U.S. Government, originating at the U.S.
National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC), for the Salafi jihadist terrorist group led by
Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, headquartered in Raqqa, Syria, and Mosul, Iraq, and alternatively
known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the Islamic State (IS). Although
many of the sources and citations in this chapter for the group reference ISIS or IS, ISIL
• 289 •
Lynch
is used to remain consistent with the official U.S. nomenclature. See “Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant (ISIL),” Counter Terrorism Guide, available at <www.nctc.gov/site/groups/
aqi_isil.html>.
39
Thomas F. Lynch III, The Islamic State as Icarus: A Critical Assessment of an Untenable
Threat (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, October
2015), 14–16, 21–25, available at <www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/theislamic-
stateasicarus.pdf>; Bill Roggio, “U.S. Drone Strike Kills Mufti of Islamic State Khorasan
Province,” The Long War Journal, October 15, 2015, available at <www.longwarjournal.
org/archives/2015/10/us-drone-strike-kills-mufti-of-islamic-state-khorasan-province.
php>; Michael R. Gordon, “ISIS Building ‘Little Nests’ in Afghanistan, U.S. Defense
Secretary Warns,” New York Times, December 18, 2015, available at <www.nytimes.
com/2015/12/19/world/asia/afghanistan-ash-carter.html?action=click&contentCollec-
tion=Middle%20East&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article>.
40
See “Afghan Troops Battle Mass Taliban Assault in Helmand,” BBC News Asia, June
15, 2014, available at <www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28012340>; Rod Nordland and
Taimoor Shah, “Afghans Say Taliban are Nearing Control of Key District,” New York Times,
September 6, 2014, available at <www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/world/asia/afghanistan.
html?_r=0>; Ratib Noori, “ANSF Regain Control of Sangin,” Tolo News, October 12,
2014, available at <www.tolonews.com/en/afghanistan/16711-ansf-regain-control-of-san-
gi>; David Jolly and Taimoor Shah, “Afghan Province, Teetering to the Taliban, Draws In
Extra U.S. Forces,” New York Times, December 13, 2015.
41
Enhancing Security and Stability in Afghanistan: A Report to Congress in Accordance
with Section 1225 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015
(Washington, DC: Department of Defense, December 2015), 16–24, available at <www.
defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/1225_Report_Dec_2015_-_Final_20151210.
pdf>. Also see Elizabeth Williams, “Taliban Summer Offensive Shows Increasing Capa-
bility,” Institute for the Study of War, September 2014, available at <www.understand-
ingwar.org/sites/default/files/Taliban%20violence%20report_0.pdf>; Eric Schmitt and
David Sanger, “As U.S. Focuses on ISIS and the Taliban, Al Qaeda Re-emerges,” New
York Times, December 29, 2015, available at <www.nytimes.com/2015/12/30/us/politics/
as-us-focuses-on-isis-and-the-taliban-al-qaeda-re-emerges.html?ref=world&_r=0>; Jawad
Sukhanyar and Mujib Mashal, “Bombings Near Kabul Airport Add to String of Attacks
Around Afghan Capital, New York Times, January 4, 2016, available at <www.nytimes.
com/2016/01/05/world/asia/bombings-near-kabul-airport-add-to-string-of-attacks-
around-afghan-capital.html?_r=0>.
42
By late 2015, experts estimated that the Afghan Taliban controlled 40 administra-
tive districts across Afghanistan and contested another 39, including almost all of those
in southern Helmand Province and most in southern Kandahar Province. Bill Roggio,
“Taliban Controls or Contests Nearly All of Southern Afghan Province,” The Long War
Journal, December 21, 2015, available at <www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/12/
taliban-controls-or-contests-nearly-all-of-southern-afghan-province.php>.
43
Bill Roggio and Thomas Joscelyn, “U.S. Military Strikes Large al Qaeda Training
Camps in Southern Afghanistan,” The Long War Journal, October 13, 2015, available at
<www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/10/us-military-strikes-large-al-qaeda-training-
camps-in-southern-afghanistan.php>; Enhancing Security and Stability in Afghanistan,
23–24.
44
Previously, the Barack Obama administration had announced that it would
withdraw all but a small U.S. Embassy–based military contingent, estimated at about
1,000 troops, from Afghanistan by the end of 2016. See Julie Pace, “Obama Extends
U.S. Military Mission in Afghanistan into 2017,” Associated Press, October 15, 2015,
available at <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fa394db4a9f24815ab44c573e26be8dc/offi-
cials-obama-keep-troops-afghanistan-beyond-2016>.
• 290 •
South Asia
45
Lucas Tomlinson, “Pentagon Pushing for Long-Term U.S. Presence at Bagram, as
Taliban Gain Ground,” FoxNews.com, December 28, 2015, available at <www.foxnews.
com/politics/2015/12/28/pentagon-pushing-for-long-term-us-presence-at-bagram-as-
taliban-gains-ground.html>. Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt, “Obama’s ‘Boots on the
Ground’: U.S. Special Forces Are Sent to Tackle Global Threats,” New York Times, Decem-
ber 27, 2015.
46
Coalition Support Funds (CSF) normally take a year from Pakistani request to
American reimbursement. Congress has set limits on the annual maximum amount of
U.S. CSF that Pakistan’s military can receive. In fiscal year (FY) 2014, this cap was $1.2
billion; in FY2015 it was $1 billion, with $300 million of that made conditional on
Pakistani actions against the Haqqani Network; in FY2016 the congressional cap was
$900 million. See Stephen Tankel, “Is the United States Cutting Pakistan Off? The Politics
of Military Aid,” War on the Rocks, August 31, 2015, available at <http://warontherocks.
com/2015/08/is-the-united-states-cutting-pakistan-off-the-politics-of-military-aid/>.
47
Alan Kronstadt, Pakistan-U.S. Relations: Issues for the 114th Congress, R44034 (Wash-
ington, DC: Congressional Research Service, May 14, 2015), 16.
48
Ibid., 16.
49
Figure cited in multiple presentations by senior Pakistani military officials in
Washington, DC, during 2015, including by Pakistani Air Chief Marshal Sohail Aman at a
National Defense University student presentation, October 7, 2015.
50
This point is made more robustly, if less delicately, in Christine Fair, “Pakistan’s
Strategic Shift Is Pure Fiction,” War on the Rocks, August 13, 2015, available at <http://
warontherocks.com/2015/08/pakistans-strategic-shift-is-pure-fiction/>.
51
See Stephen Tankel, “Pakistan Militancy in the Shadow of the U.S. Withdrawal,”
in Pakistan’s Enduring Challenges, ed. Christine Fair and Sarah J. Watson (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015).
52
Fair, “Pakistan’s Security Shift Is Pure Fiction.”
53
The Afghan National Army had 152 D-30 howitzers in its inventory as of late 2013
and is eventually scheduled to have 204 fielded. It has a reasonable quantity of heavy in-
direct fire support, but it lacks the ground and air mobility to move these heavy artillery
pieces to support infantry in the remote and foreboding territory where most counterin-
surgency fighting occurs. See Praveen Swami, “Why India Is Concerned about Supplying
Arms to Afghanistan,” FirstPost.com, May 22, 2013, available at <www.firstpost.com/
world/why-india-is-concerned-about-supplying-arms-to-afghanistan-800711.html>;
Antonio Giustozzi with Peter Quentin, The Afghan National Army: Sustainability Chal-
lenges Beyond Financial Aspects (Kabul: Afghan Research and Evaluation Unit, February
2014), 3–6, 17–19, available at <www.ecoi.net/file_upload/1226_1400655058_ana-20is-
sues-20paper.pdf>.
54
For a detailed review of the numbers, functions, and costs of a sufficient residual
U.S. military presence, see Thomas F. Lynch III, “After ISIS: Fully Reappraising U.S. Poli-
cy in Afghanistan,” The Washington Quarterly 38, no. 2 (Summer 2015), 119–144.
55
See Tom Vanden Brook, “Top U.S. General May Seek More Troops for Afghan-
istan,” USA Today, December 29, 2015, available at <www.usatoday.com/story/news/
world/2015/12/29/gen-john-campbell-afghanistan-taliban-isil/78033970/>.
56
These numbers are at the low end of the range of U.S. support to Pakistan in these
broad categories from 2010 to 2016. See Kronstadt, 16.
57
Dan Twining, “Pakistan and the Nuclear Nightmare,” ForeignPolicy.com, September
4, 2013, available at <http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/04/pakistan-and-the-nucle-
ar-nightmare/>.
• 291 •
Lynch
58
China is also a member of the pre–Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty nuclear weap-
ons states club, even though Washington tried to prevent Beijing from acquiring nuclear
weapons in the 1950s and 1960s. See “Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance,”
ArmsControl.org, October 2015, available at <www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclear-
weaponswhohaswhat>.
59
See National Security Strategy (Washington, DC: White House, February 2015),
11–12, available at <www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_secu-
rity_strategy_2.pdf>; Carl Levin and Jack Reed, “A Democratic View: Toward a More
Responsible Nuclear Nonproliferation Strategy,” Arms Control Today, January 1, 2004,
available at <www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_01-02/LevinReed>.
60
Theodore Kalionzes and Kaegan McGrath, “Obama’s Nuclear Nonproliferation and
Disarmament Agenda: Building Steam or Losing Traction?” NTI.org, January 15, 2010,
available at <www.nti.org/analysis/articles/obamas-nuclear-agenda/>; Department of State,
“Nuclear Security Summit: Washington, 2010,” available at <www.state.gov/t/isn/nuclear-
securitysummit/2010/>.
61
John Bolton, “The Bush Administration’s Nonproliferation Policy: Successes and
Future Changes,” testimony before the House International Relations Committee, March
30, 2004, available at <http://2001-2009.state.gov/t/us/rm/31029.htm>.
62
“The Timeline of the India-U.S. Nuclear Agreement,” The News Minute (Banga-
lore, Karnataka), February 25, 2015, available at <www.thenewsminute.com/article/
timeline-india-us-nuclear-agreement-22957>; “Agreement for Cooperation Between the
Government of the United States of America and the Government of India Concerning
Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy (123 Agreement), Council on Foreign Relations, August
2007, available at <www.cfr.org/india/agreement-cooperation-between-government-unit-
ed-states-america-government-india-concerning-peaceful-uses-nuclear-energy-123-agree-
ment/p15459>; C. Raja Mohan, “10 Years of Indo-U.S. Civil Nuclear Deal: Transforma-
tion of the Bilateral Relationship Is the Real Big Deal,” The India Express (New Delhi), July
20, 2015, available at <http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/10-yrs-of-indo-us-civ-
il-nuclear-deal-transformation-of-the-bilateral-relationship-is-the-real-big-deal/>; “Joint
Statement by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh,” press
release, Department of State, July 18, 2005, available at <http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/
sca/rls/pr/2005/49763.htm>.
63
On the illicit nuclear proliferation activities of Pakistan state scientist A.Q. Khan,
see Nuclear Black Markets: Pakistan, A.Q. Khan and the Rise of Proliferation Networks—A Net
Assessment (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, May 2007), available at
<www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/nbm/nuclear-black-market-dossier-a-net-as-
sesment/pakistans-nuclear-programme-and-imports-/>.
64
Tim Craig, “Outcry and Fear as Pakistan Builds New Nuclear Reactors in Dangerous
Karachi,” Washington Post, March 5, 2015, available at <www.washingtonpost.com/world/
asia_pacific/outcry-and-fear-as-pakistan-builds-new-nuclear-reactors-in-dangerous-ka-
rachi/2015/03/05/425e8e70-bc59-11e4-9dfb-03366e719af8_story.html>; Chris Buckley,
“Behind the Chinese-Pakistan Nuclear Deal,” New York Times, November 27, 2013,
available at <http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/27/behind-the-chinese-paki-
stani-nuclear-deal/?_r=0>.
65
Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, “Pakistan Nuclear Forces, 2015,” Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists 71, no. 6 (November 2015), available at <http://thebulletin.
org/2015/november/pakistani-nuclear-forces-20158845>.
66
See Shaun Gregory, “Terrorist Tactics in Pakistan Threaten Nuclear Safety,” Combat-
ing Terrorism Center Journal 4, no. 6 (June 2011), 4.
67
On the plausibility of extreme violence, national fragmentation, and widespread
civil disorder in Pakistan’s future, see Stephen P. Cohen, The Future of Pakistan (Washing-
ton, DC: Brookings Institution, 2011).
• 292 •
South Asia
68
David O. Smith, The U.S. Experience with Tactical Nuclear Weapons: Lessons for South
Asia (Washington, DC: Stimson Center, 2013), available at <www.stimson.org/images/
uploads/research-pdfs/David_Smith_Tactical_Nuclear_Weapons.pdf>.
69
M.V. Ramana, “India Ratifies an Additional Protocol and Will Safeguard Two More
Nuclear Power Reactors,” International Panel on Fissile Materials blog, July 1, 2014,
available at <http://fissilematerials.org/blog/2014/07/india_ratifies_an_additio.html>.
70
Shashank Joshi, “India’s Nuclear Anxieties: The Debate over Doctrine,” Arms Con-
trol Association, May 2015, available at </www.armscontrol.org/ACT/2015_05/Features/
India-Nuclear-Anxieties-The-Debate-Over-Doctrine>.
71
Gurmeet Kanwal, “India’s Nuclear Doctrine: Need for a Review,” Center for Strategic
and International Studies, December 5, 2014, available at <http://csis.org/publication/
indias-nuclear-doctrine-need-review>.
72
Michael Krepon, “Deterrence Instability in South Asia,” ArmsControlWonk.com, May
4, 2015, available at <www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/404605/deterrence-instabili-
ty-in-south-asia/>.
73
Joshua T. White and Kyle Deming, “Dependent Trajectories: India’s MIRV Program
and Deterrence Stability in South Asia,” in Deterrence Instability and Nuclear Weapons in
South Asia, ed. Michael Krepon et al. (Washington, DC: Stimson Center, April 2015),
177–199; Zafar Nawaz Jaspal, The Introduction of Ballistic Missile Defense in South Asia:
Implications on Strategic Stability (Stanford: Naval Postgraduate School, 2013), available at
<http://my.nps.edu/documents/104111744/106151936/11+Nuclear+Learning_Jaspal.pd-
f/150ce371-2c21-42ae-a684-2c0f480cef6b>. China observers note that Beijing is already
conducting research and development on its own ballistic missile defense capabilities,
including by purchases of Russian S-400 surface-to-air missiles. Thus the conditions
appear set for a costly and destabilizing arms race should New Delhi move ahead. See
Wendell Minnick, “S-400 Strengthens China’s Hand in the Skies,” DefenseNews.com, April
18, 2015, available at <www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/04/18/
china-taiwan-russia-s400-air-defense-adiz-east-china-sea-yellow-sea/25810495/>; Ankit
Panda, “After China, India Will Become Second Buyer of Advanced Russian S-400 Missile
Defense Systems,” The Diplomat, November 5, 2015, available at <http://thediplomat.
com/2015/11/after-china-india-will-become-second-buyer-of-advanced-russian-s-400-
missile-defense-systems/>.
74
See “Pakistan Developing Sea-based Nuclear Arms,” The Times of India (Mumbai),
September 22, 2014, available at <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/Pa-
kistan-developing-sea-based-nuclear-arms/articleshow/43115566.cms>; Andrew Winner,
“Why India and Pakistan Sea-based Nukes Are So Troubling,” The Interpreter (Sydney),
August 29, 2014, available at <www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2014/08/29/Why-Indian-
and-Pakistani-sea-based-nukes-are-so-troubling.aspx>.
75
Michael Krepon, “Introduction,” in Deterrence Instability and Nuclear Weapons in
South Asia.
76
The East Asia-Pacific Rebalance: Expanding U.S. Engagement (Washington,
DC: Department of State, December 16, 2013), available at <www.state.gov/r/pa/
pl/2013/218776.htm>.
77
See Nick Bisley and Andrew Phillips, “A Rebalance to Where? U.S. Strategic Geog-
raphy in Asia,” Survival 55, no. 5 (October 2013), 95–114.
78
India’s ever-growing consumer middle class had risen from 47 million in 1995 to
265 million in 2014. See Pravan K. Varma, “India’s Middle Class Awakes,” The Times of
India (Mumbai), November 23, 2013, available at <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
edit-page/Indias-middle-class-awakes/articleshow/26221440.cms>.
79
Bolton; New Framework for the U.S.-India Defense Relationship, OSD 12428-05,
Rumsfeld Archive, 2005, available at <http://library.rumsfeld.com/doclib/sp/3211/2005-
• 293 •
Lynch
06-28%20New%20Framework%20for%20the%20US-India%20Defense%20Relation-
ship.pdf>. This period culminated with the 2008 U.S. congressional ratification of a
U.S.-India civil-nuclear deal that was a major catalyst for additional security and defense
engagements.
80
“U.S.-India Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region,”
press release, The White House, January 25, 2015, available at <www.whitehouse.gov/
the-press-office/2015/01/25/us-india-joint-strategic-vision-asia-pacific-and-indian-ocean-
region>.
81
Richard Russow, “A New Vision for U.S.-India Cooperation in Asia,” Asia Maritime
Transparency Initiative/Center for Strategic and International Studies, February 4, 2015,
available at <http://amti.csis.org/a-new-vision-for-u-s-india-cooperation-in-asia/>.
82
See Larry M. Wortzel, “PLA Contingency Planning and the Case of India,” in The
People’s Liberation Army and Contingency Planning in China, ed. Andrew Scobell et al.
(Washington, DC: NDU Press, 2015), 225–250.
83
Vivek Raghuvanshi, “India-China Border Talks Make No Headway,” DefenseNews.
com, May 23, 2015, available at <www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-bud-
get/leaders/2015/05/23/india-china-border-dispute-summit-talks-lac-tibet-paki-
stan/27601373/>.
84
Riedel, 109–146, 168–180; Vivek Raghuvanshi, “India-China Talks Fail to Make
Progress on Border Dispute,” DefenseNews.com, November 17, 2015, available at <www.
defensenews.com/story/defense/land/2015/11/17/india-china-talks-fail-make-progress-
border-dispute/75918626/>.
85
Khan.
86
Ibid.; Small, 29–65, 107, 155–187.
87
C. Raja Mohan, Samudra Manthan: Sino-Indian Rivalry in the Indo-Pacific (Wash-
ington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2012), 47, 124–132, 203.
Important Indian military and political leaders persist in this belief despite the strong case
made that China’s maritime efforts in the Indian Ocean are far from a military or strategic
menace. See this case made in Christopher D. Yung and Ross Rustici with Scott Devary
and Jenny Lin, “Not an Idea We Have to Shun”: Chinese Overseas Basing Requirements in the
21st Century, China Strategic Perspectives 7 (Washington, DC: NDU Press, October 2014),
available at <http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/stratperspective/china/Chi-
naPerspectives-7.pdf>.
88
Mohan, 13–34, 181–187. Among other examples of this increasing multilateral
and calculated martial response to Chinese activities that it perceives to be provocative,
India agreed to have its warships participate with the United States and Japan in joint
naval exercises in the northern Philippine Sea during 2016. See Sanjeev Miglani, “U.S.
Plans Naval Exercises with India and Japan in Philippine Sea,” Reuters, March 3, 2016,
available at <http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-india-usa-idUKKCN0W41UL>.
89
“U.S-India Security and Defense Cooperation,” CSIS.org, January 5, 2016, available
at <http://csis.org/program/us-india-security-and-defense-cooperation>; interview of
U.S. Army and Naval attachés in New Delhi, India, by author, December 14, 2015. In
late 2015, India’s Ministry of Defence announced its return to formal status as a 2016
participant in joint special forces operational training for the first time since 2012, as a
participant in the 2016 U.S. Air Force Exercise Red Flag for the first time since 2008, and
in the US. Navy’s 2016 RIMPAC exercise for the first time ever. See Sushant Singh, “Joint
Training Exercise of India, U.S. Special Forces to Be Held after Four Years,” The Indian
Express (New Delhi), December 28, 2015, available at <http://indianexpress.com/article/
india/india-news-india/joint-training-exercise-of-india-us-special-forces-to-be-held-after-
four-years/>.
• 294 •
South Asia
90
Interview with deputy U.S. naval attaché to India by author in New Delhi, Decem-
ber 14, 2015.
91
Interview with Indian Deputy National Security Advisor Arvind Gupta by author in
New Delhi, December 15, 2015.
92
Another benefit to a properly shaped residual American military and intelligence
presence in Afghanistan is that of robust physical capability for refugee support, human-
itarian relief, and other aspects of what would be a massive international crisis response
in the event of a Pakistan implosion or devastating impacts in Pakistan from a major
India-Pakistan war.
• 295 •
14
Africa
Hilary Matfess
In Sub-Saharan Africa, the movement of populations, proliferation of violent,

nonstate actors, expansion of criminal networks, and continued weakness of
governance indicators all present serious challenges in the short, medium,
and long term. Reevaluating American partnerships on the continent and
reinstating the principle of first doing no harm are critical if the United States is
to achieve its objectives in the region and strengthen multilateral partnerships
to advance our global security agenda.
T hough often relegated to the back burner of American foreign policy

deliberations, developments in Sub-Saharan Africa have garnered
increased attention in recent years. The U.S. Strategy Toward Sub-Saha-
ran Africa identified four “strategic pillars” that American policy would
strive toward on the continent: “the strengthening of democratic insti-
tutions, spurring economic growth, trade, and investment, advancing
peace and security and promoting opportunity and development.”1 The
assumption underlying all of these objectives is that progress will be
enabled by strong partnerships with countries and regional blocs across
the continent.
The majority of these strategic priorities are economic; one could
also argue that some of the most publicized American initiatives toward
Sub-Saharan Africa are focused on catalyzing economic growth. Power
Africa’s goal of bringing electricity to 60 million new people across Africa
has been marketed as necessary for industrialization and development.2
The African Growth and Opportunity Act, passed in 2000 and subse-
quently renewed, abides by the logic that expanding preferential trade
policies to African countries will result in the sort of growth necessary for
human development and peace-building.3
As the dependence on strategic partnerships and emphasis on eco-
nomic goals suggest, Africa is a low priority for America’s national securi-
• 297 •
Matfess
ty agenda, despite increased attention over recent decades. The threats to

American security and prosperity emanating from the region are largely
indirect, and the overarching American strategy toward Africa has been
to maintain a minimal presence. Troubling developments in Sub-Saha-
ran Africa have been overshadowed by events elsewhere. The creation
of U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM) in 2007, however, signaled the
growing recognition that these indirect threats demand some sort of se-
curity-oriented response.
Unfortunately, certain aspects of American policy in the region have
proved counterproductive to our efforts to stabilize the region and pro-
mote democratic state-building. “Strategic partners” is all too often a
euphemism. American alliances and capacity-building initiatives have
often endowed us with strange bedfellows, including governments that
harass their own populations and sponsor rebel groups across borders.
As Stephen Watts reflected, the “strategic implications of failed [Sub-Sa-
haran Africa] policies extend beyond the direct and immediate conse-
quences in the partner nation. Perhaps most obviously, the United States
risks being ‘tarred by the brush’ of partner governments who act abusive-
ly toward their own populations.”4
Often, the nature of the aid extended by the United States to African
counterparts is given more consideration than the host-nation system it
enters. This generally reflects the lack of institutional expertise concern-
ing Sub-Saharan African countries and their politics in the U.S. Govern-
ment, but it is also a by-product of recipient countries’ manipulation of
this bureaucratic blind spot. Just as it is unhelpful to conceive of spaces
as being “ungoverned,” disregarding the agency of African counterparts
undermines the pursuit of U.S. objectives. If these objectives are to be re-
alized on the continent, more attention must be paid to the local contexts
in which operations occur and to the characteristics of the institutions
with which the United States partners. A light footprint cannot be syn-
onymous with insubstantial local knowledge.
American policymakers must focus on cultivating effective partner-
ships to achieve the strategic objectives laid out by recent U.S. Presidents
regarding the institutionalization of rule of law, democratization, and
economic growth. Given current social, political, and economic patterns,
the coming years herald dramatic change throughout Sub-Saharan Afri-
ca; if America is to maintain a light footprint on the continent, plans must
be crafted and implemented today to help African partners ameliorate
current problems and prepare for coming climatological, demographic,
and ideological shifts. This will require a broader conceptualization of
“security,” as a number of the challenges African countries face do not fall
within the traditional security realm. A holistic approach to security will
• 298 •
Africa
require interagency harmonization rather than merely an expansion of

USAFRICOM’s mandate. If handled properly, partnerships with African
countries could enhance the prospects for peace and economic growth,
as well as further American strategic and normative objectives globally.
Cultivating partnerships with the 48 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa can
also translate into more support for American positions in multilateral
forums such as the United Nations (UN).
A Continent on the Move

Contradicting long-held tropes about the static nature of its cultures and
societies, Africa is a continent in flux. Seasonal migration, often related
to pastoralism and agricultural schedules, has long been a characteristic
of communities in Africa. This migration often crosses borders, creat-
ing issues of cooperation for neighboring African states. Compounding
these flows are the proliferation and movement of displaced populations
across the continent. The adjustments made to accommodate transient,
displaced, or seasonal populations have at times placed a measure of
stress on host populations; this has resulted in low-intensity violence in
a number of regions across the continent, as groups compete over land
and other scarce resources.
There are two emerging patterns of migration in Africa that have
significant consequences for the stability and security of the continent:
climate change–related displacement and urbanization. Both of these
phenomena strain legal, agricultural, and social systems across the sub-
continent and show signs of increasing in size and speed in coming years.
Climate change will radically alter the productive capacity of a num-
ber of agricultural regions across Africa, primarily through shifting pre-
cipitation patterns. Considering that an estimated 70 percent of Africans
are employed by rain-fed agriculture (which constitutes an estimated
30 percent of the continent-wide gross domestic product), the effects
of even a small change in rainfall patterns could be enormous. There
is a looming possibility of a food crisis as agricultural productivity is
depressed amid booming African demographics. The result of these pat-
terns, according to Calestous Juma, is that Africans “already see climate
change and security though the same lens.”5 The U.S. analytical frame-
work must catch up to that of our regional counterparts. Numerous
studies have suggested a link between food prices and civil unrest; given
the profound disconnect between many African heads of state and their
young populations (to be discussed later in this chapter), a rise in food
prices could kick off the sort of ill-fated political revolutions that charac-
terized the Arab Spring.
• 299 •
Matfess
The conflict in Darfur illustrates the potential scale of instability relat-

ed to climate change. The conflict, which claimed an estimated 400,000
lives and displaced millions, has been described as the first “modern cli-
mate-change conflict” by Jeffrey Mazo, due to the role that prolonged
drought played in fomenting violence.6 Just as the tragedy in Darfur
foreshadows the coming conflicts from climate change, it illustrates the
shortcomings of the existing mechanisms to respond to such violence.7
Though then-President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condo-
leezza Rice both traveled to the region and described the conflict as geno-
cide, the United States failed to “put any real pressure on the Sudanese
regime.”8 The result was not only a humanitarian disaster but also a geo-
political crisis for neighboring countries attempting to absorb refugees.
Along with climate change, urbanization poses a particular and daunt-
ing set of challenges to policymakers. The rapidity and lethality with
which Ebola spread through West Africa in 2014–2015 were, in part, due
to the disease entering urban areas for the first time.9 The lack of state
capacity to engage in proactive urban planning exacerbates the compli-
cations inherent to urbanization, as nearly all of the growth in urban
populations is more accurately described as an increase in slum-dwelling
populations. With less access to state services, less security, and fewer
resources, slums act as incubators for violence and criminality.
One of the most obvious weaknesses of African states has been their
inability to secure a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within their
borders. The number and influence of armed groups in the region can
be attributed both to the weak institutions of the state as well as to a
huge surplus of small arms and light weapons circulating throughout the
continent. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) notes, “Given
the number of weapons still circulating from past conflicts in the region,
there is very little need to import large numbers of weapons into West
Africa.”10 Urbanization will entail not only increased population concen-
tration but also a concentration of the small arms and light weapons that
they bring with them. If improperly managed, urbanization in African
may give rise to new waves of violent instability.
The Rise of Islamist Terrorism and Militia Groups

Perhaps the most obvious militia-related development in Sub-Saharan
Africa in recent years—and the one that most directly affects American
security interests—has been the rise of Islamic terrorism. While Islam
has long been a critical part of African societies and political economies,
violent mobilization around Salafist jihadism is relatively new. Prior to
2001, there were no designated foreign terrorist organizations in Sub-Sa-
• 300 •
Africa
haran Africa.11 Today Nigeria (and the broader Lake Chad region) is
struggling with Boko Haram, Kenya and Somalia are still grappling with
al Shabaab, and the Sahel is afflicted by al Qaeda in the Maghreb and An-
sar al Dine. Though these groups have sworn allegiance to global jihadist
movements, they all arose out of specific socioeconomic contexts and
political systems; they evolved from campaigning on local grievances to
broader issues. Countering Islamist terrorism in Sub-Saharan Africa will
require not only identifying the international ties of these groups but also
recognizing the domestic roots of their discontent.12 These armed groups
have taken advantage of not only the weakness of African states but also
the rising criminality across the continent (addressed below) and the
popular discontent of much of the population.13 With such low trust in
the state’s security sector and political orientation, it is no surprise that
antigovernment movements have generated significant support. Civilian
support for antigovernment groups has made it difficult to counter them.
Furthermore, given porous borders, transnational kinship networks,
and displacement patterns that characterize the region, domestic armed
groups frequently have regional consequences.
Though these groups are motivated by domestic grievances, they
often have foreign sponsors. The foreign dimension of domestic rebel
groups threatens regional stability, as governments often engage in tit-
for-tat sponsorship of antigovernment militias.14 The states sponsoring
these militias typically benefit (politically and/or financially) from the
development of a “war economy” in their neighboring states; the incen-
tives are thus perverted for regional peace efforts, as some of the actors at
the table may not be earnestly interested in brokering peace. The vested
interest of some countries in fomenting instability limits the capacity of
the United States to cultivate effective partnerships on the continent; this
is compounded in instances where the U.S. Government lacks subject
matter expertise regarding intracontinental geopolitics.
The proliferation of vigilante and pro-government militia groups
highlights the weak position and lack of capacity of African states; se-
curity has been decentralized to unofficial community levels. This “de-
mocratization,” however, is not accompanied by the development of ac-
countability mechanisms, creating the conditions for impunity.15 Some
recent troubling research has suggested that “informal ties to militias
[are] a deliberate government strategy to avoid accountability” and has
correlated weak democracy and foreign aid to such ties.16 Even following
the cessation of conflict, the existence of such groups complicates the
peace-building process. These groups at times “feel a sense of entitle-
ment for some reward or recognition for their contribution to the gov-
ernment’s ‘victory.’”17
• 301 •
Matfess
Transnational Criminal Groups

Civil governance in Sub-Saharan Africa is also challenged by highly or-
ganized and often transnational criminal groups. Criminal actors have
made use of the improved infrastructure and economic profile of a num-
ber of African communities, while exploiting the gaps in governance and
capacity to operate criminally.18 Development projects in Africa oversee-
ing the expansion and legitimization of state authority have unwittingly
empowered criminal actors.
Criminal networks have become a central feature of a number of Afri-
can economies, and the region is rising in importance to global criminal
networks. Andre Le Sage has described Africa as a “‘duty free’ port for
organized crime.”19 The World Bank estimated in 2009 that organized
crime in Sub-Saharan Africa brought $1.3 trillion to the region, and UN-
ODC research suggests that 7 to 10 percent of illicit global trade is linked
in some way to Sub-Saharan Africa.20 Since transnational criminal flows
often manifest in distinctly domestic crime (such as robbery, murder,
and extortion), there has been insufficient regional attention paid to the
effects of criminality in favor of treating the domestic symptoms.21
The scope of criminal activity in Sub-Saharan Africa is nearly as as-
tounding as its scale. The drug trade, human trafficking, arms and wild-
life trafficking, and cyber crime are all major criminal activities that show
signs of expanding and entrenching their networks. The convergence and
mutually reinforcing relationship between criminal syndicates and other
destabilizing forces pose a daunting challenge to African governments.
For example, both coasts on the continent are critical transit points
in the international drug trade: cocaine in West Africa and heroin in East
Africa. These narcotics flows appear to be on the rise. It is estimated that
two-thirds of the cocaine consumed in Europe has passed through West
Africa; the UN estimates that the region is a corridor for $1.25 billion
worth of cocaine every year.22 Human trafficking also afflicts the conti-
nent; in East Africa, many people are trafficked to the Middle East, while
many from West Africa and the Sahel cross the Sahara desert to reach
Europe. In Western and Central Africa, women and children have been
especially susceptible to trafficking for sexual exploitation and forced
labor in Europe and other places.23
As mentioned, a significant number of arms circulates throughout
the continent, frequently through criminal networks. Wildlife trafficking
has gained international attention in recent years, as emerging markets’
taste for luxury goods like ivory has driven a rise in elephant poaching.
Internationally, illegal wildlife trade is valued at $7 billion to $23 bil-
lion annually.24 This places it as the fourth most profitable illicit sector,
behind drug trafficking, human trafficking, and counterfeiting. African
• 302 •
Africa
wilderness areas, prized for their exoticism, are particularly affected by

the rise in this trade.25
Counterfeit goods, including electronics, apparel, and medicine, pop-
ulate markets across the continent. It has been estimated that counterfeit
anti-malarial pills generate over $400 million annually in revenue. Such
a trade not only empowers criminal networks but also undermines pub-
lic health initiatives and exacts a tragic human toll.26
Africa is also the fastest growing region in the world for cyber crime.
Experts estimate that 8 in 10 personal computers on the continent are
infected.27 While that threat may seem like merely a drag on African
growth and development, the rise and spread of cyber crime in Sub-Sa-
haran Africa represents one of the most tangible threats to American
national security. Infected computers can be manipulated, from a central
hub and without owners’ knowledge, to pass along information regard-
ing transmissions.
The proliferation of criminal trades and networks helps set the stage
for further criminality; thus they constitute a threat through their imme-
diately destabilizing effects and their secondary effects of institutionaliz-
ing networks of criminality. The Global Initiative Against Transnational
Organized Crime notes that as “networks of corruption and collusion
[are] established, they [are] well placed to adapt to flows of other illicit
goods, assuming that the price [is] right.”28 As the National Intelligence
Council noted in 2011, “Terrorists and insurgents increasingly will turn
to crime to generate funding and will acquire logistical support from
criminals.”29 Already the lucrative practice of kidnapping for ransom is a
tactic shared by terrorist groups and criminals from the Niger Delta to the
coast of Somalia. Though claims that all criminal activity has coalesced
into a single network are overblown, it is undeniable that there has been
convergence between illicit networks seeking to circumvent the state and
armed groups seeking to undermine it. As Erik Alda and Joseph Sala note:
cooperation between terrorists and criminal networks takes

place when each group determines that their inherent fear
of contact outweighs the risks. While collaboration might
deliver some mutual benefits and/or satisfy some organiza-
tional necessity, there are common disincentives to affect-
ing such partnerships including increased and unwanted
attention and surveillance, fear of compromising internal
security through infiltration and the heightened prospect of
capture. Such contact routinely takes the form of “pay-as-
you-go” operations, one-off instances of customer–service
provider relationships.30
• 303 •
Matfess
The potentially destabilizing nature of these partnerships was high-

lighted in 2012, when al Qaeda in the Maghreb and Ansar al Dine, both
of which are Salafist jihadi sects, partnered with Tuareg separatist groups,
which have robust historical connections to illicit trade networks, and
declared the independence of northern Mali. Moreover, the development
of criminal networks across northern Mali has weakened the already ane-
mic state presence in the region, making it all the more difficult to count-
er radical armed groups there. The situation in Mali became so dire in
2012 that France was compelled to intervene to restore order and main-
tain the country’s territorial integrity; the expansion of criminality and
the deepening of the crime-terror nexus could advance to a stage where
the United States is also forced into a similar intervention, if preventive
measures are not taken.31
Even more troubling than the convergence of terrorism and crim-
inality across Africa are the instances in which the state is complicit.
Guinea-Bissau is a frequently cited example of a “criminal state” in which
the highest rungs of the government’s leadership have been drawn into
criminality. Clearly such complete criminalization represents a challenge
to American security as it reduces the number of eligible partners in the
region. Furthermore, even the incorporation of lower levels of govern-
ment into criminal networks (whether they participate directly in crim-
inal networks or merely accept bribes to allow for the functioning of
these groups) undermines the rule of law, erodes citizens’ trust in their
governments, and increases the odds that the area will be a source of
instability and grievances.32
Governance Challenges
Africa is a young continent. The median age of its population is in the
teens. Development economists speculate that the demographic char-
acteristics of the region could result in a “demographic dividend” that
could jumpstart economic growth. Unfortunately, however, the sort of
economic infrastructure (from jobs and emerging industrial sectors to
educational opportunities and technical training) necessary to absorb
this youth bulge does not exist. Given a UN survey that found 40 percent
of those who joined rebel movements did so because of a lack of jobs,
this youth bulge seems poised to contribute to instability and violence
rather than economic development.33 The events of the Arab Spring
could very well be repeated in Sub-Saharan Africa if disaffected youth
also take to the streets.
In general, African youth feel distant from their political systems,
which have often been stagnant for generations. The table gives the
• 304 •
Africa
Table. Africa’s 10 Longest Serving Leaders: Median Age and Length of Current Term in
Office (in Years)
Country Median Age of Population Leader’s Term in Office
Cameroon 18.3 40
Equatorial Guinea 19.4 36
Angola 17.9 36
Zimbabwe 20.2 35
Uganda 15.5 29
Sudan 19.1 26
Chad 17.2 24
Eritrea 19.1 24
The Gambia 20.2 21
Republic of the Congo 19.8 18
median age and length of the current term in office of Africa’s 10 lon-
gest-serving leaders. The lack of economic opportunities, coupled with
unresponsive, static political systems, could contribute to an increase
in rebel movements and violent conflict. Recent reversals in term-limit
restrictions, particularly in the Great Lakes region and East Africa, could
further such destructive dynamics.
Another troubling pattern that aggravates discontent is security forc-
es’ violence against civilians. This pattern has extended beyond the
high-profile incidences of state-sponsored killings and genocides that
the world witnessed in Rwanda, the Sudans, and eastern Democratic
Republic of the Congo to the point that low-grade predation by security
forces is routine in many African countries. Transparency International
found that the police are perceived as the most corrupt institution in
Sub-Saharan Africa; according to a recent Afrobarometer report, “On av-
erage, 42% of citizens say ‘most’ or ‘all’ police are corrupt.”34 Obviously, a
corrupt and ineffective police force reduces security by hampering states’
ability to respond to challenges. As the Center for Strategic and Inter-
national Studies report on police reform in Sub-Saharan Africa noted,
“Many of Africa’s current and emerging security challenges are more ap-
propriately addressed in the first instance by competent and professional
police forces than by military forces.” The report suggests that because
the police’s “interface with the public is far wider than that of the mili-
tary, effective police forces can play a critical role in public safety, civilian
protection, and conflict protection.”35 The lack of confidence in African
police incentivizes the aforementioned troubling trends of community
policing and vigilantism. Reports of rampant torture, corruption, and
violence against civilians suggest that security-sector reform, aimed at
improving the professionalism not only of African militaries but also of
• 305 •
Matfess
their police services, must be central to American policy in the region.

Such reforms could imbue citizens with greater trust in their govern-
ments and ameliorate some of the insecurity in the region.
Refocusing and Improving U.S. Policy in Sub-Saharan Africa

U.S. objectives in Sub-Saharan Africa center on creating an environment
in which direct intervention to mitigate conflict and alleviate humanitar-
ian disasters is unnecessary. A corollary to this objective is American in-
terest in preventing criminality and destabilizing factors from expanding
beyond Africa’s borders. Though African issues are usually on the policy
back burner, sound and effective regional policies can reduce the chance
that the problems and challenges discussed above will metastasize into
direct threats to core U.S. interests. Many have noted that, in the absence
of robust American commitment, other countries have expanded their
investment activities.
The People’s Republic of China, for example, is now Africa’s largest
trading partner and is deeply engaged in trade, banking, energy, and
infrastructure projects. Some 800 Chinese corporations are active in Af-
rica. Chinese-African trade approached $300 billion in 2015, far more
than traditional investors such as France and the United States. Though
actual direct foreign investment from China lags behind the West, there
is an undeniable increase in China’s presence on the continent. The na-
ture of this increasing influence is worth consideration. Direct Chinese
contributions to authoritarian regimes, including debt forgiveness, is a
genuine concern for those seeking to promote democracy and the rule
of law. While Chinese military interest in the continent appears to be
low, China’s economic engagement with Africa provides useful political
as well as economic advantages, especially in the UN, where dozens of
African countries are represented. China’s rising profile in Africa may not
pose an immediate security concern, but these trends are worth consid-
eration within the broader international balance of power and normative
system.36
Though the establishment of a combatant command represents a sig-
nificant shift in American policy toward engagement in African conflicts,
USAFRICOM is not designed to act as a frequent or rapid responder to
crises. Additionally, it is unclear if it is well-suited to address the soft-
er realms of security that mitigating conflict in Africa will require. The
command should make a point of cultivating regional expertise in Af-
rican affairs. Annual military exercises with African security partners
(such as Operation Flintlock) should become more frequent and should
be complemented by greater bilateral contact. Recognizing African coun-
• 306 •
Africa
tries’ importance to American national security and developing effective

policies in the region require a greater understanding of national and
subnational African politics than currently exists generally within the
Department of Defense.
The current policy of relying on a handful of strategic partners is not
strategically untenable; however, the current choice of partners in the re-
gion is ultimately counterproductive to American policy objectives. Many
of our partnerships are dependent upon individual leaders; their coun-
tries’ trajectories following their departure from power (due to natural
causes, coups, or term limits) are uncertain. U.S. objectives in the region
can benefit greatly from legitimate institutions. Fortunately, the United
States is in a position to help cultivate legitimacy for regional bodies and
institutionalize good governance in individual states. This recognition
leads us to the first two steps in reforming and improving American
policy in Sub-Saharan Africa. First, we should empower regional efforts
through increased support to the African Union (AU) and pan-regional
security endeavors, improving security sector reform programing and
establishing multiyear funding authorities for such programs. Second,
we should recommit to democracy promotion, in particular through a
rethinking of our current strategic partnerships and enhanced funding
for civil society groups and political party training.
An obvious imperative is closer engagement with the African Union.37
The recent Ebola crisis demonstrated AU capacity to use a security lens
when considering the impacts of soft threats to human security, yet it
remains unclear as to how the continent will cope with the next pan-
demic.38 Identifying how and why certain countries were able to stymie
the spread of Ebola, as well as coordinating continental public health
policies and responses, is critical if we are to develop effective responses
to future public health concerns. The AU is well positioned to take on
such responsibility. Additionally, the African Union could play a valu-
able role as a partner in addressing the threats stemming from climate
change–related displacement and urbanization. The challenge is moving
the AU from a normative body to one that produces tangible policy out-
puts.39 Additionally, engagement with the African Union requires that
the institutionalized impunity for sitting heads of state be revoked and
that the United States work with the AU to promote good governance
and accountability at the multinational level as a priority.
An improved working relationship with and stronger support of the
UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, the African Union, and
other regional organizations might also strengthen the many different
peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions currently active in Africa.
Through 2015, more than 100,000 peacekeepers were deployed on the
• 307 •
Matfess
continent, including 80,000 in nine different UN missions (principal-

ly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Darfur, South Sudan, and
Mali), 22,000 deployed under AU auspices in Somalia, and a smaller
mission in Guinea-Bissau run by the Economic Community of West Afri-
can States.40 This is far more than a generation ago; despite the increase,
there is still some ambiguity as to which countries should bear the bur-
den of arranging and maintaining peacekeeping operations. Given the
continent’s horrific experiences with genocide and violent conflict, stron-
ger regional organizations backed up by U.S. trainers and enablers make
sense as one way to help prevent future recurrences.
Synchronizing U.S. objectives and priorities among agencies will
strengthen the efficiency of American partnerships at the bilateral and
multilateral levels. At present, interagency communication is lacking;
rather than expanding the mandate of military institutions to include
developmental objectives (and vice versa), interagency lines of commu-
nication should be improved.
Regional interventions to strengthen security systems and promote
postconflict reconciliation show particular promise; especially with
American support, these efforts could mend relations between govern-
ments and their populations.41 Reforming African police forces in partic-
ular has the potential to reap governmental dividends.42 These reforms
would not only engender greater civilian trust in their military but also
facilitate security objectives in general. William Rosenau of RAND, echo-
ing counterinsurgency doctrine, argues that “service-oriented, commu-
nity policing, intended to protect the public from serious crime, can it-
self be a powerful counterinsurgency tool by fostering a climate in which
the public freely provides the police with information about security
threats.”43
Security-sector reform, in general, is outside of the mandate of insti-
tutions such as the World Bank, despite their endorsement of the results
and objectives of such reforms. As a result, American partnerships in the
region must promote holistic security-sector reform to cultivate civilian
trust and regional stability. At present, Section 660 of the Foreign As-
sistance Act requires a waiver for the United States to engage in police
training; while it is not an arduous process to obtain such a waiver, even
a small hurdle is a disincentive.44
Military training and education, bilaterally, regionally, and in pan-con-
tinental endeavors, should emphasize respect for the rule of law and
ways of cultivating effective civil-security partnerships rather than mere-
ly focusing on enhancing the tactical capacity of the units in training.
This may require a modification of the current Leahy Law “vetting pro-
cess.” At present, the requirement that military units receiving Ameri-
• 308 •
Africa
can training and support have not committed human rights violations
is unevenly applied and frequently waived. As RAND notes, these re-
quirements do not apply to “most drug enforcement and non–Defense
Department counterterrorism assistance” or to Federal Bureau of Inves-
tigation assistance.45 RAND concludes that the “U.S. government needs
to improve its vetting practices by making them more consistent across
programs and agencies and standardizing them across different types of
assistance.” Through this process of review, the definition of military unit
should be reconsidered, as should the withholding of training in cases of
human rights abuses. Training that emphasizes improved civil-military
relations and respect for human rights should be considered in instances
where strategically important partner nations violate human rights prin-
ciples.46 Revamping American legal restrictions on foreign assistance to
improve capacity-building objectives should be a congressional priority.
In addition to rethinking the content of our training programs, we
must reconsider their funding. The lack of multiyear funding authorities
calls into question American commitment to building partner capaci-
ty. Establishing long-term, clearly funded programs telegraphs Ameri-
can commitment more appropriately than episodic engagements. The
United States should recalibrate its continental policy to reemphasize the
importance of security-sector reform enshrining the rule of law through
a revamping of our security assistance programming’s legislative regula-
tion, operational content, and partnering bodies.
While pan-regional efforts deserve more attention than they currently
receive, bilateral relationships must also be reformed to promote good
governance; American understanding of the political, social, and cultural
relationships that contribute to governance patterns across the continent
needs significant bolstering. This dearth of information has incentivized
one-size-fits-all strategies and has allowed events hundreds of miles
away (and often decades later) to dictate contemporary policies.
Reform requires catalyzing change from our regional partners and
rethinking our assistance paradigm. Too frequently U.S. assistance (mil-
itary, humanitarian, and developmental) is co-opted by undemocratic
governments to serve their interests and bolster their regimes. Evidence
suggests that the assistance levied to the Ethiopian government to ease
the suffering from the 1984–1985 famine was used to further the gov-
ernment’s war effort; multiple sources found that “relief supplies were
used to pay soldiers and militia and to lure people into locations where
they were recruited into the military or subjected to forcible resettle-
ment.”47 Natural disasters, famines, and droughts are all too frequently
used to deflect attention from the failures of governance that have al-
lowed suffering to be so widespread. International assistance to crises in
• 309 •
Matfess
Sudan and Rwanda has also been used to bolster oppressive regimes. As
David Bayley wrote for the National Institute of Justice, “The question is
not whether assistance is political—it all is—but what its likely conse-
quences are for American objectives.”48
Reforming our assistance paradigm requires recognition of the distinct
political economies of countries with whom we partner. This will require
cultivating expertise that is currently lacking within American policy cir-
cles. Too frequently Africa is treated as a homogenous bloc and vessel
through which American aid can be implemented without being affect-
ed by the specific characteristics of partnering governments. Increasing
American institutional knowledge about specific African political econ-
omies in all sectors of government is critical; increasing the number of
American military advisors in the region, bolstering ties between Amer-
ican and domestic development agencies, and enhancing the duration
and frequency of training programs (for civil servants and the security
sector) are all important for advancing overarching American security
interests in the region. As the Overseas Development Institute notes:
It is useful to draw a distinction between fragile and con-

flict-affected states that are willing but unable, and those
that are unwilling and unable to reduce the vulnerabili-
ty of populations to disaster risks and impacts. Disaster
risk management tends to assume a positive state-society
“social contract” exists where the state adopts the manage-
ment of risk as a public good. But in some states disaster
risk management is treated as a benefit available to politi-
cal supporters. Intervention strategies . . . therefore need to
be tailored to suit the context.49
Imposing homogeneity on African states serves no interest other than

expediency. American assistance must first abide by the principle to do
no harm. This will require a closer examination of how current assis-
tance programs and partnerships have empowered undemocratic actors
and oppressive regimes.
Additionally, U.S. assistance to political parties and civil society groups
should be considered a means of fostering long-term stability. Democracy
and governance programs cannot be disregarded as “soft” politics; im-
proving the political climate and increasing the legitimacy of the political
process in African countries are vital for long-term peace in the region.
Ultimately, much of the insecurity and instability in Sub-Saharan Af-
rica is a result of poor relations between African governments and their
populations. In order to successfully utilize the “strategic partnerships”
• 310 •
Africa
model of dealing with security threats in Sub-Saharan Africa, American

policies will have to strengthen and improve upon the governance pat-
terns of African countries. Too often, strengthening government capacity
and bolstering the power of the ruling party have been confused with
state-building efforts. Institutionalizing accountability mechanisms and
revamping the civilian/ government/military contract are critical to man-
aging African security now and in coming decades.
In short, African stability is threatened by the lack of institutional
capacity to manage the threats stemming from migratory patterns and
the rise of violent nonstate and criminal actors. Revamping the rela-
tionship between African governments and their populations is critical
to enabling successful strategic partnerships between the United States
and African counterparts. Revising our assistance paradigms and en-
suring that our strategic partners share our values and objectives can
best achieve American objectives on the continent, but they require re-
thinking our political assistance and general objectives for promoting
democracy, enhancing support to civil society, and considering lending
assistance to political parties.
Sub-Saharan Africa will not rise in importance to American national
security priorities to match Europe, the Asia-Pacific, or the Middle East
in the near term, but the region’s size, population, resources, and many
challenges will engage U.S. policymakers in important ways. Much can
be done to improve the conditions and prospects of its millions of inhab-
itants without massive increases in development assistance. Already the
largest single donor nation, the United States can lead the international
community in a sustained effort toward better governance, improved
economic performance, and better security for all Africans. These efforts
will benefit not only Africa, but also the international community as a
whole and U.S. interests particularly.
Notes
1
U.S. Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa (Washington, DC: The White House,
June 2012).
2
U.S. Agency for International Development, “Power Africa Info Sheet,” available at
<www.usaid.gov/powerafrica>.
3
The African Growth and Oportunity Act, “About AGOA,” available at <http://agoa/
about-agoa.html>.
4
Stephen Watts, Identifying and Mitigating Risks in Security Sector Assistance for Africa’s
Fragile States (Washington, DC: RAND, 2015).
5
Michael Werz and Laura Conley, Climate Change, Migration, and Conflict in Northwest
Africa: Rising Dangers and Policy Options Across the Arc of Tension (Washington, DC: Center
for American Progress, April 2012).
• 311 •
Matfess
6
Jeffrey Mazo, Climate Conflict: How Global Warming Threatens Security and What to Do
About It (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2009), chapter 3.
7
International Crisis Group (ICG), Darfur: The International Community’s Failure to
Protect (Washington, DC: ICG, 2006).
8
Ibid.
9
World Health Organization, “A Fast-moving Ebola Epidemic Full of Tragic Surpris-
es,” available at <www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/ebola-6-months/surprises/en/>.
10
The fall of Muammar Qadhafi in 2012 led to an outpouring of weapons across the
Sahel as Libyan armories were looted and fighters returned to their home countries.
11
Ryan Miller, “The Rise of Terrorist Groups in Sub-Saharan Africa,” Boren Magazine,
May 19, 2014.
12
There is an interesting interplay between local grievances and aspirations to a global
brand at play among African jihadists. Jakkie Cilliers observes that “violent jihadism is
increasingly regionalized . . . the ability of either the Islamic State or al-Qaeda to manage
a terror network with affiliates in Africa, Asia and the Middle East is limited. The schisms
and infighting within and between these groups reflect this reality, which should not de-
tract from the motivational impact of local groups seeking to associate themselves with a
global brand.” See Violent Islamist Extremism and Terror in Africa, ISS Paper 286 (Pretoria:
Institute for Security Studies, October 2015), available at <www.issafrica.org/uploads/
Paper%20286%20_v3.pdf>.
13
Andre Le Sage, Africa’s Irregular Security Threats, INSS Strategic Forum 255 (Wash-
ington, DC: NDU Press, May 2010).
14
British Broadcasting Corporation, “DR Congo Country Profile,” October 2, 2016.
15
“Who Are the Anti-balaka of CAR?” IRIN News, February 12, 2014.
16
Neil Mitchell, Sabine Carey, and Chris Butler, “The Impact of Pro-Government Mili-
tias on Human Rights Violations,” International Interactions 40, no. 5 (October 2014).
17
Eric Y. Shibuya, Demobilizing Irregular Forces (Cambridge: Polity, 2012).
18
The South Africa–based Institute for Security Studies notes that the expansion
of criminality in Sub-Saharan Africa can be partially explained by “a more sustainable
state-building path.” The group explains that the “weak capacity for governance in state
institutions and their inability to provide stable regulatory frameworks and deliver ser-
vices to marginalized populations mean that Africa’s economic growth in the last decade
has often occurred despite the state.” See Mark Shaw and Tuesday Reitano, The Evolution
of Organised Crime in Africa: Towards a New Response, ISS Paper 244 (Pretoria: Institute for
Security Studies, April 2013), available at <www.issafrica.org/uploads/Paper244.pdf>.
19
Le Sage.
20
Shaw and Reitano.
21
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Transnational Organized
Crime in West Africa: A Threat Assessment (Brussels: UNODC, 2013).
22
Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, Fixing a Fractured State (Brus-
sels: Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, 2015). Legal drugs too, such
as tobacco, are smuggled in West Africa and generate an estimate $775 million per year.
According the UNODC, in 2010 a “series of larger seizures were made indicating that large
volumes of Afghan heroin were entering the region by sea from Iran and Pakistan. Between
2010 and 2012, more heroin was seized than in the previous 20 years. . . . It was not that
the number of seizures were increasing, but those that were being made were far larger
than ever before.” The drug trade has fundamentally transformed the political economies
of the regions in which they operate, particularly in countries such as Guinea-Bissau,
where the state has become complicit with (and may even benefit from) the drug trade.
• 312 •
Africa
Enhancing drug policies globally will do little if African states remain a weak link in the
system aimed at stemming the flow of drugs.
23
Not all trafficking funnels people out of the continent. The UN notes that “general
trends within the Economic Community of West African States . . . include trafficking
from rural to urban and industrial areas for employment and sexual exploitation.” UN
Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking, Human Trafficking: An Overview (New York: UN
Office on Drugs and Crime, 2008).
24
Tom Maguire and Cathy Haenlein, An Illusion of Complicity: Terrorism and the Illegal
Ivory Trade in East Africa (London: Royal United Services Institute, 2015).
25
Ibid.
26
Le Sage.
27
Shaw and Reitano; Franz Stefan-Gady, “Africa’s Cyber WMD,” Foreign Policy, March
24, 2012., Cameroon, Ghana, Nigeria have become major hubs for cyber crime and the
global revenue derived from such activity is estimated to near $600 million.
28
Global Initiative Against Transnational Oganized Crime.
29
James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, “Statement for the Record: Threat
Assessment,” available at <www.dni.gov/index.php.newsroom/testimonies/194-con-
gressional-testimonies-2013/816-statement-for-the-record-worldwide-threatassess-
ment-of-the-u-s-intelligence-community>.
30
Erik Alda and Joseph L. Sala, “Links Between Terrorism, Organized Crime and
Crime: The Case of the Sahel Region,” Stability: International Journal of Security and Devel-
opment 3, no. 1 (September 2014).
31
Research has demonstrated that though criminal networks and narcotics trade may
not necessarily catalyze new conflicts, these activities are connected to the elongation
of conflicts. In Sub-Saharan Africa, this has particular significance as the continuation
of existing conflicts would preclude the sort of infrastructural and human development
projects necessary for sustainable growth, development, and peace-building. American
national security policy in Africa must recognize the development of mutually beneficial
relationships between criminal networks and terrorist groups. Cooperation between these
groups weakens the rule of law and problematizes the cultivation of effective strategic
partnerships in the region. See Francesco Strazzari, “Captured or Capturing? Narcotics
and Political Instability along the ‘African Route’ to Europe,” The European Review of
Organised Crime 1, no. 2 (2014), 5–34, available at <http://sgocnet.org/site/wp-content/
uploads/2014/06/Strazzari_2_5-34.pdf>.
32
Le Sage.
33
Kingsley Ighobor, “Africa’s Youth: A ‘Ticking Time Bomb’ or an Opportunity?” Africa
Renewal, May 2013.
34
Pauline M. Wambua, “Police Corruption in Africa Undermines Trust, but Support
for Law Enforcement Remains Strong,” Dispatch #56, Afrobarometer, 2015.
35
Richard Downie and Jennifer Cooke, Policy Reform in Africa (Washington, DC:
Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2011).
36
See Hilary Matfess, “Should You Worry about China’s Investments in Africa?” Wash-
ington Post, September 9, 2015; Deborah Brautigam, “5 Myths about Chinese Investment
in Africa,” Foreign Policy, December 4, 2015.
37
One of the most obvious mechanisms to support this initiative is through the
provision of funding. It has been estimated that $1 billion is needed to make the force
operational.
38
The mobilization of a Military-Civil Humanitarian Mission, led by the African
Union and consisting of medical and military personnel and coordinating domestic,
• 313 •
Matfess
regional, and international volunteers and donations, suggests that partnerships are possi-
ble to plan for similar disasters.
39
John L. Hirsch, “Africa’s Challenges and the Role of the African Union: Q&A with
Aisha Abdullahi,” IPI Global Observatory, October 7, 2014.
40
Danielle Renwick, “Peace Operations in Africa,” Council on Foreign Relations
Backgrounder, May 15, 2015.
41
William Rosenau, Low-Cost Trigger-Pullers: The Politics of Policing in the Context of
Contemporary “State Building” and Counterinsurgency (Washington, DC: RAND, 2008).
42
Ibid. Rosenau argues that many African police forces have been drawn into a
military role as “low-cost ‘trigger pullers,’” rather than serving their primary purpose of
“protecting the public from serious crime.”
43
Ibid.
44
Downie and Cooke.
45
Seth G. Jones et al., Securing Tyrants or Fostering Reform? U.S. Internal Security Assis-
tance to Repressive and Transitioning Regimes (Washington, DC: RAND, 2007).
46
Ibid.
Katie Harris, David Keen, and Tom Mitchell, When Disasters and Conflicts Collide:
47
Improving Links between Disaster Resilience and Conflict Prevention (London: Overseas
Development Institute, 2013).
48
David H. Bayley, Democratizing the Police Abroad: What to Do and How to Do It
(Washington, DC: Department of Justice, 2001).
49
Harris, Keen, and Mitchell.
• 314 •
15
Latin America
Craig A. Deare
U.S. national security interests in Latin America are undermined by two

key threats: transnational criminal organizations, which exploit weak levels
of governance across the majority of countries in the region, and extra-
regional actors, which fill the vacuum of U.S. distraction and inattention to its
neighborhood. The United States must acknowledge the deeply rooted causes of
the weak levels of governance and engage with greater attention and presence
while recognizing its limitations for helping to resolve those weaknesses in the
short term. Limited resources will constrain U.S. efforts, so the United States
must prioritize support to select strategic partners.
A s a new administration takes office, the time is ripe for new ap-
proaches to improve the quality of the security relationship that the
United States has with its counterparts throughout Latin America. U.S.
foreign policy in general, and U.S. national security strategy in partic-
ular, does not routinely focus on the nations of Latin America, where
threats are assumed to be less pressing than in other parts of the world.
Despite a traditional attitude of benign neglect, U.S. security interests
there are indeed consequential. Given a globalized world, and the fact
that the United States is no longer the only viable option available to
the region’s nation-states seeking external engagement, American pol-
icymakers will need to work harder—and more importantly, smart-
er—to remain relevant and engaged with our Latin American partners.
Geopolitical realities at play in this part of the world are serious and
troublesome; they will not disappear in the short term and will require
dedicated time and attention by senior national security decisionmakers
sooner rather than later.
The national security interests of the United States were captured suc-
cinctly by the Project on National Security Reform: “To maintain security
from aggression against the nation by means of a national capacity to shape
• 315 •
Deare
the strategic environment; to anticipate and prevent threats; to respond

to attacks by defeating enemies; to recover from the effects of attack; and to
sustain the costs of defense.”1 If these interests are at varying degrees of risk
in other parts of the world, they are also under assault in Latin America.
Obviously this part of the world is an environment we should wish to
shape; after all, we share the same neighborhood. It seems clear that an-
ticipating and preventing threats in Latin America are both prudent and
cost-effective. Consequence management after the fact will be far more
expensive, and these problems are on our doorstep.
There are two primary threats in this part of the world that should con-
cern U.S. policymakers. The first is a growing and dangerous amalgam
of criminal entities that destabilize our neighbors and operate on a large
scale within our own borders. The second is the presence of extra-re-
gional actors with anti-U.S. intentions. Both are exacerbated by poor
governance, endemic poverty, and an inconsistent level of U.S. interest in
and commitment to our neighbors. As former Assistant Secretary of State
Bernie Aronson has stated, “The historic U.S. failure in Latin America has
not been interventionism but, rather, neglect.”2 These threats are thriving
in an environment where many national governments are ill-equipped to
confront them.
Though lack of capacity is not unique to Latin America, there is an
important distinction: Latin America is the only region in the world
where those adversely affected by violence and extreme poverty can walk
to (and across) the U.S. border. It is also true that not all regional govern-
ments are incapable of handling these two major challenges—there are
a handful of countries whose political systems have matured sufficiently
to handle alternating political parties in power and maintain workable
levels of governance.
At this juncture, the response required from the United States is not
one requiring a dominant military component because the threats are
not fundamentally military in nature—although there are elements and
derivatives of a military tone. Rather, the combination of serious struc-
tural shortcomings and malign actors results in a toxic mixture that
erodes effective governance throughout the region. The nature of the
environment and the challenges confronting the countries of the region,
as well as U.S. national security interests, require new thinking and new
approaches that transcend traditional U.S. approaches.
Overview of the Threats

As with any other region, there are those who view the level and quality
of U.S. involvement as adequate, while others believe it is insufficient to
• 316 •
Latin America
the task. Few experts, however, see generally positive trends in recent
years, as Michael Reid (who views the glass as half full), writing in a
recent Foreign Affairs article, acknowledges:
True, for years, the [Barack] Obama administration took

a largely reactive approach to Latin America that resulted
in multiple fumbles. And the recent attention it has paid
to the region, although welcome, came late in the day and
is still incomplete. But Obama’s record must be viewed in
the context of dramatic changes in Latin America, which
have inevitably reduced the United States’ influence. The
region still suffers from unresolved challenges—notably, a
persistent drug trade, widespread violent crime, and the
erosion of democracy in Venezuela.3
Reid concedes that the current administration took a “largely reactive

approach” and that recent attention came late. His characterization of
what is happening in Venezuela as “the erosion of democracy” is akin
to those in 1930s Europe reflecting that Germany too was experiencing
an “erosion of democracy.” The United States has lost influence not sole-
ly because other actors have stepped up their efforts, but also because
we have chosen to place our priorities elsewhere. This is an error with
geopolitically adverse consequences for U.S. interests. Although region-
al specialists concerned with security matters may have a tendency to
enumerate a long list of “threats” existent in the region, upon reflection
they are mostly variations of the same thing. While there certainly are
elements of radical and popular movements (and the terrorist tactics as-
sociated with some of these groups) in some countries, these phenomena
are manifestations of deeper issues. The first—and arguably most trou-
bling—is pervasive and corrosive criminality, formally and informally
organized, transnational as well as local, economically motivated at times
but politically at others. Organized transnational crime represents a clear
and direct threat to U.S. interests. As Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper captures succinctly:
Transnational Organized Crime . . . is a global, persistent

threat to our communities at home and our interests
abroad. Savvy, profit-driven criminal networks traffic in
drugs, persons, wildlife, and weapons; corrode security and
governance; undermine legitimate economic activity and
the rule of law; cost economies important revenue; and un-
dercut U.S. development efforts.4
• 317 •
Deare
The impact of the drug trade, much of which comes from or through
Latin America, is profound. In 2014, more than 16,000 Americans died
from heroin and cocaine overdoses—far more than were killed in Iraq
and Afghanistan over more than a decade at war.5 The monetary costs
to American society associated with the drug trade exceed $200 billion
every year, far surpassing those associated with terrorism, which receives
greater attention.6
Many of these criminal networks are internationally integrated activ-
ities. Like today’s global corporations, which work above, around, and
across national borders, these criminal groups will operate wherever a
profit can be made. Another factor, of course, is that typically these de-
veloping countries also have weak economic systems incapable of gener-
ating sufficient meaningful employment opportunities, for the young in
particular. An opportunity to join a mara (youth gangs prevalent in Cen-
tral America) or a more structured drug-trafficking organization (DTO)
becomes an attractive option, particularly given the lack of alternatives.
In addition to their ability to operate across borders, some of these
criminal enterprises have been relatively effective at displacing the state
in providing services demanded by the local population, in particular
within urban settings. The degree of effectiveness varies country by
country, and even by certain geographic locations within a given country.
Beyond establishing a secure environment in which they can operate—
and this security also holds for those living in the area—transnational
criminal organizations (TCOs) routinely deliver other services, ranging
from resolution of conflict to trash collection to providing greater se-
curity. As the TCOs consolidate their hold over the region, the formal
governments’ power and authority erode, undermining state legitimacy.
TCOs routinely violate governmental sovereignty and undermine
judicial systems at all levels because they are unencumbered by legal
norms. With huge profit margins at their disposal, they can purchase
the best weaponry, communications capability, and security money can
buy—giving them tactical advantages over most government agencies.
Unrestrained by the bureaucratic sclerosis that limits governments both
domestically and internationally, TCOs employ state-of-the-art informa-
tion technology and communications technology to operate effectively
across the business cycle.
Unlike terrorist organizations, organized crime is dependent on a base-
line of infrastructure and services, and therefore most TCOs do not seek
to destroy the state. They are content with undermining and co-opting
the government at the municipal, provincial, and at times national level,
depending on their requirements and capacity. Importantly, weak and still
developing states are the most vulnerable to the increasing strength of
• 318 •
Latin America
TCOs, and a significant number of Latin American countries fit this char-
acterization. These relatively weak governments lack effective and capable
institutions and frequently have small and corrupt police organizations.
The catch-22 of the situation is that because of their very weakness, these
developing states are hard pressed to generate strong popular participa-
tion. A growing concern is the degree to which the TCO assumes greater
levels of penetration of governmental power, both locally and nationally.
In certain cases, given that the government cannot provide for pub-
lic safety and security, it is the TCO—whether a gang, mara, DTO, or
even an ideologically motivated armed group—that fills that void, thus
supplanting the legitimacy forfeited by the state, generating a profound
impact on the sociopolitical construct. Of even greater concern are those
instances where states are not simply the victims of such a downturn, but
where governments are active participants in this devolution.7 Beyond
being penetrated or infiltrated by TCOs and becoming overwhelmed, in
some cases officials actually lead the process of criminalizing the state.
The result, as former Commander of U.S. Southern Command Admiral
James Stavridis, USN (Ret.), points out, is:
These illicit criminal networks threaten the United States

both directly and indirectly. Directly, these criminals have
attacked U.S. facilities and citizens throughout the globe.
They also weaken the fabric of American society, which
they touch through violence and corruption. Indirectly,
these organizations threaten the United States by attacking
our allies and partners throughout the world.8
In short, the rise of TCOs in Latin America poses a serious and grow-
ing national security danger that deserves greater attention. Sharing a
region with unsteady neighbors represents a risk to U.S. interests, and
steps must be taken to reverse those conditions. Most theorists point
to the rise in influence of nonstate actors, which is undeniable. At the
systems level of analysis, great powers will continue to dominate the
international system. As Moisés Naím warns, however:
the recent proliferating interaction among criminal, terror-

ist, and insurgent networks and the exponentially greater
magnitude of their commerce made possible by the process-
es of globalization have moved the overall threat posed by
state collusion with transnational illicit networks from the
status of international nuisance to a substantial threat to
the contemporary international order.9
• 319 •
Deare
The jury is still out on whether illicit nonstate actors and their networks
threaten the international system writ large, but their activities demand
much greater attention.
The second major threat to U.S. interests in this region is the growing
presence and activity of external actors with anti-U.S. intentions. It is one
thing for extra-regional actors to promote their economic and political
interests in the hemisphere. In today’s globalized world, every market in
every country is fair game for trade; Airbus has the same right as Boeing
to market its airliners worldwide. But certain countries—Russia, Iran,
and China are the most prominent examples—are seeking access to the
region for reasons that go beyond commerce and diplomacy. The actions
in this region by these three countries in particular should give pause to
U.S. policymakers. Russia views the current geopolitical environment as
a new Cold War; China’s continued expansion into the South China Sea
clearly demonstrates its intentions; and Iran’s aggression in the Persian
Gulf and beyond reveals its global ambitions. Accepting their growing
presence in this part of the world will only embolden these countries.
Unfortunately, Secretary of State John Kerry’s unilateral declaration in
November 2013 that the Monroe Doctrine was dead did little to reas-
sure the governments in the region, instead serving as a clear invitation
to those extra-regional actors looking for opportunities to increase their
influence. This invitation was welcomed by the anti-U.S. alliance known
as ALBA (Alternativa Bolivariana para los Pueblos de América, or the
Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas), which is eager to reduce U.S.
influence despite the long-term costs to their peoples.10
At first blush, China’s expansion into the region might be perceived
as benign. Given its explosive economic growth over the past 30 years, it
comes as no surprise that its exports and imports from around the world
would expand accordingly. After all, U.S.-China trade grew from $2 bil-
lion in 1979 to $591 billion in 2014, with an accompanying trade deficit
of $344 billion.11 Chilean copper, Argentine soy and wheat, Brazilian
iron, Venezuelan oil, and Peruvian minerals are attractive commodities,
and those countries profit from increased sales to satisfy Chinese de-
mand. Upon closer examination, however, China’s economic activities
generate additional concern. Chinese economic expansion globally has
come at the direct cost of U.S. commercial contraction; China’s “policy
banks” have become the largest annual public creditors to governments
in the region.12 In 2006 the United States was the largest trading partner
for 127 countries around the world, versus just 70 for China. However,
by 2011, the situation had almost inverted itself, with 124 countries for
China and 76 for the United States.13 Leaving Mexico aside—a unique
case given the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of
• 320 •
Latin America
1994—the rest of Latin America is turning away from the United States
and toward China, although at different rates and degrees of engagement.
Even the case of NAFTA serves to demonstrate the strength of China’s
impact on the region. Prior to China’s entrance into the World Trade Or-
ganization in 2001, Mexico benefited greatly from the new trade agree-
ment with its northern neighbors. However, once China gained preferred
access to the U.S. market, the picture changed, with Chinese products
gaining market shares in the United States at Mexico’s expense, as well
as increasing market shares in Mexico from U.S. products.14 Mexico’s
geographical advantage remains important, as demonstrated by $81.5
billion in bilateral trade in goods and services prior to NAFTA in 1993,
which increased to $247.3 billion in 2000 and reached $532.3 billion
in 2015.15
A related but largely unrecognized factor here is that China is filling a
trade space that could—and should, from a U.S. interests perspective—
be filled by Latin American manufacturers. While China has surpassed
the United States as the most important destination for South Ameri-
can exports, shipments to China continue to be heavily concentrated
in primary goods, with only a small portion of manufactured products.
When commodity prices inevitably fall and the terms of trade worsen,
Latin American manufacturers’ inability to compete effectively with the
Chinese will undermine the potential for sustained growth throughout
the region. The net effect for Latin American countries will only worsen
in the future.16
Beyond China’s deep economic engagement with Latin America,
China’s explicit support for the anti-U.S. alliance ALBA is even more
problematic and troubling. Given ALBA’s declared intent to establish an
alternative to U.S. leadership in the region and to distance itself from
Western companies and conventional multilateral institutions, China has
stepped in as its partner of choice, with both markets and financing.
This has meant the prolonged endurance of certain regimes—Venezuela
is the most obvious example—that would have failed years ago due to
flagrant incompetence, mismanagement, and corruption. China contin-
ues to fund this failed model despite the economic losses it generates;
Chinese intentions are geopolitical, not financial. Having transcended
the role of strategic partners in 2001, the China-Venezuela relationship
is now characterized as a comprehensive strategic partnership, moving
beyond trade to military weapons sales and training. With the death of
Hugo Chavez in March 2013, his designated successor, Nicolás Maduro,
has accelerated Venezuela’s economic collapse with ideological decisions
uninformed by financial realities and exacerbated by oil prices declining
to $30 per barrel. Despite the opposition parties’ takeover of the legisla-
• 321 •
Deare
ture in December 2015, Maduro’s strong executive powers ensure that he

will continue to prioritize politics over economics, and Venezuela’s pain
will continue beyond his tenure.
These brief examples highlight the fact that China is taking advantage
of U.S. inattention to the evolving geopolitical and economic realities in
its own hemisphere. Careful not to directly antagonize the United States,
China is playing the strategic long game and will gradually and slow-
ly expand into whatever spaces it can in the region. U.S. policymakers
must be aware that in so doing, the Chinese government will pursue its
own interests in the Western Hemisphere, which are often not congruent
with our own. Chinese analyst Lei Yu hypothesizes:
China’s economic and geopolitical orientation toward Lat-

in America reflects Beijing’s desire not only to intensify
its economic cooperation and trade with Latin America,
but also to create a “sphere of influence” in the tradition-
al “backyard” of the United States, the only superpower
in the current global hierarchy, in retaliation for the U.S.
containment and encirclement of China, and as a fulcrum
in its rise as a global power capable of challenging U.S.
dominance and reshaping the current world system in a
fashion more to its liking.17
In a world that remains ordered anarchically, China’s great power as-

pirations are being played out in Latin America. Similarly, the United
States has the right to protect its geopolitical interests in the region. If
it does not do so, the United States cedes to China its strategic goal of
“reshaping the current world system in a fashion more to its liking.”
Iran’s growing presence in Latin America is a different story than Chi-
na’s. It is no coincidence that Iran’s expansion has also been with ALBA
countries, such as Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and even Ar-
gentina (although this expansion ended with Cristina Kirschner’s depar-
ture). Iran is infiltrating Latin America primarily through Hizballah, a
Shiite terrorist group loyal to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as well as with the
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Quds Force members.18 There
are reports of more than 80 Iran-supported Shiite cultural centers, op-
erated by Hizballah and Quds Force, spread across the region. The clear
intent of Iran is not only to convert individuals to Shia Islam but also
to advance Iranian objectives at the expense of U.S. interests. As then–
Commander of U.S. Southern Command General John Kelly, USMC
(Ret.), testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, “As the
foremost state sponsor of terrorism, Iran’s involvement in the region and
• 322 •
Latin America
these cultural centers is a matter for concern, and its diplomatic, eco-
nomic, and political engagement is closely monitored.”19 Despite the nu-
clear agreement between the Obama administration and Iranian leaders,
Iran continues to employ terrorism as a deliberate tool of national power.
Iran’s honorary membership in Latin America’s anti-U.S. club—
ALBA—demonstrates Iran’s success in advancing its objectives of pen-
etrating the U.S. area of influence. Participation in ALBA provides Iran
with access to greater intelligence, regional military organizations, and
other security-related activities, and it promotes Iran’s agenda in this part
of the world. Given its previous situation of being under a strong Unit-
ed Nations sanctions regime, Iran was interested in gaining access to
proscribed military technologies, promoting its nuclear program, and
finding a way into the international banking system. The confluence of
Hizballah’s terrorist activities with transnational criminal networks is
even more alarming. Hizballah has evolved into one of the region’s most
significant DTOs, leveraging its networks in Africa, Asia, and Europe.
Unlike China, Iran seeks a presence in the region not for commercial
trade purposes—although this is used as a façade—but as a way to pro-
mote its geopolitical and ideological goals. Given Iran’s proclivity to sup-
port terrorism to achieve its objectives, U.S. policymakers should harbor
no illusions that its presence in Latin America is benign.20
But of greatest immediate concern to U.S. national security interests is
Russia’s renewed efforts to gain access in the region and undermine U.S.
goals and objectives. Taking advantage of the anti-U.S. populist stance
of the late Hugo Chavez, Russia has also established itself as an honor-
ary member in good standing of ALBA. Vladimir Putin’s government is
providing ALBA nations with weapons, police and military training and
equipment, intelligence technology and training, nuclear technology, oil
exploration equipment, financial assistance, and support as an influential
friend on the United Nations Security Council and other international
forums. With Russia’s help and advice, the once-shared hemispheric val-
ues of a functioning democratic system are being replaced by a toxic mix
of antidemocratic values, additional inputs of massive corruption, and
a doctrine that draws on totalitarian models. The ALBA bloc embraces
terrorism and terrorist groups such as the Fuerzas Armadas Revoluciona-
rias de Colombia (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), Hizballah,
and the Basque revolutionary organization Euskadi Ta Askatasuna. Also,
ALBA’s military doctrine includes the justification for the use of weapons
of mass destruction against the United States.
Russia’s intentions in this part of the world are antagonistic in nature.
Russia’s ongoing efforts to deepen ties with the nine ALBA bloc mem-
bers raise real strategic concerns. Although some attempt to excuse Rus-
• 323 •
Deare
sian actions as a tit-for-tat response to U.S. engagement in Russia’s near

abroad, it is one thing for the United States to support democratic gov-
ernance, rule of law, and free market economies; after all, these actions
are nonthreatening. But actively supporting anti-U.S. populist leaders for
the sole purpose of undermining the United States in a zero-sum game
is another matter; U.S. leaders must recognize this for what it is and take
appropriate measures to safeguard our national interests. As General Kel-
ly noted in congressional testimony:
Russian activities in the region are more concerning. . . .

Periodically since 2008, Russia has pursued an increased
presence in Latin America through propaganda, military
arms and equipment sales, counterdrug agreements, and
trade. Under President Putin, however, we have seen a
clear return to Cold War tactics. As part of its global strat-
egy, Russia is using power projection in an attempt to erode
U.S. leadership and challenge U.S. influence in the West-
ern Hemisphere. . . . Russia’s activities in the hemisphere
are concerning and underscore the importance of remain-
ing engaged with our partners.21
Cultural Underpinnings
Five hundred years of externally imposed influence across the region—
political, economic, religious, and social, dating from the late 15th cen-
tury—have had the net result of generating a new culture. Infused into
the native inhabitants of the Americas over the years by invading colo-
nists, this new culture—explicitly Latin American—is a factor that re-
quires an appreciation of how different it is to what we would broadly
characterize as American. Political scientist Howard Wiarda captured
the many differences—and the reasons behind those differences—of
cultural development between the British colonies and Spanish and
Portuguese empires:
Latin America, colonized and settled in the sixteenth cen-

tury, was premodern and felt the full weight of medievalism
in the form of an authoritarian political regime from top
to bottom, a feudal landholding system and mercantilism
in the economic sphere, a rigid two-class society without a
large or solid middle class, an educational system based on
rote memorization and deductive, unscientific reasoning,
• 324 •
Latin America
and a religious pattern of absolutism and orthodoxy that

buttressed and reinforce the state concept.
The United States, settled and colonized in the seventeenth

and eighteenth centuries, belonged, right from the begin-
ning, to the modern world. It was nascently capitalistic,
middle class, nonconformist, supportive of representative
government, religiously pluralistic, and educationally and
legally inductive and scientific.22
This cultural/societal component is thus key to understanding how

the region’s political, economic, and judiciary systems developed differ-
ently from those of the United States, and why the region—despite its
strain of Western traditions—evolved in a different fashion. Independent
of the effect of globalization across the world, these cultural differences
remain relevant in terms of how nation-states participate in the interna-
tional system. They continue to directly influence how regional coun-
tries’ political, economic, and judicial systems behave at the state and
sub-state level.
Political Culture
The evolution of political parties and processes in the region has amount-
ed to a slow and gradual move away from explicitly authoritarian regimes
to a variety of democratic models, in many cases ostensibly based on sep-
aration of powers but typically highly presidentialist and characterized
by a dominant executive. This process only began to emerge in the early
20th century (in Uruguay) and has progressed in fits and starts across the
region, with countless interruptions by coups of all sizes and colors. But
the image of the Latin American military junta is not simply coincidental;
as recently as the 1980s, the major countries of the Americas were under
military control—Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and
others. In addition, the majority of the countries are based on a unitary
(versus a federal) model, although even then the concentration of au-
thority in the national executive is the norm. This brief description is
provided simply to underscore the fact that when we use the term dem-
ocratic government in referring to Latin America, this does not mean an
American model or a Canadian parliamentarian variant.
Indeed a variety of factors have contributed to create a political
culture that would be characterized as “left of center” in U.S. terms.
Although communist ideologies are considered fringe elements with-
in the mainstream of the U.S. political system, they are alive and well
throughout the region. Cuba’s communist party continues to serve as
• 325 •
Deare
a model emulated by political movements throughout the region. It is

no accident that leaders in Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, El Salvador,
Ecuador, Chile, Brazil, and until recently Argentina continue to revere
Fidel Castro. President Obama’s historic overture to the Cuban regime,
however well intentioned, decidedly downplayed the strength of the
authoritarian domination of the Cuban people. In the recently conclud-
ed Seventh Congress of the Cuban Communist Party—only a month
after the Presidential visit—the party rejected any notion of political
reform; despite the handshakes and photo opportunities, Raúl Castro
continues to refer to the United States as “the enemy.” This aspect of
the region’s political culture presents an additional degree of difficulty,
and U.S. policymakers must fully understand this fundamental reality
as they consider policy options.
Economic Culture
As with other elements, the disparity in capacity across the range of
countries is striking. Latin America is the most unequal region in the
world in terms of distribution of wealth. Although poverty has declined
from 48.3 percent to 28 percent between 1990 and 2014,23 10 of the
15 most unequal countries in the world are in the Americas (including
Brazil).24 The region with the lowest quintile is Latin America, which has
4.1 percent of income. The bottom quintile in other developing regions
includes South Asia, which has 7.9 percent, and Eastern Europe/Central
Asia, which has 8.1 percent. At the other end of the spectrum, the top
quintile in Latin America has 53.9 percent of income, the highest region-
al average.25 Measured by gross domestic product, Brazil is one of the top
10 producing countries of the world, and both Mexico and Argentina are
members of the Group of 20. But as richly endowed as those countries
are, they too share in significant levels of poverty, and their income dis-
tribution schemes are far from ideal. Although many of the countries in
the region are amply endowed with natural resources, in most developed
countries intangible capital is the largest share of total wealth. This is not
the case in Latin America, and it is explained in large part by weaknesses
in educational systems as well as rule of law.
Judiciary Systems
The legal systems throughout the region are quite different from a U.S.
model. Latin America’s legal foundations, established in the 16th and 17th
centuries, were cast in a manner that would lead to continued author-
itarian rule, founded on a legal tradition based on Roman law (versus
common law in the United States and Canada inherited from Britain).
Quoting again from Howard Wiarda:
• 326 •
Latin America
Among the most important influences brought by Rome to

Hispania was its concept of law. In the Roman conception,
law derived deductively from divine precepts, nature, and
right reason—not from everyday experience as in the more
practical Anglo-American common-law tradition. Law
and everyday practice were separated, divorced—a situa-
tion that leads to widespread violations of the law.26
Levels of corruption throughout Latin America are notorious. With

the notable exceptions of Uruguay, Chile, and Costa Rica (ranked 21,
23, and 40 in Transparency International’s 2015 Index), Latin American
countries have their origins in the legal practices and mores imported in
the 16th century.27
The Iberian Peninsula judicial legacy was the inquisitorial system,
where prosecuting attorneys and judges are responsible for both the in-
vestigation and the determination of guilt; they do so without a trial, but
rather by reviewing evidence in private. The common law adversarial
system used in the United States, by contrast, has active prosecution
and defense attorneys, arguing in open court, and an independent judge
whose role is to serve as an impartial umpire. Reform efforts in the region
began in the late 1980s/early 1990s (more recently in Mexico) and were
undertaken initially as the judicial aspect of democratization efforts, al-
though the business sector’s interest in market assurance was another
strong element. Notwithstanding some progress, however, many coun-
tries continue to struggle with substandard judiciary systems due largely
to ideological divides and culturally ingrained corruption. The challenge
continues to be creating trusted and competent legal institutions, which
are necessary to generate confidence in the minds of all citizens—en-
trepreneurs, bureaucrats, and everyone in between—that their rights
will be protected. The poor levels of effective rule of law throughout the
majority of the region continue to have a negative impact on countries’
abilities to perform effectively across the entire spectrum of political,
economic, judicial, and security development.
Among the most pernicious effects of this developmental delay is that
Latin America is the most violence-prone region of the world, besting
southern Africa. With 9 percent of global population, the region produc-
es 27 percent of murders worldwide. Of the top 20 countries with the
highest rates of homicides, 10 are from Latin America:28
Latin America has long been a violence-prone continent.

No other region in the world shows higher homicide rates,
no other region shows such a variety of different types and
• 327 •
Deare
forms of violence. A high incidence of crime, the prolif-

eration of violent youth gangs, the prevalence of domes-
tic violence, violence related to drug trafficking or money
laundering as the burning issues of the day come on top of
more historical forms of violence in the form of persistent
civil wars, guerrilla movements and death squads, state
terrorism and dictatorships, social uprisings and violent
revolutions.29
With the exception of soccer, in no other category does Latin America so

dominate world rankings.
A “Big Idea” for U.S. National Security Policymakers

U.S. national security interests in Latin America are enduring and tran-
scend administrations and political parties; what varies over time are
levels of attention paid to the region and the ways and means used to
pursue the ends. The most current expression emphasizes “the security
of our allies and partners, an open international economic system that
promotes opportunity and prosperity, respect for universal values, and
a rules-based international order advanced by U.S. leadership that pro-
motes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to
meet global challenges.”30 It is not an exaggeration to state that all these
interests are at risk throughout most of Latin America. The good news
in this potentially depressing picture is that for the most part, the U.S.
model is by far the most attractive model to emulate for the majority of
the peoples of Latin America. Very few want to send their children to
study in China, Russia, or Iran. The bad news is that the U.S. national
security system is poorly structured to deal with the nature of the threats
and challenges within Latin America. What is lacking is a coherent U.S.
effort to actively promote that ideal-model type with willing partners in
the region.
Part of the U.S. challenge is due to the factors laid out previously. At
the same time, U.S. policymakers must recognize the limits of what can
be done, and how much help is needed. Even if the United States had the
resources and interest necessary to effect important and tangible change,
the initiative to fundamentally upgrade their systems must rest with the
countries in the region. Beyond that, given the underlying conditions
seen throughout the region, the solutions are not exclusively, or even
primarily, within the purview of the U.S. Government to address. Real
progress depends on more than a well-integrated, whole-of-government
approach. What is truly needed includes our most productive elements
• 328 •
Latin America
(namely, the private sector) and beyond, including nongovernmental or-

ganizations (NGOs), private charities, universities, religious orders—in a
word, our civil society. Empowering someone to bring those sectors into
the mix is a key element to future success.
If the interagency community is challenged to provide coherent solu-
tions at the individual country level—and it is—the notion that it can
do so region-wide is unrealistic. What is lacking in that regard is an
overarching coordinating entity with authorities to direct the various key
Federal actors—Department of State/U.S. Agency for International De-
velopment, Departments of Defense, Justice, Homeland Security, Trea-
sury, and Commerce, among others. The Senior Director for the West-
ern Hemisphere on the National Security Council lacks the authority
to effectively direct, control, or task these departments and other Cabi-
net-level agencies.
The “Big Idea,” then, requires first the recognition that stating, “We
need a more holistic and effective whole-of-government approach,” is in-
sufficient and that more innovative steps should be taken. Taking a page
out of President Bill Clinton’s playbook, we need to move beyond the
“Special Envoy for Latin America” and designate a serious regional expert
heavyweight—someone like John Negroponte comes to mind—to lead
a new team authorized and empowered to develop, coordinate, and lead
policy for the region.31 The vision would entail going beyond the gov-
ernmental sector serving as a “partner of choice,” to include a broader
civil society–to–civil society engagement, encouraged and supported by
the interagency entities of the U.S. Government. It would build upon an
already existing proposal—that of the Integrated Regional Centers (IRC)
suggested by the Project on National Security Reform:
Shift the existing system’s emphasis to the regional level

with regional directors heading integrated regional cen-
ters, which act as interagency headquarters for national
security policy . . . convening Cabinet members and in-
tegrated regional directors based on issues, not statutory
membership. The departments and agencies support IRCs
by providing capabilities. This option builds on the suc-
cess of the regional military commands while correcting
the current civil-military imbalance by providing a civilian
counterpart to the regional commands; it allows Washing-
ton to focus on global and long-range policy and strategy;
and it gives embassies clear authority to coordinate their
country plans.32
• 329 •
Deare
The IRC model is a necessary but insufficient first step in the right
direction. This Big Idea would go beyond the IRC concept to give it the
additional responsibility of also engaging more effectively with the “civil
society”—universities, NGOs, churches, the private sector—to do those
things not well suited to the government per se.
This proposal recognizes the limits of U.S. time, attention, and re-
sources available to dedicate to the region; other parts of the world rep-
resent more significant and urgent threats to U.S. interests. The idea here
is to work smarter, not necessarily harder or with more money. Resources
will be required elsewhere in the world to confront the threat du jour
and traditionally have not been available.33 But a truly comprehensive
approach that includes nongovernmental actors, coordinated, synchro-
nized, and supported by the U.S. Government, would be a game chang-
er. There are areas of concern with duplication of effort that would be
deconflicted, as well as gaps and seams that could be recognized and
addressed by an entity authorized and bestowed with available—but not
coherently integrated—capabilities. The Latin American “Policy Direc-
tor” would lead a team of regional- and country-specific as well as func-
tional experts (economists, lawyers, judges, political scientists, anthro-
pologists, sociologists, security and defense specialists, law enforcement
officers, and so forth) to identify the key elements to assist in addressing
essential developmental goals for the region.
A natural reaction to this proposal is that it is unrealistic, too bold,
unworkable, or a combination of all three. Perhaps. But prolonging the
status quo is demonstrably ineffective; after all, the status quo is what got
us here. A system-wide reform effort, à la the Project on National Securi-
ty Reform, is currently unlikely; unfortunately, a new major crisis will be
required to propel us to action. But a pilot program in one specific part
of the world might well succeed.
In the event that the Big Idea is too great a leap and simply too hard
to pursue, there are other more limited—but still innovative—recom-
mendations that could help in the near term. First, recognizing the real
threat presented by transnational criminal organizations, as well as the
fact that a number of different actors play a role in identifying the threat
as well as dealing with it, a new administration might establish a joint
interagency task force (JIATF) with the broad mandate to go after the
TCO threat. The idea is to build upon the JIATF-South model, which
integrates many of the interagency actors with the Department of De-
fense (DOD) and Coast Guard to conduct detection and monitoring
operations regarding the interdiction of illicit trafficking and other nar-
co-terrorist threats in support of national and partner nation security.
This Joint Interagency Task Force–Transnational Criminal Organizations
• 330 •
Latin America
(JIATF-TCO) would incorporate law enforcement and intelligence agen-

cies to fuse all available information to identify the gamut of bad actors
involved in the broad range of criminal actors and activities. In addition,
however, the other critical aspect is the action side of the equation.34 This
JIATF-TCO would coordinate and execute the takedown of TCO groups
and other criminal activities, both internationally and domestically. The
notion of synchronizing policy, diplomacy, defense, intelligence, finance,
law enforcement, and clandestine and covert action by one centralized
and integrated entity is easier said than done but is essential to combat-
ing the ability of nonstate actors to exploit the gaps and seams in our
current organizational construct. This organization should be led by a
senior civilian with recognized gravitas and experience such as a former
Director of Central Intelligence, Federal Bureau of Investigation director,
or retired combatant commander.
Another important concept is to strengthen DOD capacity to focus its
capabilities and interact more effectively with the armed forces and law
enforcement agencies of Latin America. Although not of traditional inter-
est to much of DOD, the institutional importance of the Armed Forces in
the region requires greater support by the Pentagon to promote enhanced
security, improve internal civil-military relations issues, and address ongo-
ing human rights concerns. Beyond recognition by the State Department
that greater Pentagon support is a positive thing, there are two structural
changes that could also help. The first is the creation of the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense (ASD) for Western Hemisphere Affairs, el-
evating the seniority of the individual responsible for crafting policy for
the region. There was a short period of time when this was in effect, when
the ASD for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs played that
role to a limited degree, complementing the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Western Hemisphere Affairs as needed. During that time, both
ASDs who held that office—Paul McHale and Paul Stockton—were hired
first and foremost for their expertise in homeland defense issues. They
were not Latin American specialists. But having an Assistant Secretary of
Defense engaged with those details, playing an active role within both the
interagency and senior regional counterparts, proved helpful.35
The second and related idea is to consider consolidating the respon-
sibilities for oversight of security cooperation and foreign military sales
programs within the region under the supervision of a single geographic
combatant commander. There are two basic options regarding how the
Unified Command Plan should incorporate Mexico.36 One is to maintain
the status quo with Mexico, Canada, and the Bahamas as part of U.S.
Northern Command. The other alternative makes the case to include
Mexico (and portions of the Caribbean region) within the purview of one
• 331 •
Deare
geographic combatant command as the logical step to provide operation-

al support to the policy shop in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.37
As James Stavridis, testified, we should:
merge SOUTHCOM and NORTHCOM [U.S. Northern

Command] into a single Americas Command. The artifi-
cial division of Mexico from SOUTHCOM hurts our unified
purpose throughout Latin America and the Caribbean; and
our Canadian allies are very involved in the world to the
south as well. Making this one command—probably head-
quartered in Miami, with a sub-unified command in Colora-
do Springs retaining NORAD [North American Aerospace
Defense Command] and air defense—would be efficient,
save resources, and improve focus on the Americas.38
Stavridis clarified his remarks, adding, “I absolutely think we should

merge NORTHCOM and SOUTHCOM, not only for the efficiencies,
but I think there’s cultural connections, to get Canada and Mexico, two
of the largest economies in the Americas, into the flow of our work to
the south.”39
The proponents of the current configuration make the compelling
point that the political, economic, social, and security entity that is North
America should be conserved and strengthened. They argue that the de-
fense of the United States demands having Canada and Mexico as special
and unique partners as part of a dedicated defense structure. The down-
side of this option is that the status quo essentially places a wall around
the United States, Canada, and Mexico, which may convey a message of
writing off the rest of the hemisphere. It would confer upon Mexico status
as a key strategic partner, but at the cost of appearing to neglect the rest
of our neighborhood. The notion of an Americas Command versus either
the status quo or a Southern Command that includes Mexico recognizes
that the neighborhood is important to the entire region (to include the
United States and Canada) and implies an organizational structure suffi-
cient to that task. The disadvantage, at least in the short term, could be a
message received by Mexico that suggests the United States does not val-
ue the unique relationship that has developed since 2002. It is an import-
ant debate that merits serious consideration at the highest levels of DOD.
There are many other smaller details that could also contribute to
improving the ways in which the U.S. Government pays attention to
and interacts with the key actors in Latin America. But unless major
initiatives are undertaken, the smaller moves are probably akin to simply
rearranging the deck chairs—and there are icebergs ahead.
• 332 •
Latin America
Notes
1
Project on National Security Reform (PNSR), Forging a New Shield (Washington, DC:
PNSR, November 2008), v. Emphasis added.
2
Linda Robinson, Intervention or Neglect: The United States and Central America Beyond
the 1980s (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1991), 173. Bernie Aronson has also
noted that Latin Americans are less annoyed by U.S. intervention than by the inconsisten-
cy of our intervention, an important qualifier.
3
Michael Reid, “Obama and Latin America: A Promising Day in the Neighborhood,”
Foreign Affairs 94, no. 5 (September/October 2015), 46. Emphasis in the original.
4
James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, “Statement for the Record:
Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community,” House Appropria-
tions Subcommittee on Defense, March 25, 2015, 8; available at <http://docs.house.gov/
meetings/AP/AP02/20150325/103200/HHRG-114-AP02- Wstate-ClapperJ-20150325.
pdf>.
5
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics
2015, available at <www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-
rates>.
6
National Drug Threat Assessment 2010, Product No. 2010-Q0317-001, National
Drug Intelligence Center, U.S. Department of Justice, 2010.
7
For a more in-depth understanding of these arguments, a number of articles in
Convergence are quite helpful. See Michael Miklaucic and Jacqueline Brewer, eds., Con-
vergence: Illicit Networks and National Security in the Age of Globalization (Washington, DC:
NDU Press, 2013).
8
Ibid., foreword, by James G. Stavridis, ix–x.
9
Michael Miklaucic and Moisés Naím, “The Criminal State,” in Convergence, 149.
10
Formal members of Alternativa Bolivariana para los Pueblos de América, or the
Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), include the two original members—Cuba
and Venezuela—as well as Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Dominica, Ecuador, Nicaragua,
Saint Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Iran and Syria maintain observer status.
11
Wayne M. Morrison, China-U.S. Trade Issues, RL33536 (Washington, DC: Con-
gressional Research Service, December 15, 2015), available at <www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/
RL33536.pdf>.
12
Chinese “policy” banks differ from Chinese commercial banks in that they target
specific sectors for economic and trade development issues. Specifically these include the
Agriculture Development Bank of China, China Development Bank, and Export-Import
Bank of China.
13
“China Denies ‘Biggest Trader’ Status, Insists It’s ‘Developing Country,’” RT.com,
February 19, 2013, available at <www.rt.com/business/china-trading-us-partner-577/>.
14
Enrique Dussel Peters and Kevin P. Gallagher, “NAFTA’s Uninvited Guest: China and
the Disintegration of North American Trade,” CEPAL Review 110 (August 2013), 86–89.
15
Data from the U.S. Census Web site, available at <www.census.gov/foreign-trade/
balance/c2010.html#1994>.
16
For an excellent analysis of the current China–Latin America trade and finance
situation, see Rebecca Ray and Kevin Gallagher, China-Latin American Economic Bulletin
2015 Edition, Discussion Paper 2015-9 (Boston: Global Economic Governance Initiative,
2015), 1–22.
17
Yei Lu, “China’s Strategic Partnership with Latin America: A Fulcrum in China’s
Rise,” International Affairs 91, no. 5 (2015), 1047–1048.
• 333 •
Deare
18
Alma Keshavarz, “A Review of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and Qods Force:
Growing Global Presence, Links to Cartels, and Mounting Sophistication,” Small Wars
Journal, December 23, 2015, available at <http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/a-review-
of-iran%E2%80%99s-revolutionary-guards-and-qods-force-growing-global-presence-
links-to-car>.
19
General John F. Kelly, Posture Statement before the Senate Armed Services Commit-
tee, March 12, 2015.
20
For a particularly sobering overview of Iran’s interests and activities in the region,
see Matthew Levitt’s “Iranian and Hezbollah Operations in South America: Then and
Now,” PRISM 5, no. 4 (2013), 118–133.
21
Kelly, Posture Statement. Emphasis added.
22
Howard J. Wiarda, The Soul of Latin America (New Haven: Yale University Press,
2001), 3–4.
23
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, “Poverty and Indi-
gence Reduction Stalls in Most of Latin American Countries,” January 26, 2015, available
at <www.cepal.org/en/pressreleases/poverty-and-indigence-reduction-stalls-most-lat-
in-american-countries>.
24
United Nations (UN) Development Programme, “About Latin America and the
Caribbean,” available at <www.latinamerica.undp.org/content/rblac/en/home/regioninfo.
html>.
25
World Bank, “Poverty and Equity Regional Dashboards,” available at <http://pover-
tydata.worldbank.org/poverty/region/ECA>.
26
Wiarda.
27
Transparency International 2015 Index, available at <www.transparency.org/
cpi2015#map-container>.
28
UN Office on Drugs and Crime, Global Study on Homicides, 2013, 35, available at
<www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf>.
29
Fernando Carrión, “Violence Research in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Liter-
ature Review,” International Journal of Conflict and Violence 5, no. 1 (2011), 88.
30
National Security Strategy 2015 (Washington, DC: The White House, February
2015), 2.
31
Lifelong friend of President Bill Clinton, Thomas “Mack” McLarty, first served as
White House Chief of Staff and was then designated “Special Envoy for the Americas.”
His success in this position was due primarily to his close relationship with the President,
not his regional expertise.
32
PNSR, 441–442. See pages 492–506 for greater details regarding the integrated
regional center model.
33
A colleague who also specializes in Latin America makes a compelling case for more
funding: “I think more money is a necessary suggestion. We spend less in Latin America
in one year, adding up all of our programs—civilian and military—than the military
spends in Afghanistan in one week. That’s shameful for a region that neighbors the
United States. No wonder we’ve lost influence.” Dr. David Spencer, email note to author,
April 1, 2016.
34
While it is true that “mini” versions of this proposal already exist within the Depart-
ment of Justice, Department of Treasury, and Intelligence Community, they continue to
exist within functional stovepipes. The concept is to integrate efforts across all agencies.
• 334 •
Latin America
35
The precedent of having an Assistant Secretary of Defense for a single region was
established in late 2007 with the creation of the office of the Assistant Secretary of De-
fense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs.
36
An outlier would be to place Mexico and the Caribbean into U.S. Southern Com-
mand, and merge U.S. European Command into what is left of U.S. Northern Command.
See Armed Forces Journal, “Redrawing the COCOM Map,” available at <www.armedforces-
journal.com/redrawing-the-cocom-map/>.
37
For a more detailed explanation of the logic behind these recommendations, see
Craig A. Deare, “Time to Improve U.S. Defense Policy toward the Western Hemisphere,”
Joint Force Quarterly 53 (2nd Quarter 2009), 38–39.
38
Testimony of Admiral James G. Stavridis, USN (Ret.), before the Senate Armed
Services Committee, December 10, 2015.
39
Joe Gould, “As Congress Pushes Defense Department Reform, So Does Carter,” De-
fense News, December 12, 2015, available at <www.defensenews.com/story/defense/poli-
cy-budget/budget/2015/12/12/congress-pushes-defense-department-reform-so-does-car-
ter/77057422/>.
• 335 •
16
Central Asia
Theresa Sabonis-Helf
After a decade of competition for influence in Central Asia, the region’s future
path is now clearly tied to China. While Russia retains some roles in the region,
the trend toward China is likely to continue without strong contestation. The
United States has an interest in meaningful economic development and can
help shape some aspects of China’s involvement in the region.
W ith the winding down of the war in Afghanistan and low oil pric-
es, Central Asia is no longer visible in the forefront of U.S. for-
eign policy. U.S. priorities in the region have already been through two
distinct phases. First, U.S. attention to the region from independence to
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, focused on consolidation
of independence and state-building. Then from 9/11 to 2014, Central
Asia was a focus because of its proximity to Afghanistan. Now, in a third
and post-Afghanistan phase, the United States is reassessing the distant,
landlocked region and how it does—or does not—tie to U.S. national
interests.
The United States continues to be concerned about political instabil-
ity in the region, the persistence of drug-trafficking, and the prospects
for the rise of violent extremism. In each of these areas, concerns are
not matched with clear U.S. levers for influencing the outcome. In the
Afghan War era, the United States was the third party in what was com-
monly referred to as the “Great Game” for influence. The United States is
no longer a key player in the new Great Game that is unfolding between
Russia and China, but it is still likely to be called on to referee and can
play a role in ensuring that Central Asia benefits from the overlapping
and sometimes competing interests of its powerful neighbors.
The states of Central Asia face a “connect or die” challenge. Long-
standing grievances, which are personal (among the leaders) and histor-
ical (among the nations), make cooperation difficult. Yet regardless of
• 337 •
Sabonis-Helf
which hegemon wins the most influence, Central Asia’s future success
rests on economic integration and to some extent political and security
integration.
The Central Asian states are not yet persuaded of this. In February
2014, aging Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev floated the idea of
changing his country’s name from Kazakhstan to Kazak Yeli, omitting
the “-stan” suffix in favor of its Kazakh equivalent.1 This idea may be the
vanity of an aging ruler, but it also reflects a sense, common in Kazakh-
stan, that as the most successful state in the region, Kazakhstan bene-
fits from distancing itself (as much as possible) from its more troubled
neighbors.2 The fact that Kazakhstan’s name is even a point of discussion
illustrates a problem that is somewhat perplexing to outsiders: Central
Asia’s core question for the coming decade is what sense will be made
of its region—and if it is a region at all. Although Central Asia is always
described as a crossroads, a renewed competition is now under way to
define the crossroads, what forms of government and security provision
will prevail, what markets will now be connected to what producers,
and what physical infrastructure and rules will shape the trade within
the region and beyond.
The United States framed its efforts to integrate Afghanistan into the
region as a “New Silk Road Strategy,” but that gained little traction be-
yond supply for and retrograde from the war in Afghanistan. The U.S.
New Silk Road Strategy did not promise or provide major investment in
the region, and the signature project, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pa-
kistan-India gas pipeline, failed to move forward due to a persistent-
ly problematic security climate and lack of investors. While the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization and European nations sought to connect
Central Asia to its south, Russia is seeking to integrate some (but not all)
Central Asian states into its Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). Moreover,
China has launched an ambitious program of investment tying the re-
gion to its own Xinjiang Province. Central Asia has established itself as
an energy powerhouse with growing exports in oil, gas, and electricity,
but the direction of these exports is evolving unexpectedly. Economical-
ly, the only other significant export besides resources is labor, and the
migration of labor is going in a different direction than resource exports.
Security is largely contingent on economic and governance success or
failure, but the alliances promising security, such as the Collective Secu-
rity Treaty Organization (CSTO), are not the same as the ones promising
prosperity, such as the EEU.
This chapter provides a brief overview of governance, oil and gas de-
velopment, and emerging security challenges, but its emphasis is on the
question of the competitive evolution of the crossroads themselves. Re-
• 338 •
Central Asia
Table 1. Indicators of Governance in the Region

Country Human Corruption World Freedom in the Per Capita
Development Perceptions Bank Ease World 20164 Electricity
Report 2015 Index 2015 (of of Doing Consumption
(of 188 167 countries)2 Business (kilowatt hours
countries)1 20153 per year)5
6/5: not free
Kazakhstan 56 (high) 123 77 (aggregate 5,085
score 24)
5/5: partly free
120
Kyrgyzstan 123 102 (aggregate 1,809
(medium)
score 38)
7/6: not free
129
Tajikistan 136 166 (aggregate 1,732
(medium)
score 16)
7/7: not free
109
Turkmenistan 154 Not rated (aggregate 2,384
(medium)
score 4)
7/7: not free
114
Uzbekistan 153 141 (aggregate 1,605
(medium)
score 3)
6/6: not free
Afghanistan 171 (low) 166 Not rated (aggregate 78
score 24)
Source: Jane’s World Armies Database.
1
Human Development Report 2015: Work for Human Development (New York: United Nations Development
Programme, 2015), 208–211.
2
Transparency International, “Corruption Perceptions Index 2015,” available at <www.transparency.org/
cpi2015#results-table>.
3
World Bank, Doing Business 2016: Measuring Regulatory Quality and Efficiency, 13th ed. (Washington, DC:
World Bank, 2016), available at <www.doingbusiness.org/~/media/WBG/DoingBusiness/Documents/Annual-
Reports/English/DB16-Full-Report.pdf>.
4
Freedom House, “Freedom in the World 2016,” Table of Country Scores, available at <https://freedomhouse.org/
report/freedom-world-2016/table-scores>. Political rights and civil liberties are scored on a 1 to 7 scale, with 7
being least free. Aggregate score of 0 is worst, aggregate score of 100 is best.
5
Data (except Afghanistan) are from International Energy Agency, “Statistics,” available at <www.iea.org/
statistics/statisticssearch/>. For Afghanistan consumption, see Index Mundi, “Electricity Consumption Per Capita,”
available at <www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=81000>. By comparison, Russia’s consumption per capita is
8,763 and U.S. consumption per capita is 12,884.
gional scholar Alexander Cooley frames the problem as “Great Games,

Local Rules,” arguing that Central Asian leaders have been highly suc-
cessful at serving their own interests while the United States, China, and
Russia vie for influence.3 Although the leaders have managed to entrench
themselves and gain extensive side payments, the economic and political
development of the region has not been well served by the way the game
has been played to date. Central Asia’s future prospects for success lie
in managing that overlap of great power and local interests strategically
rather than in the narrow personal interests of the leaders. A critical com-
ponent of this is improved integration among the Central Asian states.
Development Traps and Central Asia
• 339 •
Sabonis-Helf
Despite more than 25 years of independence that coincided with a pe-

riod of world economic growth during which many states experienced
a dramatic rise in standard of living, Central Asia as a region continues
to be plagued by slow, uneven development and poor governance. The
Human Development Index for each of the five states is higher than that
of Afghanistan (and in some of the past 20 years has shown margin-
al improvement), but as table 1 shows, other indicators of governance,
corruption, and ease of doing business make it clear that the capitals
of Central Asian states have much in common with Kabul. The Soviet
legacy of education has been preserved to the extent that literacy in the
region remains high, but many aspects of public health, education, and
domestic infrastructure have continued to deteriorate over the years. The
states have not succeeded in diversifying their economies, and remain
economically hostage to commodities prices and poor governance.
Electricity per capita is provided in table 1 as one illustration of devel-
opment level. Although electricity generation has increased in all Central
Asian states since 1992, supply per capita in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and
Uzbekistan is low enough to suggest that (in spite of Soviet claims to the
contrary) the region was never fully electrified and still has significant
gaps in electricity provision. World Bank survey data provide additional
support for this, finding in 2015 that many rural households in Tajik-
istan were not connected to the grid at all and that 38 to 58 percent of
the connected rural households experienced regular outages even in the
May–September season,4 which is particularly striking since Tajikistan
and Kyrgyzstan are large-scale exporters of electricity during that season.
Examination of the World Bank’s “Ease of Doing Business 2015”
data provides more evidence that the states are poor performers. Uz-
bekistan ranks lowest in the broader region for its performance in reg-
istering property and in trading across its borders, and Tajikistan has
the lowest regional performance in paying taxes and highest cost (per
container) to export or import. Kazakhstan, despite its higher level of
development, has the worst regional score in number of days needed to
export a container (79) while Uzbekistan has the worst regional score
in number of days needed to import (104).5 These numbers point to a
striking problem: the Central Asian states continue to make it difficult
to engage in commerce within their countries, but even more so, they
make it difficult to engage in commerce across the states. Not only is
this “great crossroads” poorly connected to larger markets, but it also
connects poorly across even the local boundaries.
Three of the five Central Asian states are highly dependent on remit-
tances from labor migration. For Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and to a lesser
extent Uzbekistan, participation in the regional economy is through the
• 340 •
Central Asia
export of mostly unskilled labor, and mostly to Russia. Indeed, Tajikistan

is the most remittance-dependent country on Earth.
In his landmark work The Bottom Billion, development scholar and
World Bank expert Paul Collier identifies four key traps that continue
to prevent some nations from experiencing development even in peri-
ods of rising global prosperity. Although his expertise is concentrated in
Africa, Collier’s work makes frequent reference to Central Asia because
the region is home to three of the four classic “development traps” he
identifies. They include the problem of poor governance in a small state,
the problem of being landlocked with bad neighbors, and the natural
resources trap.6 The fourth development trap he identifies—the conflict
trap—is less relevant to the Central Asian cases (except for Tajikistan).
Poor governance is more problematic in small states than in large
ones, he argues, because a rapacious state with small territory has a ten-
dency to extract wealth from any region or business that tends to suc-
ceed, thereby discouraging entrepreneurship that might rise from below.
(Larger states with poor governance, by contrast, often have pockets of
economic prosperity far from the central government.) Being landlocked
with bad neighbors is particularly problematic because access to inter-
national markets—for export or for import—depends not only on the
state’s own infrastructure (roads, electricity, rule of law) but also on the
infrastructure of neighboring states. According to Collier, the landlocked
trap is particularly associated with labor migration, with the home state
often becoming over-reliant on remittances. This is highly visible in Cen-
tral Asia: Tajikistan’s remittances in 2014 constituted 36.6 percent of
gross domestic product (GDP)—the highest proportion of remittance
reliance in the world. Kyrgyzstan was not far behind, with remittances
constituting 30 percent of GDP in 2014, and remittances in Uzbekistan
(although Uzbekistan denies that labor migration is a problem) appear to
have constituted 9.3 percent of GDP in 2014.7 The regional governments
do a relatively poor job of promoting fair or safe migration through good
policy compared to the governments of South or East Asia, which leads
to unintended consequences. A recent U.S. Government study identifies
labor migrants from Central Asia as a source of highly valued foreign vol-
unteers for violent extremist organizations in Iraq and Syria, according to
the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.8
Collier’s third trap, the natural resources trap, offers states the op-
tion of deriving state revenues from commodities extraction rather than
development of the people. Hence natural resource riches can lead to a
tendency on the part of a government to ignore the people. Only three of
the Central Asian states are rich in oil or gas: gas provides 81 percent of
export revenues in Turkmenistan, gas and minerals provide 44 percent of
• 341 •
Sabonis-Helf
export revenues in Uzbekistan, and oil provides 58 percent of revenues

in Kazakhstan.9 Despite these facts, it is instructive to note that exports
of hydroelectricity have been significant sources of income for the state
in both Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan and that exports of commodities are
central in the economies of all five states.10
Collier’s framework aptly characterizes the regional development
challenge in Central Asia. The states discourage entrepreneurship with-
in, make it difficult to trade across states, and base their revenues on
commodities rather than development of human capital. Commodities
booms and labor remittances have provided what economic success the
region has enjoyed. The problem of being landlocked has been exacer-
bated for Central Asian states by their difficult regional relations—the
Kazakhs focus on Russian and Chinese relations, with some investment
in Kyrgyzstan but with difficult relations with Uzbekistan. The Uzbeks
have contentious relations with all neighbors but especially with Kyrgyz-
stan (motivated by Uzbek ethnic minority politics) and with Tajikistan
(motivated by the politics of water and dams). The Turkmen, registered
as permanently neutral before the United Nations, refuse to engage in
any regional agreements. Although there have been international efforts
to better integrate the region since 1992, tensions among the various
states make such integration problematic.
Choosing a Leviathan
With the problems of non-integration plaguing the region, the role of
outside actors in connecting the Central Asian states to each other—if
only to reach markets beyond Central Asia—is critical. The low levels of
trust among the states cause each Central Asian state to place hopes in
outside actors to moderate the behavior of its immediate neighbors. The
two leading competitors in the region—Russia and China—have each
taken a different approach.
For Russia the preferred approach is for the Central Asian states to
join the EEU. This union, which came into being in January 2015, al-
lows for a common customs area. The common market envisioned by
the EEU is expected to go into effect in 2025, with the intervening years
being used to harmonize legislation and practices.11 Kazakhstan was a
founding member, as was Kyrgyzstan, but each state had some skepti-
cism about the future of the EEU from the outset. Kazakhstan joined the
World Trade Organization (WTO) prior to joining the EEU to ensure
that it would be bound by international rules and regulations, limiting
Russia’s power to fundamentally reshape markets. Kyrgyzstan (long a
member of the WTO) secured a clause in its agreement with the EEU
• 342 •
Central Asia
that ensured it would be able to continue with its economic ties to China
without interference. Russia has indicated (although not yet implement-
ed) that it will give preference to labor migrants from EEU countries over
non-EEU ones, a factor that strongly shaped Kyrgyzstan’s decision to
join. Although Tajikistan is exploring the possibility of membership, it is
unclear how eager Russia is to add further to the union at this time—and
a closer economic relationship with impoverished Tajikistan is not nec-
essarily in the Kremlin’s interests. There has been no evident discussion
about expanding the EEU to include Uzbekistan (whose relations with
Russia are off and on) or Turkmenistan (which remains permanently
neutral and therefore does not belong even to the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization [SCO]). Meanwhile the economic recession in Russia has
somewhat reduced its attractiveness to Central Asian migrants. Accord-
ing to World Bank data, Tajik migrants to Russia decreased by 3.8 per-
cent and Uzbek migrants decreased by 18.6 percent in 2015.12
While Russia’s current economic offering, the EEU, focuses on in-
stitutions, China’s efforts in the region clearly focus on something
more immediately attractive to the region: infrastructure. In September
2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping took the opportunity of a speech at
Nazarbayev University in Astana, Kazakhstan, to announce China’s plans
to build a “Silk Road Economic Belt” across Eurasia. This Silk Road be-
came the land-based component of China’s subsequent “One Belt, One
Road” (OBOR) strategy, which envisions land-based infrastructure con-
necting China to Europe via Central Asia (One Belt) as well as a maritime
network linking Asia to Africa via the Indian Ocean (One Road).13 The
policy envisions long-term political cooperation and cultural exchange,
but physical blueprints focus on infrastructure in three areas: transporta-
tion, energy, and telecommunications.14
Physical aspects of the OBOR include pipelines, railways, and high-
ways. The entire program is exceedingly ambitious—involving some 68
nations—but Central Asia does seem to be enjoying some pride of place
in the project to date. Analysts of China’s OBOR strategy in Central Asia
note that China’s infrastructure development in the region serves several
purposes at once: China is able to export its current overcapacity in in-
frastructure development to neighboring states, this new infrastructure
potentially helps stabilize the Xinjiang region by better linking it eco-
nomically to its nearest neighbors, and it helps China reap the benefits
of access to natural resource markets as well as to consumer markets that
have been isolated.
As envisioned, financing will come from China bilaterally, from Chi-
nese private investors, and from multilateral funds. China often cites the
Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) as an important multilateral
• 343 •
Sabonis-Helf
source for Silk Road project financing. China holds a 30 percent stake
in the AIIB, which is expecting to have a $100 billion capital base. Since
the articles of agreement for the AIIB require 75 percent support to make
major decisions, China’s priorities will be well reflected in funding. Chi-
na is also expecting to use the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and
South Africa) New Development Bank (which also expects to establish a
capital base of $100 billion), although it will have less clout in that or-
ganization. China is also believed to be pressuring the SCO to establish
funding available for these projects.15 Although the ambition and scope
of China’s OBOR strategy are striking, Central Asia has an important
place. Oil and gas pipelines from Central Asia to China are already well
established (this point is discussed in the next section), and China has
established a $40 billion Silk Road Fund for additional projects in the
region. Analysts note that even if China does not follow through on all its
investment promises, projects already undertaken with Chinese funding
represent more investment than Central Asia has received from any other
source since independence.
Oil and Gas

Efforts to acquire energy resources have played a large and early role in
China’s attention to Central Asia. Much international attention in the
past decade was drawn to Central Asia because it contains large un-
tapped reserves of oil and gas, located in countries that are not members
of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries cartel. The
Caspian Sea, when first opened to development in the 1990s, was the
scene of scrambles from major oil companies all over the world, and the
celebrated “deal of the century” signed in 1994 gave rights to develop the
Azeri-Chirag-Gunashli field offshore of Azerbaijan.16 Central Asia was
more difficult, but promising, and attracted large investment, particular-
ly from Chevron, in the early years.
In the decade between 2004 and 2014, production continued to rise,
although not as rapidly as anticipated, delayed by the global economic
downturn and low prices. Production of oil from Kazakhstan rose from
1.2 to 1.7 million barrels a day. Production of gas in Turkmenistan rose
from 52.9 billion cubic meters per annum (BCMA) to 69.3 BCMA.17
China was closely involved in increases of production from both states.
China is a key investor in Kazakhstan’s oil sector, and Kazakhstan sent 16
percent of its 2013 oil exports to China.18 China is also the key investor
in Turkmenistan’s natural gas sector, and imports more than 50 percent
of all Turkmenistan exports. In both cases, China is continuing to invest
and has expectations of increasing import levels. When we examine the
• 344 •
Central Asia
Table 2. Central Asia Exports in Natural Gas: 2008, 2010, and 2014 in Billion Cubic Meters
per Annum (BCMA)
Origin > 2008 2008 as % 2010 2010 as % 2014 2014 as %
Destination BCMA BCMA BCMA
Turkmenistan > 47.1 86 trade*/71 9.68 49 trade*/23 9 22 trade*/13
Russia production** production** production**
Uzbekistan > 13.5 100 trade/22 10.32 76 trade/17 4.1 48 trade/7
Russia production production production
Kazakhstan > 9.6 100 trade/32 11.95 100 trade/35.5 10.9 96 trade/56
Russia production production production
Turkmenistan > N/A 3.55 18 trade/ 25.5 61 trade/37

China 8 production production
Uzbekistan > N/A N/A 2.4 23.5 trade/3
China production
Kazakhstan > N/A N/A 0.4 3.5 trade/2
China production
Source: For 2008 data, see BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2009 (London: British
Petroleum, 2009), 24, 27, 30. For 2010 data, see BP Statistical Review of World Energy June
2011 (London: British Petroleum, 2011), 22, 28. For 2014 data, see BP Statistical Review of
World Energy June 2015 (London: British Petroleum, 2014), 22, 28.
*Percentage of natural gas trade.
**Trade relationship as percentage of overall natural gas production.
years since 2009, a striking pattern emerges: Russia lost Central Asia, at
least in energy transit terms.
Historically, Russia had been the transit state for all exports of oil
and gas from the region, using its power to allow and disallow access to
markets. Early after the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia established
a practice of using Central Asian production as “swing” capacity, which
allowed access to the pipelines only when demand in European markets
was high enough to use full Russian production plus Central Asia. The
rapid development of pipelines, which began coming on line in 2001,
began to change that, and by 2010 the picture of energy in the region
was starkly different. Kazakhstan’s oil production increased and its nat-
ural gas production declined (as it increasingly used reinjected gas to
improve the productivity of the oil fields). Uzbekistan’s production re-
mained relatively constant, but its export of oil and gas declined sharply,
as it used more of its natural endowments to support autarkic industries
within Uzbekistan. Turkmenistan’s production of natural gas rose sharp-
ly, but it simultaneously reduced exports and developed entirely new
routes in an effort to secure independence and prosperity. Table 2 gives
a sense of the changes and shifts in natural gas flows from the region.
As table 2 shows, the clear winner in this development has been Chi-
na, particularly with regard to Turkmenistan. It is instructive how much
of China’s relationship with Turkmenistan resulted from a Russian policy
• 345 •
Sabonis-Helf
blunder. China did not so much “win” Turkmenistan as Russia “lost” it.
During the global economic downturn, in an effort to preserve scarce
profits, Gazprom responded slowly to a rupture on the main Turkmeni-
stan pipeline (and, some argue, caused it). Turkmenistan was unable to
export any gas via its main line for several months, throwing the nation
into a severe economic crisis. By the end of that crisis, Turkmenistan had
committed to completing pipeline infrastructure to China—infrastruc-
ture that had been discussed for years but on which there had been little
progress. In short, the cost to Russia of Gazprom using Turkmenistan as
its “swing” capacity was the geostrategic loss of Turkmenistan as an en-
ergy ally. Although Turkmenistan accounted for only 2 percent of global
production in 2015, it has the fourth largest proven reserves of natural
gas in the world, indicating a promising future.19
Construction of Turkmenistan’s first pipeline to China preceded artic-
ulation of the OBOR strategy, but now the network of natural gas pipe-
lines connecting Central Asian gas to markets in China is seen as an im-
portant component of the strategy. The Central Asia–China gas pipeline,
the longest pipeline in the world, transits Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan
on its way to China. It is currently comprised of three lines, with a total
capacity of 55 BCMA. A fourth line, currently under construction, will
take a different route, flowing through Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyr-
gyzstan, and will add another 25-BCMA capacity. Since the completion
of the Central Asia–China gas pipeline, Turkmenistan’s production has
risen by over 25 BCMA.
This infrastructure is especially attractive to China as it provides for
an expansion of supply that is overland (and therefore not involved in
growing pressures on the Strait of Malacca), and it enables China to tap
into—and presumably become a near-monopsony for—available but
landlocked natural gas in Central Asia. At the outset, Turkmenistan pro-
vided all the natural gas that traverses the Central Asia–China gas pipe-
lines, but China has since pursued development of natural gas supply
in Uzbekistan and in Kazakhstan, with the intention of these nations
becoming suppliers rather than merely transit states for China. At the
same time, China is involved in infrastructure improvement that will
help gasify regions of these countries that do not currently have such
infrastructure.20
The fourth line of the gas pipeline, Line D, which takes a new route
and is still under construction in late 2016, is particularly attractive to
the energy-poor states of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. They will receive
both transit fees and lower dependence on their historical gas supplier,
Uzbekistan.21 China is billing this route choice as an aspect of regional
development. This route also helps discipline the main transit states by
• 346 •
Central Asia
ensuring there is an alternate route in the event of unrest or dispute. It

is also most likely a reflection of China’s interest in Tajikistan’s natural
gas potential. Although recent efforts to exploit Tajik gas have proved
uneconomic (the gas reserves are at an unusual depth and believed to lie
under a salt layer), the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC)
and Russia’s Gazprom both remain investors in spite of the departure of
Western firms (most notably the American firm Tethys).
Oil is also being developed by China, albeit more slowly. Kazakhstan,
the most important producer of oil in the region, has seen an increase of
30 percent in its production. The light sweet crude characteristic of Ka-
zakhstan is highly desirable, and although the Kazakhstan-China pipe-
line completed in 2006 was not filled to capacity until January 2011,
China remains interested in investing in the oil sector in Kazakhstan.22
CNPC has an 8.3 percent stake in the Kashagan oil field, the largest
oil field outside the Middle East, expected to begin producing in 2016
(although it has experienced significant delays already).23 Once the con-
siderable technical hurdles are overcome, Kashagan is likely to produce
1.5 million barrels a day.24 CNPC is currently the majority owner of two
major oil companies, AktobeMunai and PetroKazakhstan.25 Another
Chinese parastatal, Sinopec, has a memorandum of understanding with
KazMunayGas (Kazakhstan’s State Oil and Gas Company) for coopera-
tion in exploration and development.26
China is interested not only in production but also in long-term ar-
rangements that bind the Kazakh energy sector more closely to Chinese
interests. For example, during the low oil prices that caused the Kazakh
oil industry to be cash-strapped, in December 2015 the private Chinese
firm CEFC Energy agreed to take control of one unit of KazMunayGas.
This agreement, valued at between $500 million and $1 billion, was part
of a $4 billion agreement that focused on oil and gas but also involved
uranium mining and telecommunications.27
Other Trade and Economic Activity

Trade between China and Central Asia is estimated to have been $350 to
$750 million per year in the 1990s.28 From 2000 to 2010, estimates of
China’s overall annual trade rose from $1 billion to $30 billion. In subse-
quent years, Central Asia trade with China surpassed trade with Russia,
and in 2013 stood at $50 billion. During that period, time required for
import and export declined significantly, although Central Asia contin-
ues to take more time for imports and exports than most of China’s other
trade partners.29
• 347 •
Sabonis-Helf
Although commodities have so far dominated the trade from Central

Asia, China emphasizes that its interests are much broader in the long
term. China’s investments in the transportation sector in Uzbekistan, ex-
tension of scholarships to students from SCO countries,30 and investment
in telecommunications in the region are all evidence of broader interests.
China also characterizes the OBOR investments as encouraging economic
growth and integration rather than an effort to expand its own politi-
cal influence. One goal of China’s strategy, according to regional scholar
Thomas Zimmerman, is to leverage greater economic integration with
neighboring states to promote the use of the renminbi in global trade.31
China’s investments in Kazakhstan—in uranium, telecommunica-
tions, the dry port in Khorgos, asphalt factories, and free-trade zones on
the border—do demonstrate an interest beyond energy trade. But Chi-
na’s asymmetric advantage in trade will not likely change. Kazakhstan,
which has received the most investment so far from China, represents a
tiny portion of China’s overall trade. The Washington Post reported that in
the first quarter of 2015, trade with Kazakhstan represented 0.25 percent
of China’s global trade.32 Meanwhile, for Kazakhstan, China represents
15.9 percent of all exports. For Turkmenistan, the relationship is even
more strikingly asymmetric, with China purchasing 69.7 percent of its
exports.33 Concern that China will become a monopsony for Turkmen
gas is well founded.
Security Climate
Although Central Asia trade has shifted decisively toward China, Russia
continues to play a soft-power and a security role. To date Russia retains
the soft power of language: news services in Russian remain popular,
Russian remains one of two official languages in Tajikistan, Kazakhstan,
and Kyrgyzstan, and Russia provides almost the only coverage in the
region of international affairs. It also retains security relationships with
most Central Asian states, as reflected in table 3. The Collective Security
Treaty Organization, led by Russia, was established in 1992 and includes
three of the five states. China shares some (minimal) security relations
with Russia through the SCO, established in 2001 and including four of
the five Central Asian states. The security obligations of the SCO have in
recent years expanded somewhat and include military cooperation and
intelligence-sharing. The SCO, however, focuses on countering separat-
ism and extremism, while the CSTO is a more comprehensive intergov-
ernmental military alliance.
While Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan have opted out of security infra-
structure linking with Russia, the other three states retain military and
• 348 •
Central Asia
Table 3. Central Asia Militaries

Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan Turkmenistan Uzbekistan
Armed 31,000 army 8,500 army 6,800 army 18,500 army 40,000 army
Forces 12,000 air force 800 air force 4,300 air force 13,700 air force
Personnel 3,000 navy 700 navy
Cooperation Collective CSTO joint CSTO joint Not a CTSO Withdrew from
with Russia Security Treaty exercises exercises member CSTO in June
Organization 2012
(CSTO) joint
exercises
Russian Joint air Kant 201st None None
Military defense Kara-Balta Motor Rifle
Presence Baikonur Communications Division in
Space Facility Center Dushanbe
Submarine test
site
Shanghai Founding Founding Founding Not an SCO Founding
Cooperation member member member member member
Organization
(SCO)
state security links. Military security is arguably the only sphere in Cen-
tral Asia where Russia actively plays a leading role. Russia seems eager to
maintain these relationships but has limited resources available to inter-
vene in ethnic or sectarian conflicts, as evidenced by Russia’s choice to
stay out of 2010 ethnic clashes in Kyrgyzstan, despite the Kyrgyz govern-
ment’s requests for assistance.34
Beyond threats from each other, and concerns about their militarily
powerful northern neighbor, threats to Central Asian states are largely
internal. Central Asian governments voice growing concern about the
threat of Islamic extremism, but these risks are often exaggerated. As
some analysts note, the governments often misrepresent political protest
in order to justify repression. Also, because of relatively effective state
repression in Central Asia, several militant groups (including the Islamic
Movement of Uzbekistan) have moved the base of their operations from
Central Asia to South Asia.35 While not an existential threat to the state
in Central Asia in the near term, foreign fighters from Central Asia have
been and are a source of instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well
as in Iraq and Syria. Their return home to Central Asia is a concern for
the long term. The role of opium routes in financing both extremism and
criminal organizations is another key issue that the Central Asian states
remain poorly equipped to address.
Beyond the commitments of the SCO, China has not sought to project
military power into the Central Asian region, but most analysts expect
that China will protect its growing economic stakes and that China will
remain vigilant against terrorism, separatism, and extremism.36 China is
positioning itself to, at a minimum, mediate between the Central Asian
• 349 •
Sabonis-Helf
states. Regional scholar Alexander Cooley notes that the legal structure of
Central Asia’s pipelines gives China an unusual role: each country along
the Central Asia–China pipeline route has a separate joint venture agree-
ment with China concerning the pipeline on its territory. China owns 50
percent, while the host nation owns the other. This means that any region-
al dispute that interferes with the flow of gas will be mediated by China.37
While the implications of this for price, volume, and maintenance are
obvious, it also suggests that China itself will take responsibility—and
hold each transit state individually responsible—for continuing the flow
of natural gas regardless of other problems among the states.
U.S. Interests in Central Asia

The United States does not have stakes in the region comparable to ei-
ther China or Russia. Assistance for transitions to democratic rule has
tapered off throughout the region, a reflection of diminished hopes for
governance transformation given the levels of Central Asian corruption,
human rights violations, and the consolidation of state structures in most
states to prevent the rise of further “color revolutions.” Between 1992
and 2014, total U.S. economic and military assistance to Central Asia
amounted to approximately $6.8 billion. In 2010, during the Afghan-
istan surge, assistance reached its high point of $648 million. As the
war in Afghanistan began to wind down, so did U.S. assistance, which
totaled about $148 million in 2014.38 In spite of its diminished contri-
butions, are there useful roles for the United States to play in refereeing
this phase of a Great Game in Central Asia?
As noted by some analysts’ recommendations on the future of U.S.
policy in Central Asia:
few of Russia’s former client states in the region are likely

to seek an outright confrontation with Moscow. But all can
be counted upon to seek partners elsewhere to help balance
their difficult northern neighbor. Russia’s goal of securing
a privileged sphere of interest in Central Asia will prove
elusive.39
The United States need not be concerned about the Russia-China

competition. These states will, to some extent, balance each other. Chi-
na displays some reluctance to become involved in security affairs of
the region, while Russia has ongoing security involvement but displays
little effort to develop coherent economic strategy in the region (other
than the EEU, which has not yet enjoyed any economic success). Infra-
• 350 •
Central Asia
structure sponsored by China offers better development prospects than

continued isolation, and Russia’s economic interests in China are likely
to moderate the competition.
It is possible, however, for the United States to help ensure that Cen-
tral Asia benefits from the competition and that U.S. interests in the rules
of global trade are served as well. The United States could help the region
with designing better remittance transfer systems and fairer practices for
migrant labor in order to ensure better treatment and therefore lower
levels of radicalization. The “Beijing Consensus,” in which China focuses
on economic relations with scant attention to politics, is welcomed by
Central Asian leaders, but it makes all of China’s projects vulnerable to
corruption. The United States, in spite of its distance from the region,
has comparative advantages in rule of law, helping states develop the
ability to contract and supervise effectively. As Alexander Cooley notes,
China’s skill with the “hardware” of infrastructure is not matched with
skill in the “software” of market institutions and norms.40 The United
States may play a useful role in helping the states of Central Asia better
develop their software skills in designing, monitoring, and enforcing in-
frastructure contracts more effectively.
Both China, which wants the infrastructure completed, and the Cen-
tral Asian states, which want quality control, could benefit from technical
assistance in design and supervision of major contracts. The Pakistanis
have discovered (through U.S. technical assistance) that the quality of
China’s infrastructure construction depends in great measure on the host
country’s ability and willingness to provide oversight and enforce quality
control.
The United States could also share its rule-of-law approach with the
multilateral development banks which China now leads. Since the AIIB
is poised to play an important role in development projects in the region,
membership would provide the United States with some insight into
its investment decisions and conditions, and Central Asia would benefit
from the higher level of transparency that an investment bank following
best practices could offer. One specific example is China’s expressed in-
terest in the Central Asia South Asia–1000 project (the U.S.-supported
effort to make it possible for Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to sell hydro-
power in the southern markets of Afghanistan and Pakistan). China was
involved in early discussions on the project and retains an interest in
participation. The president of the World Bank has expressed enthusi-
asm for cooperating with AIIB on this project.41 To do so would further
promote the sharing of best practices.
Only Central Asian actors can reduce the role of corruption and its
ability to undermine the benefits of development efforts. A U.S. role of
• 351 •
Sabonis-Helf
referee, however, in which U.S. assistance focuses on better agreements

and enforcement of contracts, can help Central Asia along a path toward
development. The United States will retain concerns with the weakness
of states in the region, but the political-economic success of the states is
the best bulwark against spreading extremism. After decades of inability
to make their own way to world markets, Central Asia countries seem
to welcome China’s ability to do so. If China offers Central Asia the best
route out of its development traps, helping Central Asia play the Great
Game in its own long-term interests is perhaps the best contribution to
security in the region.
The author would like to thank her National Defense University col-
leagues Dr. Vivian Walker and Colonel Robert Timm, USA, as well as Dr.
Gavin Helf for their insights on this chapter.
Notes
1
The name in either formulation means “place of the Kazakhs.”
2
“Don’t Call Me Stan,” The Economist, February 22, 2014. This article does not note
the fact that, in the Soviet era, the region was often termed “Kazakhstan and Central
Asia,” a reflection of Kazakhstan’s higher status in Moscow’s eyes.
3
See Alexander Cooley, Great Games, Local Rules: The New Great Power Contest in
Central Asia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).
4
See World Bank Report, “Listening2Tajikistan: Survey of Wellbeing,” April 25, 2016,
based on a survey of 3000 households, available at <www.worldbank.org/en/country/
tajikistan/brief/listening2tajikistan>.
5
The World Bank defines Europe and Central Asia as a region that includes Albania,
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyz Repub-
lic, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino,
Serbia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. Turkmenistan is not included in
the region, presumably for lack of reliable data. See Doing Business 2015: Going Beyond
Efficiency, 12th ed. (Washington, DC: World Bank Group, 2014).
6
See Paul Collier, The Bottom Billion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
7
Migration and Remittances: Recent Developments and Outlook, World Bank Migration
and Development Brief #26 (Washington, DC: World Bank, April 2016), annexes, 22.
8
Noah Tucker, Central Asian Involvement in the Conflict in Syria and Iraq: Drivers and
Responses (Arlington, VA: Management Systems International, May 4, 2015).
9
Based on 2014 data as provided on the “Observatory of Economic Complexity,” MIT
Media Atlas, available at: <http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/>.
10
Kyrgyzstan exported 12 percent of its electricity production and Tajikistan exported
6 percent of its electricity production in 2012, even though both states faced domestic
• 352 •
Central Asia
electricity crises. See Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The World Factbook, available at
<www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/>.
11
Eugene Rumer, Richard Sokolsky, and Paul Stronski, U.S. Policy Toward Central Asia
3.0 (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, January 2016), 12.
12
Migration and Remittances, 23.
13
Thomas Zimmerman, The New Silk Roads: China, the U.S., and the Future of Central
Asia (New York: New York University Center on International Cooperation, October
2015), introduction.
14
Ibid., 7.
15
Ibid., 8.
16
For a full discussion of the negotiations, see Daniel Yergin, The Quest: Energy, Securi-
ty, and the Remaking of the Modern World (New York: Penguin Press, 2011), 43–63.
17
See BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2015, 64th ed. (London: British Petro-
leum, 2014), 8, 22.
18
Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, “Kazakhstan Interna-
tional Energy Data and Analysis,” January 14, 2015 edition, available at <www.eia.gov/
beta/international/analysis.cfm?iso=KAZ>.
19
Turkmenistan contains 9.4 percent of world reserves and supplied only 2 percent
of global production in 2014. Data according to BP Statistical Review of World Energy June
2015, 20, 22.
20
Martha Brill Olcott, “China’s Unmatched Influence in Central Asia,” Carnegie En-
dowment for International Peace, September 18, 2013.
21
Ibid.
22
Kazakhstan-China Crude Oil Pipeline, Kazakhstan, data available at <www.hydro-
carbons-technology.com/projects>.
23
Usen Suleimen, “Energy Cooperation between Kazakhstan and China,” Astana
Times (Kazakhstan), January 14, 2014, available at: <http://astanatimes.com/2014/01/
energy-cooperation-kazakhstan-china/>.
24
Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, “Kazakhstan Country
Analysis,” available at <www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis.cfm?iso=KAZ>. Other
international corporate investors in Kashagan include Eni, ExxonMobil, Shell, Total, and
Inpex.
25
Bobo Lo, China’s Energy Policy Toward Central Asia, Short Term Policy Brief #54,
Europe-China Research and Advice Network, April 2012.
26
Chen Aizhu and Adam Rose, “Private Chinese Firm to Take Control of Unit of
Kazakh State Oil Company,” Reuters, December 15, 2015.
27
Ibid.
28
Rumer, Sokolsky, and Stronski, 9.
29
For a full discussion of this transformation and its significance, see Alexander Cool-
ey, “China’s Changing Role in Central Asia and Implications for U.S. Policy: From Trading
Partner to Collective Goods Provider,” prepared remarks for “Looking West: China and
Central Asia,” U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, March 18, 2015,
available at <www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Cooley%20Testimony_3.18.15.pdf>.
30
For these and other examples, see Olcott.
31
Zimmerman, 6.
• 353 •
Sabonis-Helf
32
Simon Denyer, “In Central Asia, Chinese Inroads in Russia’s Back Yard,” Washington
Post, December 27, 2015.
33
The World Factbook.
34
Rumer, Sokolsky, and Stronski, 13.
35
Ibid., 9.
36
Ibid., 10.
37
Cooley, “China’s Changing Role,” 2.
38
For a detailed discussion of U.S. assistance, see Rumer, Sokolsky, and Stronski, 17.
39
Ibid., 13.
40
Cooley, “China’s Changing Role,” 4.
41
Zimmerman, 15.
• 354 •
17
The High North
David Auerswald
When it comes to security policy, there are three distinct Arctic subregions:
North America, the North Atlantic and Europe, and Russia. As Arctic ice melts
from climate change, the security of the United States and its allies will be
increasingly challenged in the Atlantic and European Arctic subregion. Russian
behavior is becoming more aggressive, the Arctic states have different priorities
and approaches to regional issues, and the region lacks an international forum
to resolve hard-power disputes. This chapter advances four initiatives to
manage Arctic relations in light of these developments: amending the 2013 U.S.
Arctic strategy to account for regional changes, creating a regional forum for
security and economic discussions, initiating a Western security organization
in the European Arctic subregion to complement the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, and improving U.S. capabilities to operate across the Arctic.
Each initiative supports U.S. regional interests at a relatively low cost.
T he security of the United States and its allies depends on preventing

regional hegemony or coercion by hostile powers. Economic pros-
perity depends on the protection of the global commons. How do those
interests play out in the Arctic?1 U.S. security interests there are closely
linked to our allies’ and partner nations’ freedom from both coercion and
threats to their territorial integrity. U.S. economic interests are closely
linked to the maintenance of exclusive economic zones (EEZs) for re-
source extraction and to regional freedom of navigation in Arctic interna-
tional waters. Developments in the Arctic and neighboring regions could
put security interests at risk within the next 5 years, the time horizon for
this assessment.
Not all U.S. interests are applicable in all parts of the Arctic. Indeed,
the premise behind this chapter is that when it comes to security policy,
there are three Arctic subregions. The North American Arctic is domi-
nated by the United States and is largely peaceful. The primary concerns
• 355 •
Auerswald
there are search and rescue and early warning of nuclear attack. The
Siberian Arctic is dominated by Russia and is also largely peaceful. The
final Arctic subregion is in Northern Europe and above the North Atlan-
tic (for simplicity’s sake, called the European Arctic in this chapter). This
is a contested Arctic, a place of increasing security competition between
East and West and the most likely Arctic subregion for instability, crises,
and even military conflict. As a result, much of this chapter is devoted to
the European Arctic.
Based on author interviews with more than 70 current and former se-
nior government officials in the region, the most immediate regional con-
cern for the European Arctic is Russia’s growing proclivity to challenge
the international order, as demonstrated through its actions in Ukraine,
its remilitarization of its northern and eastern provinces, and its infringe-
ments on Nordic and Baltic states’ airspace and territorial waters. Rus-
sian actions have heightened threat perceptions among European Arctic
states and led to the belief among security professionals in the region
that the Arctic will not be compartmentalized from broader geopolitical
concerns for much longer. In the words of Norwegian Foreign Minis-
ter Borge Brende, the “Arctic cannot be viewed in isolation from events
elsewhere.”2 Indeed the relatively cooperative dynamic within the region
on climate research, pollution controls, and search-and-rescue protocols
is already being eclipsed by diverging policies on refugees, European
integration via the European Union (EU), security policy priorities, and
resource extraction.
At the same time, Arctic states have no ready-made forum for ad-
dressing regional, hard-power economic and security concerns. Going
through the United Nations (UN) brings a wide variety of non-Arctic
actors into the discussion, which is anathema to some Arctic states. The
primary regional venue, the Arctic Council, is limited by an explicit fo-
cus on environmental cooperation and economic development. Absent a
new regional forum, there is no easy way to bridge the significant differ-
ences between Nordic approaches to regional issues and those empha-
sized by the United States and Canada, to say nothing of Russia.
Just because a solution is hard does not make it impossible. Prudent,
relatively modest initiatives could address many of these challenges and
protect U.S. and Western interests across the European Arctic subregion.
As discussed in more detail later, U.S. Arctic strategy should account for
Russian challenges to the existing international order. The United States
should establish a new confidence-building forum for economic and se-
curity negotiations in the Arctic. At the same time, the United States and
its Nordic partners should engage in visible Nordic-Baltic war planning
and exercises to deter Russian coercion in the region. And finally, the
• 356 •
The High North
United States needs to invest in the infrastructure and surface ships to

monitor, reassure, and maintain a surface presence in Alaskan waters and
the European Arctic.
Activity in the Arctic

The Arctic had been a relatively quiet region for 25 years, the domain of
environmental scientists and scattered indigenous peoples, with pockets
of industrialized activity in the European subregion. The Arctic geopo-
litical situation is changing rapidly, however. Climate change is one rea-
son. Fourteen of the last 15 years have seen the warmest average global
temperatures ever recorded, with 2015 breaking all previous records.
And the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the globe, with much
of the European and western Russian Arctic remaining relatively ice-free
for much of the year. The eastern two-thirds of the Russian Arctic clears
next, while the eastern North American and Greenland portions of the
Arctic remain ice-bound for much of the year. Melting ice has led to
speculation that the Arctic would become a new hotbed of global activity.
Use of the Northwest Passage across Canada or the Northern Sea
Route across Russia could shorten transcontinental shipment distances
by at least a third compared to existing routes, and open new venues for
destination tourism.3 Melting Arctic ice was also seen as enabling the
next resource gold rush. A 2008 report by the U.S. Geological Survey
revealed that 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30 percent
of the world’s undiscovered natural gas could lie in the Arctic, with 90
percent of that in Arctic waters, to say nothing of huge ore and rare-earth
deposits in the region.4 With oil prices exceeding $130 per barrel before
the 2008 financial crisis, and then fluctuating around $90 to $100 per
barrel from 2010 to late 2014, there was every reason to expect signifi-
cant oil and gas extraction in the Arctic.
Reality has diverged from expectations. The resource gold rush stalled
and shows few signs of occurring in the next 5 years, in large part due
to plummeting oil and gas prices.5 Environmental concerns have also
played a role in slowing hydrocarbon extraction in Arctic waters, partic-
ularly in Norway.6 Finally, Russian extraction continues but has slowed
because post-Crimea sanctions on Russia have made it impossible for
Western companies to enter into joint ventures with Russian oil and gas
companies, and Russia needs Western expertise, technology, and money
for future offshore extraction.7 These developments have put a tempo-
rary halt to additional offshore Arctic energy extraction, even if the long-
term potential remains.
• 357 •
Auerswald
Shipping traffic has not expanded to the extent expected either. De-
creasing amounts of ice do not necessarily translate into ice-free ocean
transit, forcing businesses that rely on just-in-time delivery to avoid Arc-
tic shipping. Traditional international shipping routes may be slower but
are more predictable. Perhaps more importantly, uncertainty about risk
has made it difficult for insurance companies to price insurance, and
shipping companies are reluctant to risk Arctic transshipments without
loss insurance.8 The exception to the rule may be destination shipping.
Even without a boom in offshore resource extraction, there is every likeli-
hood of increased onshore economic activity from tourism, mining, new
high-tech facilities, and cold weather infrastructure. That will require an
increase in destination shipping, particularly for the European and Rus-
sian Arctic subregions given their less extensive ice coverage compared
to the North American Arctic.9
Emerging Challenges
Just because the resource and shipping gold rush has yet to occur does
not mean that the region has been immune to important geopolitical de-
velopments. Three challenges will confront the next U.S. administration
in the region, each focused on but not exclusive to the European Arc-
tic: Russian activities in the Nordic-Baltic region, diverging preferences
across the region on important hard-power issues, and a lack of viable
international venues to discuss and negotiate solutions to regional chal-
lenges. Consider each in turn.
Russia and the Nordic-Baltic States

Until recently, post–Cold War Europe has been a region of peaceful
relations based on international law, democratization, and economic
and political integration. The region had operated from roughly 1990
through 2013 in the belief that armed conflict in Europe was some-
thing that belonged to a bygone era. Northern European politicians,
government officials, and mass publics held the belief that international
law and European solidarity were the future of international politics. In
short, the regional focus was increasingly on a post-Westphalian con-
ception of international politics centered on the European Union.
These beliefs had policy implications. Defense budgets were cut in
each country, as no one perceived a real threat to European territorial in-
tegrity. For example, Norway’s defense budget went from 1.6 percent of
gross domestic product (GDP) in 2005 to 1.4 percent in 2013. Sweden’s
defense spending went from 1.4 percent of GDP in 2005 to 1.15 per-
cent in 2013. Denmark went from 1.4 to 1.25 percent of GDP. Finland
• 358 •
The High North
was the only exception to the rule, increasing from 1.3 to 1.4 percent
of GDP over the same period, largely because of its 833-mile border
with Russia.10 Moreover, the focus within defense establishments was on
expeditionary operations such as the International Security Assistance
Force in Afghanistan rather than territorial defense. The result was that
Denmark gutted its armored, artillery, and air defense capabilities, and
Sweden essentially dissolved its army and its antisubmarine capabilities,
to give just two examples.
That all changed in early 2014 with events in Ukraine. Russian actions
were seen by Nordic states as a fundamental challenge to the European
international order in a way that was not true with the 2008 invasion of
Georgia.11 Nordic states vocally condemned Russian actions. As Norwe-
gian Defense Minister Ine Soereide noted, “We are in a completely new
security situation where Russia shows both the ability and the will to use
military means to achieve political goals.”12 Later she went on to note
that “we are faced with a different Russia. The situation has changed, and
it has changed profoundly. There is no going back to some sort of nor-
mality because it does not exist.”13 Carl Bildt, Swedish Foreign Minister
at the time, stated, “A new sense of being exposed and vulnerable has
descended on the security debates around Europe.” Soon after he noted
that “Russia has emerged as a revisionist power violating and question-
ing the very foundations of the European order of peace and stability.”14
Each country backed up its rhetoric with actions, complying with EU
sanctions on Russia even when such sanctions cost them domestically, as
was the case with Norwegian fish and Finnish dairy and meat exports.
Nordic states are particularly concerned about three things with re-
gard to Russia. First, Russia demonstrated that it is willing to advance
its interests through military force and has done so in Georgia, Ukraine,
and now Syria. Russian military exercises involve the movement of thou-
sands of troops and heavy equipment, sometimes without advance warn-
ing, to include exercises such as Vostok-2014 with over 100,000 troops
and Western Strategic Direction with 150,000 troops, among others.15
In his 2015 annual report, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg warned that “these [Russian] exercis-
es have been used to mask massive movements of military forces.”16 The
Russians have used their military to repeatedly violate Nordic airspace
and territorial waters, with increasingly complex military formations,
most famously with mock airborne nuclear attacks against Sweden in
2013 and against a 90,000-person political convention on Denmark’s
Bornholm island in June 2014, and an alleged October 2014 submarine
intrusion into the waters near Stockholm.17 Each time Nordic states hold
an exercise, Russia responds with a larger so-called snap exercise.18
• 359 •
Auerswald
Second, Russia has deployed advanced military capabilities in the

Russian Arctic, capabilities that support an antiaccess/area-denial strate-
gy. Russia is in the process of refurbishing or creating new military bases
and capabilities along its northern and western borders. The Russians
have deployed advanced air defenses, interceptor aircraft, and offensive
tactical weapons. Some of these capabilities should help with search-
and-rescue efforts along the Northern Sea Route and serve the defensive
purpose of protecting Russian strategic nuclear forces from U.S. conven-
tional attack.19 Yet new Russian capabilities also create significant prob-
lems for the United States and NATO in defending Alliance territory
from Russian coercion and potential invasion.20 For example, Russian air
defenses located in Severmorosk, St. Petersburg, and Kaliningrad cover
the airspace across Finland and the Baltic States, northern Sweden and
Norway, southern Sweden, most of Poland, and parts of Germany. The
Iskander-M, a nuclear-capable missile with a likely range of at least 435
miles, when deployed to Kaliningrad, puts the Baltics, Poland, eastern
Germany, southern Finland, and Sweden at risk. These new Russian ca-
pabilities have led some to believe that a Russian attack on the Baltics
would quickly be successful.21 In this sense, new Russian capabilities in
the Arctic may be useful for operations in both the Arctic and neighbor-
ing regions.
Third, and relatedly, Nordic states believe that a crisis or hybrid war
in the Baltics is the most likely regional flashpoint between the West and
Russia. Such a crisis would directly involve Norway and Denmark as
NATO members, and probably involve Sweden and Finland due to their
geographic proximities and informal ties to the Baltics. Sweden in partic-
ular has pledged to come to the aid of EU members who are subject to
external attack, though they are vague about the exact nature of Swedish
assistance. In the words of then–Foreign Minister Bildt, “Sweden will not
remain passive if another EU member state or Nordic country suffers a
disaster or an attack. We expect these countries to act in the same way if
Sweden is similarly affected.”22
The result is that the Nordic states are increasingly focused on na-
tional and regional defense rather than expeditionary warfare. Nordic
defense ministers released a joint statement on April 9, 2015, that stated,
“Russia’s conduct represents the gravest challenge to European security.
As a consequence, we must be prepared to face possible crises or inci-
dents.” They went on to note that “Russian military exercises and intelli-
gence operations in our region have increased. The Russian propaganda
and political maneuvering is aiming to create a rift between states and
within organizations such as the EU and NATO.”23
• 360 •
The High North
The shift to national and regional defense has been particularly pro-
nounced in Norway and Sweden and to a lesser extent in Denmark.
Planned defense spending will increase in both of the former states,
when measured in dollar equivalent amounts, though defense spending
as a percentage of GDP will stay relatively flat or increase only slightly.24
And both Norway and Sweden are crafting new defense strategies, with
a focus on territorial defense rather than expeditionary capabilities.25
The Norwegians have been pushing for years for a larger NATO role in
the region, over the objections of the Canadians and others, and have
decided that Norway must act on its own, on NATO’s behalf, to secure
Norwegian territory and its EEZ. In short, there has been a fundamental
change in perceptions among most Arctic states regarding Russian will
and capabilities, leading officials to believe that at least the European
Arctic is less peaceful and stable than it was 2 years ago.
The most obvious regional response, NATO membership for Sweden
and Finland, does not appear to be a viable option. It is true that NATO
membership is for the first time being openly debated in both countries,
which represents a break from past practice. That said, neither Sweden
nor Finland is on the verge of applying for NATO membership, though
that is not out of the question should Russia take more aggressive ac-
tions in the region. Three factors have affected their decisions on NATO
membership.
First, no one in either country knows what might be the international
ramifications of applying for NATO membership. Those ramifications
weigh particularly heavy in Finland, which shares a long border with
Russia. Some in Finland believe that Russia’s newfound aggressive pos-
ture makes NATO membership imperative for national defense and re-
gional stability, particularly given that neither Finland nor Sweden can
unilaterally defend itself from Russian attack or do so bilaterally with its
Nordic neighbor. Others argue that applying would needlessly antago-
nize Russia, worsening rather than increasing regional stability. Russian
officials have played to those fears in public statements.26
Second, there is also a bilateral dimension at work. Neither country
wants to apply for NATO membership without the other. Politicians and
civil servants in both Sweden and Finland want to avoid repeating the
coordination problems associated with their EU membership applica-
tions, when Sweden unexpectedly moved ahead with its request after
promising Finland that both countries should join the EU together. So
while the current government in Helsinki might be amenable to joining
NATO if Sweden were also on board, it will not move without Sweden,
and the current Swedish government is opposed.
• 361 •
Auerswald
Third, as the Swedish example demonstrates, there are domestic po-

litical dimensions to this debate. Some political parties have built oppo-
sition to NATO membership into their party platforms; to change would
be to redefine what their party stands for. The current minority coalition
government in Stockholm, for example, is comprised of the Social Dem-
ocrats and the Green Party. The Social Democrats are internally divided
on NATO, and the Greens are firmly opposed to NATO membership. So
despite support for NATO membership from the main opposition par-
ties in Sweden, and growing support from the public, the government
has no plans to apply for membership largely because it would split the
governing coalition.27
Absent NATO membership, both countries’ defense decisions have
focused on increasing interoperability with NATO countries and weap-
ons systems. The intent is that if a conflict occurs and a political decision
is made to side militarily with the Alliance, Sweden and Finland can be
seamlessly folded into NATO operations. More generally, Nordic states
have increased their intelligence cooperation, information-sharing, mul-
tinational training and exercises, and shared use of airbases and port
facilities. The Swedes and Finns have partially integrated their air forces
and navies, and they have entered into a new agreement on air force
cooperation in peacetime. That pooling and sharing does not extend to
combat operations during crisis or war, however, which is consistent
with their nonaligned status. We thus have the beginnings of regional
security cooperation, but nothing like a Nordic military alliance. Instead,
all states in the region are looking to the United States for leadership and
security assurance.
Current defense trends—spending patterns and regional defense co-
operation—will continue absent another Russian incursion into Ukraine,
an invasion of Moldova, or military aggression in the Baltics. Regional
security cooperation will remain limited to peacetime exercises, training,
and intelligence-sharing. Defense budgets will grow only very slowly, if
at all. Sweden and Finland will remain outside NATO. Combined, these
measures will be inadequate to provide for Nordic defense needs. The
United States—not NATO—will continue to be seen as the ultimate se-
curity guarantor by countries in the region.
Differences Among Nordic, North American, and

Russian Perspectives
Arriving at policy solutions to ensure stability across all three Arctic sub-
regions will be difficult, not least because the Nordic states approach re-
gional issues differently than do North American states and Russia. Multi-
lateralism is the venue/method of choice for Nordic international relations
• 362 •
The High North
Table 1. Relative Power of Arctic Nations

Nordic
Population 2014 GDP (USD Military spending as Territory in square
(millions) billions), PPP percentage of GDP kilometers (arable
land)
Denmark 5.58 250.7 1.37 (2013) 43,000 (25,300)
Finland 5.48 221.7 1.47 (2012) 338,000 (2,500)
Iceland 0.33 14.3 0.13 (2012) 103,000 (124)
Norway 5.21 346.3 1.4 (2012) 324,000 (7,100)
Sweden 9.8 450.5 1.18 (2012) 450,000 (28,800)
Non-Nordic
Canada 35.1 1,596 1 (2014) 9.9 million (465,300)
Russia 142.42 3,577 3.49 (2014) 17.1 million (1.25
million)
United States 321.37 17,350 4.35 (2012) 9.83 million (1.65
million)
Source: Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, available at <www.cia.gov>.
Key: GDP = gross domestic product; PPP = purchasing power parity
for geopolitical and cultural reasons. The United States, Canada, and
Russia have often taken a more unilateral route when their vital interests
are at stake.
The Nordic focus on multilateralism and international law is at least
partly due to their geopolitical reality as relatively small European pow-
ers. Table 1 lists common measures of power for each Arctic nation.
The Nordic states combined have fewer people, a smaller GDP, and far
less territory and arable land, and spend roughly the same amount on
defense as does Canada, which is the least powerful of the non-Nordic
Arctic states.
Multilateralism makes sense for relatively weak powers surrounded
by more powerful neighbors, and Nordic states have utilized multilat-
eral approaches to advance their national interests since well before the
end of the Cold War. Working through multilateral institutions such
as NATO, the EU, and the UN creates partners that can help balance
against more powerful states such as Russia. This is particularly true
when thinking about the security and environmental implications of
Nordic economic reliance on the Baltic and North seas. Linking their
economies to the EU—even if to varying degrees—and its relatively
stringent monitoring and regulation help protect their economies from
predation by larger powers.
Emphasizing international law is another way of constraining great
power behavior. As Icelandic Prime Minister Sigmundur Cunnlaugsson
noted, “Small states usually favor multilateralism where our voices can
• 363 •
Auerswald
be amplified and it is easier to bring messages across. Small states are

also heavily dependent on adherence to international law.”28 The Nordic
states base their own behavior on international law even when they are
temporarily disadvantaged by such rules. Debate over the first and sec-
ond Nord Stream pipelines through the Baltic Sea is an example. Security
communities in both Sweden and Finland warned against European de-
pendence on Russian gas, just as officials from Eastern Europe have been
warning. Both countries, however, have taken positions on Nord Stream
based on United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and
EU rules rather than basing their policies on unilateral interests. In the
words of one senior Nordic diplomat, “The moment we start disregard-
ing international law is the moment that we open the door for Russia to
do the same.” The perspective inside the region is that international law
maintains the stability that they so depend on for their economic and
political success. Abandon international law and Russia will do the same
more frequently and blatantly than it does now.
The Nordic preference for multilateralism and international law also
fits with its cultural predilection for domestic stability and the rule of
law, as well as their domestic political history of coalition governments.
Nordic states are consensual democracies. They have adopted propor-
tional representation electoral systems that regularly produce multiparty
governing coalitions, as displayed in table 2. Decisionmaking in coalition
governments is by necessity done only after considering multiple per-
spectives and reaching compromise solutions. Minority coalitions, when
they occur, require compromise even beyond the governing coalition to
pass legislation. The broader or more fragile are governing coalitions, the
more inclusive and status quo oriented their policies tend to be.
Contrast this with North American and Russian behavior, which often
defaults to unilateral national decisions. This should not be surprising
from either an international or domestic perspective. We know from
table 1 that non-Nordic Arctic states are more powerful international-
ly, and in many cases are able to act unilaterally even when opposed.
Non-Nordic Arctic states also stand in stark contrast when it comes to
their electoral systems, as displayed in table 2, where winner-take-all
electoral rules bias these governments away from compromising with
opposition parties.
An example of how these differences have played out is each Arctic
nation’s positioning with respect to oceans management within its re-
spective EEZ. Both Canada and Russia have unilaterally claimed that the
Northwest Passage and waters of the Canadian Archipelago (Canada)
and the Northern Sea Route (Russia) are internal waterways subject to
their unilateral control. In contrast, the Danes convened the five Arctic
• 364 •
The High North
Table 2. Ruling Governments in Arctic Nations

Nordic
Current Government Previous Government*
Denmark Rasmussen government (June Thorning-Schmidt government (2011–2015)**
2015)** Social Democrats
Venstre Party Social Liberal Party
Socialist People’s Party
Finland Sipila government (May 2015) Katainen/Stubbs government (2011–2015)
Centre Party National Coalition Party
National Coalition Party Social Democrats
Finns Party Green League
Swedish People’s Party
Christian Democrats
Left Alliance
Iceland Gunnlaugsson government Sigurdardottir government (2009–2013)
(2013) Social Democrats
Progressives Left-Green Party
Independence Party
Norway Solberg government (October Stoltenberg government (2005–2013)
2013)** Labour Party
Conservatives Socialist Left
Progress Party Centre Party
Sweden Lefven government (October Reinfeldt government (2010–2014)**
2014)** Moderates Party
Social Democrats Liberal People’s Party
Green Party Centre Party
Christian Democrats
Non-Nordic
Canada Trudeau government (October Harper government (2011–2015)
2015)
Russia Putin government (May 2012) Medvedev government (2008–2012)
United States Obama government (January Bush government (2001–2009)
2009)
* Previous Government signifies the government holding office since the previous election,
where there was a transition in governing coalitions. So while Canada’s Stephen Harper held the
prime minister’s office from 2006 to 2015, his party only achieved majority status following the
2011 elections.
** Signifies a minority government.
coastal states to draft the multilateral 2008 Illulissat Declaration, which

asserted the so-called Arctic Five’s right to govern Arctic waters under the
terms set out by UNCLOS.29 So while the Canadians and Russians made
unilateral declarations, the Danes proposed a multilateral agreement that
reaffirmed the role of international law and by doing so kept Arctic gov-
ernance largely in the hands of the Arctic Five.30 Two different categories
of states produced two different approaches to accomplish similar goals.
Finally, it should be noted that the Nordic preference for multilater-
alism is under threat from within Europe. As discussed elsewhere in this
volume, European multilateralism is fraying based on differing northern
and southern European reactions to the 2008 global financial crisis, na-
• 365 •
Auerswald
tional vulnerability to the vagaries of Russian energy policy, and disputes

over refugee policy and the related phenomenon of rising nationalistic or
populist political parties across Europe. The recent influx of refugees, in
particular, has had a caustic effect on European unity. Waves of refugees
have led to the reimposition of border controls in some states, such as
between Denmark and Sweden. In the words of one Nordic diplomat,
“National refugee policies are tearing the EU apart.” Finnish President
Sauli Niinisto recently stated, “Europe cannot withstand uncontrolled
migration for much longer. Our values will give way if our capacity to
cope is exceeded.”31 The refugee crisis has also contributed to the rise
of nationalist parties. The Danish People’s Party, True Finns party, and
Sweden Democrats are all growing in strength and are examples of such
movements. Arriving at multinational solutions is more difficult when
European states’ policies are influenced by nationalism. All this has led
influential European officials to publicly voice concern for the future of
the EU.32
European unity will be increasingly under strain due to the refugee
crisis, nationalist parties, uneven access to non-Russian energy resourc-
es, and economic vulnerability. As a result, Nordic countries will increas-
ingly look to the United States for leadership and reassurance given the
growing cracks in the European system. Bilateralism vis-à-vis the United
States may quietly replace multilateralism in the practice of international
relations in the region, though Nordic countries will maintain their at-
tachment to multilateral rhetoric.
Challenges to Future Arctic Cooperation

The final challenge involves future international cooperation in the Arc-
tic. To this point the primary venue for Arctic cooperation has been the
Arctic Council.33 Formed in 1996, the council by design deals exclu-
sively with environmental protection and sustainable development. It
does not have decisionmaking authority, but council discussions have
increased scientific and environmental cooperation in the region and led
to formal multilateral agreements under UN and International Maritime
Organization authority; these include agreements on search-and-rescue
responsibilities (2011), oil spill prevention and response (2013), and a
Polar Code for ships operating in polar waters.34 At the bilateral level
Arctic states have peacefully demarcated offshore EEZ claims between
Russia and the United States and between Russia and Norway. In 2010,
the Norwegian and Russian governments established protocols on fish-
ery quotas and hydrocarbon extraction.
Despite this record of cooperation, there are significant differences
among the eight Arctic nations in terms of the priority represented by
• 366 •
The High North
the Arctic for each country. Those differences matter when the issues in
question represent vital interests (security and prosperity) rather than
tertiary interests (scientific cooperation and shipping protocols). It is
relatively easy to get regional cooperation on tertiary national interests
even if not all Arctic nations see the region as a priority. Region-wide
cooperation becomes difficult, however, when some nations believe the
issue in question is a vital interest but others do not, or when states have
diametrically opposed interests.
The Arctic as a distinct region is only a priority for some Arctic na-
tions. The Norwegian government, for example, has consistently seen
the Arctic as its top priority in large part because so much of its EEZ, its
export revenue, and Norwegian maritime traffic are located in European
Arctic waters. The Russian government has prioritized the Arctic because
Russia’s strategic nuclear submarine force is home-ported in Murmansk,
and northern Russia contains abundant hydrocarbon, mineral, and tim-
ber deposits. The Canadian government under Prime Minister Stephen
Harper saw the Arctic as a priority issue principally for domestic political
reasons dealing with economic development of the northern Canadian
provinces and with Canadian control of the Northwest Passage.
But other countries in the region have placed Arctic issues much
lower on their agendas. Sweden has few direct interests in the Arctic
beyond environmental stewardship and has focused more of its atten-
tion on economic and political relations with its neighbors to the south
and east. Finland is much more focused on the Baltic Sea and relations
with Russia, Sweden, and the EU than it is on the Arctic per se. The
current government in Iceland sees the Arctic as a priority, but the same
could not be said for previous governments. The Danes see the Arctic
through the prism of their territory in Greenland and the Faroe Islands,
and their main concern there is in ensuring the local people are even-
tually self-sufficient. And last but not least, the United States essentially
ignored the Arctic as a policy issue between 1991 and 2015.35 Even the
Barack Obama administration’s recent efforts to highlight the Arctic seem
to be a small piece in the administration’s larger climate agenda, rather
than a focus on the Arctic for its own sake.
If getting all regional countries to pay attention to Arctic issues is dif-
ficult, it is even more difficult to get agreement on issues of vital na-
tional interest, particularly in the European Arctic. Take the question of
resource extraction. Finland would like to engage in mining above the
Arctic Circle with fewer environmental constraints. Sweden wants strict
environmental controls on mining and oil extraction, but less regulation
of recreation. The Green Party in Sweden, a member of the two-party
coalition government, would like to halt all oil and gas extraction from
• 367 •
Auerswald
Arctic waters. Norway is particularly sensitive to policy differences on re-

source extraction because so much of Norway’s GDP comes from offshore
hydrocarbon extraction, fisheries, and aquaculture. Though the Norwe-
gians have an agreement with Russia on fisheries and hydrocarbons,
the same is not true with regard to fishing quotas between Norway and
Iceland, Scotland, the Faroe Islands, or the EU, leading to a significant
dispute between Norway and Iceland over mackerel overfishing in 2012.
Rival territorial claims continue to bubble up to the surface. The most
complex and potentially dangerous involves Norway’s claim to the waters
around the Svalbard archipelago. Norway believes these waters are part
of its EEZ, while Russia believes these are international waters governed
by the terms of the 1925 Spitzburgen Treaty.36 At the same time, Den-
mark and Russia have submitted competing claims to the Lomonosov
Ridge in the central Arctic Ocean. The Canadian government has long
argued that the Northwest Passage is an internal waterway, over quiet
U.S. objections.37 The official arbiter of undersea territorial claims under
the terms of UNCLOS is the Commission on the Limits of the Continen-
tal Shelf, which has shown little desire to reach a definitive ruling on
these competing claims, instead asking for more scientific data (from the
Russians in particular) and by some views hoping that the claimants will
negotiate a solution on their own.
And finally there is the issue of Arctic management. The five Arctic
coastal states have repeatedly asserted authority over and responsibil-
ity for Arctic waters within their EEZs. Such claims pit them against
the three other Arctic states (Finland, Iceland, and Sweden) as well as
non-Arctic states with interests in the Arctic (China, India, Japan, and
Poland). These jurisdictional disputes have complicated decisions on
designating permanent observers to the Arctic Council and may have led
to the creation of the annual Arctic Circle forum, which brings together
Arctic and non-Arctic states, nongovernmental organizations, and busi-
ness interests to discuss Arctic governance and other topics.
The Arctic, particularly the European Arctic, will not be compart-
mentalized from broader geopolitical concerns for much longer.38 Too
many important issues are infringing on the peaceful scientific cooper-
ation that has ruled to this point. Western relations with Russia, com-
peting economic interests among Arctic states, and potential territorial
disputes will increasingly infringe on Arctic political discourse. Again,
in the words of Norwegian Foreign Minister Brende, “Arctic cannot be
viewed in isolation from events elsewhere.”
For the next 5 years the Arctic Council will be limited to sidebar
issues such as scientific research and nonbinding pollution protocols—
issues that are not central to international affairs as commonly under-
• 368 •
The High North
stood. Anything more, particularly with regard to security policy or is-

sues where there are significant political disagreements, will remain in
limbo because of underlying policy differences, the lower priority of the
region compared to other regions, and the absence of viable regional
forums where hard-power issues can be discussed.
Policy Recommendations
Four policy initiatives could improve the regional situation in the Arc-
tic from a U.S. perspective. First, the United States needs a new Arctic
strategy that accounts for the differences between the North American,
European, and Russian Arctic subregions.39 As I argue elsewhere, the
resulting U.S. strategy should account for developments on the political
and security fronts. That strategy should have three goals.40 The United
States should prevent either Russia or China from dominating the Euro-
pean Arctic subregion in terms of economics or security. Regional partic-
ipation by both countries is inevitable (and, one could argue, desirable),
particularly regarding Chinese investment. Dominance by either power,
however, would undercut U.S. influence and commitments and put at
risk U.S. interests in protecting the global commons. Another goal could
be preventing an environmental disaster in any part of the Arctic. This
requires that existing cooperation continue on shipping protocols, fish-
eries management, and oil spill prevention and response—something
in the interests of all Arctic coastal states. A final goal could be fostering
responsible private-sector investment in the North American subregion.
Specific actions here could include providing U.S. loan guarantees, tax
incentives, or access to government climate and geological data in ex-
change for private-sector creation of needed Alaskan infrastructure.
These goals deconflict the myriad crosscutting priorities, threats, and
opportunities of the Arctic nations. The first goal aligns the United States
with every Arctic nation except Russia and is just the sort of assurance
that Nordic states (and their Baltic neighbors) have been looking for
from the U.S. Government. The second goal focuses on the environ-
mental concerns of the Arctic coastal states and their economic self-in-
terest. Even Russia, with its less-than-stellar environmental record, has
an interest in maintaining fish stocks, and the Western-based oil com-
panies that Russia will need to extract oil and gas from the Barents and
Kara seas have the reputational and fiduciary need to engage in relatively
careful extraction in Arctic waters. The third goal is attractive to those
in Alaska, and if expanded across the Arctic could be attractive to Can-
ada, Denmark, and Iceland, each of which wants more investment in its
Arctic territories.
• 369 •
Auerswald
As a second policy recommendation, the United States should pro-

pose an Arctic forum to discuss political and security concerns across
the region, but particularly within the European Arctic subregion. A lack
of recent transparency on hard-power issues is a significant challenge
in the region. Western states do not trust Russian military activities and
political statements. Within the Nordic region, states are pursuing di-
verging refugee policies. On the political level, changing government
coalitions and domestic political dynamics have fostered a sense of un-
certainty regarding international commitments. The focus of this new
forum should be on transparency and confidence-building measures, on
everything from refugee policies to military exercises to joint energy ini-
tiatives. The forum could be modeled on the existing Nordic Council but
with a broader agenda and with the added participation of the United
States and Canada, possibly the Baltic States, and ideally Russia if possi-
ble. It would leave environmental and scientific discussions to the Arctic
Council and private-sector economic cooperation to the recently created
Arctic Economic Council.41
Third, the United States should work with its Nordic allies and part-
ners to develop a Northern European security architecture that comple-
ments but stands apart from NATO efforts. As noted earlier, it is unlikely
that Sweden and Finland will apply for NATO membership, much less
join the Alliance, in the next few years barring another significant Russian
act of aggression in Europe. There are simply too many domestic and
bilateral impediments in the way. Moreover, key NATO members (includ-
ing some officials in Canada and Denmark) believe the Alliance should
focus on instability to the south and east rather than devoting precious
resources to the north. A northern European security organization under
a U.S. imprimatur, however, is not beyond the realm of possibility.
The organization could be modeled on the existing Nordic Defense
Cooperation (NORDEFCO),42 which links Nordic states in peacetime in-
formation-sharing, military education, training, and exercises.43 A “deep-
ened” NORDEFCO could include an implicit security guarantee among
Nordic states, explicit war plans with designated chains of command to
respond to a Russian attack against either the Nordic or Baltic states or
a closure of the Baltic Sea, and exercises to test and demonstrate those
plans. This new security architecture could include active U.S. participa-
tion in exercises and prepositioning of U.S. weapons in the region that
could contribute to those war plans.44 The United States would not be en-
tering into a new alliance commitment to Sweden and Finland. Rather the
United States would be operating with existing allies (Norway, Denmark,
and possibly the Baltic States) and partner nations (Sweden and Finland)
to generate viable war plans for the Nordic-Baltic theater, particularly
• 370 •
The High North
those focused on countering Russian antiaccess/area-denial capabilities.45

Even without an alliance commitment across the region, such a northern
European security architecture could greatly improve the planning and
exercise frequency necessary to prepare for a variety of wartime scenarios,
which could itself act as a deterrent to Russian aggression.46
Fourth and finally, the United States needs to increase its capabili-
ties, both civilian and military, to operate in the North American and
European Arctic subregions. Relatively inexpensive capabilities could
be acquired today or in the near future that would support a variety
of U.S. Arctic strategies. The most immediate priorities are in sensors,
communications, and surface ships. Sensors are necessary for even ru-
dimentary maritime domain awareness. The United States needs better
civilian capabilities in this regard to regulate shipping and avoid mari-
time accidents, including oil spills. Better civilian and military commu-
nications are needed for everything from coordinating search and rescue
to managing sea and air traffic. Communications are particularly chal-
lenging given the lack of radio or cellular infrastructure in the region and
the mismatch between high northern latitudes and the orbital paths of
most communications and geopositioning satellites. Perhaps most im-
portantly, the United States needs to improve its naval capabilities to
demonstrate a maritime presence across the region, but particularly in
the European Arctic where the United States has NATO commitments.
At the least, that will require more U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers and
ice-capable Navy surface ships. The Coast Guard has begun exploring
the acquisition of a new icebreaker, but no real money has been allocated
for a new vessel.47
This chapter begins by noting that the security of the United States
and its allies depends on preventing regional hegemony or coercion by
hostile powers. Economic prosperity depends on protecting the global
commons. Developments in the Arctic and neighboring regions could
put both interests at risk within the next 5 years. The four initiatives
listed above—developing a new U.S. Arctic strategy, creating a regional
forum for security and economic discussions, initiating a regional secu-
rity organization to complement NATO, and improving U.S. capabilities
to operate in the Arctic—support U.S. interests in the region at a rela-
tively low cost.
Notes
1
For the purposes of this chapter, I follow the U.S. Government’s definition of the
Arctic as anything north of the Arctic Circle, at approximately 66 degrees, 34 minutes
north latitude. See <www.arctic.noaa.gov/faq.html>. U.S. law (15 U.S. Code § 4111) also
adds all U.S. territory and territorial waters north of the Aleutian island chain to the defi-
• 371 •
Auerswald
nition of the U.S. Arctic. Others define the Arctic by a maximum average July tempera-
ture or by the northernmost tree line. Norwegian officials call the Scandinavian portion of
the Arctic the High North, though there is no precise territorial delineation associated with
that term.
2
Borge Brende, “The Arctic: Important for Norway, Important for the World,” Harvard
International Review 36, no. 3 (Spring 2015).
3
The Northern Sea Route is the more viable, near-term shipping route from a climate
perspective.
4
U.S. Geological Survey, “Circum-Artic Resource Appraisal,” Fact Sheet 2008-3049,
available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3049/fs2008-3049.pdf>.
5
Gordon Kristopher, “Why Is the Breakeven Price of Crude Oil So Important?” Mar-
ket Realist, January 15, 2015, available at <https://marketrealist.com/2015/01/breakev-
en-price-crude-oil-important/>; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Interior Department
Cancels Arctic Offshore Lease Sales,” October 16, 2015, available at <www.doi.gov/press-
releases/interior-department-cancels-arctic-offshore-lease-sales>. The partial exception
is the Norwegian government’s new drilling concessions awarded in mid-May 2016 for
areas in the Barents Sea, but drilling test wells will not start until 2017, with no guarantee
that extraction will occur in the near future.
6
The Swedish government, for example, has called for a prohibition on hydrocar-
bon extraction unless stringent conditions are met: “We want only companies that can
assume the entire cost of a disaster to be granted permits to extract oil in the Arctic.” See
“Government to Strengthen Arctic Environmental Policy,” January 25, 2016, available
at <www.government.se/articles/2016/01/government-to-strengthen-arctic-environmen-
tal-policy/>.
7
That said, Gazprom continues to extract gas and oil from the Yamal Peninsula,
though most of those wells were established before sanctions took effect.
8
“Cooperation Needed to Allay Arctic Risks,” Lloyds.com, September 8, 2014,
available at <www.lloyds.com/news-and-insight/news-and-features/emerging-risk/emerg-
ing-risk-2014/cooperation-needed-to-allay-arctic-risks>.
9
Arctic economic development is a priority in the Arctic strategies of each Arctic
nation.
10
Bergt-Goran Bergstrand, “Military Expenditure Trends in the Baltic Sea States, FOI
Memo 5544,” Swedish Defense Research Institute, December 9, 2015. Figures for North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members are comparable to those reported in Jens
Stoltenberg, The Secretary General’s Annual Report 2015 (Brussels: NATO Public Diploma-
cy Division, January 28, 2016), available at <www.nato.int>.
11
The 2008 Russian invasion of Georgia took place outside of Europe and was a
conflict where blame could be placed with both sides.
12
See Ine Soereide’s interview with Reuters, May 20, 2014.
13
See Ine Soereide’s interview with CNN, February 26, 2015.
14
Carl Bildt, “Statement at IISS [International Institute for Strategic Studies], Lon-
don,” September 19, 2014; “Statement on the Ukrainian Crisis,” September 22, 2015.
This was in marked contrast to Bildt’s praise for Russian cooperation with Europe before
Crimea in statements such as “Russian foreign policy has become oriented towards
serving the goals of this cooperation, which is very welcome.” Carl Bildt, “Russia and the
World,” Keynote Speech at the Andrei Sakharov Foundation Conference, Moscow, May
21, 2011.
15
The most disturbing exercise before 2014 from the perspective of Nordic-Baltic
security was Zapad-2013, which took place in late 2013 and focused on the “defense”
of Kaliningrad. For exercise numbers and composition, see Johan Norberg, Training to
• 372 •
The High North
Fight: Russian Military Exercises 2011–2014, FOI-R-4128-SE (Stockholm: Swedish Defense

Research Agency, 2015).
16
Stoltenberg.
“Russia Carried Out Practice Nuclear Strike Against Sweden,” The Local SE (Stock-
17
holm), February 3, 2016, available at <www.thelocal.se/20160203/russia-did-practice-a-

nuclear-strike-against-sweden>.
18
For example, the June 2015 Arctic Challenge exercise, with 4,000 Western troops
and 115 airplanes operating out of Scandinavian airfields, was immediately matched by a
Russian snap exercise involving 12,000 troops and 250 planes.
19
Strategic Forecasting, Inc. (Stratfor), “Russia in the Arctic: A Different Kind of Mil-
itary Presence,” November 11, 2015, available at <www.stratfor.com/analysis/russia-arc-
tic-different-kind-military-presence>; Ekaterina Klimenko, Russia’s Arctic Security Policy,
Policy Paper 45 (Stockholm: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, February
2016); Heather Conley and Caroline Rohloff, The New Ice Curtain: Russia’s Strategic Reach
to the Arctic (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, August
2015).
20
For a discussion of Russian capabilities, see “The Security Dimensions of the Arctic
Region,” Royal Swedish Academy of War Sciences, no. 2 (April–June 2015), 93–113, avail-
able at <http://kkrva.se/hot/2015:2/waldemarsson_mfl_arctic_reg.pdf>.
21
David Shlapak and Michael Johnson, Reinforcing Deterrence on NATO’s Eastern
Flank: Wargaming the Defense of the Baltics, RR-1253-A (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2016),
available at <www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1200/RR1253/
RAND_RR1253.pdf>.
22
Carl Bildt, “Presentation to the Riksdag on Foreign Affairs,” Stockholm, February
19, 2014. Identical language was agreed upon by parliamentary vote in 2009 though it
did not receive much attention at the time. Finland has taken a similar policy position,
though it does not publicize that fact. These positions are consistent with Article 42.7 of
the Treaty of Lisbon, which states:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory,

the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and
assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article
51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific
character of the security and defense policy of certain Member States.
Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with com-
mitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which, for those
States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective
defense and the forum for its implementation.
Available at <www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-europe-
an-union-and-comments/title-5-general-provisions-on-the-unions-external-action-and-spe-
cific-provisions/chapter-2-specific-provisions-on-the-common-foreign-and-security-policy/
section-2-provisions-on-the-common-security-and-defence-policy/129-article-42.html>.
23
Joint Communiqué of Nordic Defense Ministers, April 9, 2015, available at: <http://
formin.finland.fi/public/download.aspx?ID=126747&GUID=A6A5DF01-72E4-45BD-
8B29-488EE055ACC1>.
24
See, for example, Sweden Ministry of Defense, “The Swedish Defense Bill 2016–
2020,” April 24, 2015. For projected regional numbers through 2020, see Bergstrand.
25
Swedish Major General Anders Brännström noted in early 2016 that Sweden will
focus more on territorial defense and less on international peacekeeping and peace-en-
forcement due to the increasing Russian threat. See Gerard O’Dwyer, “Russian Aggression
Drives Swedish Defense Spending,” Defense News, February 7, 2016, available at <www.
• 373 •
Auerswald
defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/warfare/2016/02/07/russian-aggres-
sion-drives-swedish-defense-spending/79841348/>. Yet, projected defense spending
will not provide for adequate national defense against Russia and does not account for
big-ticket replacements for aging fighter aircraft, naval ships, and submarines.
26
For example, see Jorge Benitez, “The Bully to the East,” U.S. News and World Report,
August 6, 2015, available at <www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2015/08/06/
russia-bullies-sweden-and-finland-away-from-joining-nato>.
27
A September 2015 poll showed that 41 percent of Swedes supported NATO mem-
bership, up 10 points from May, versus 39 percent opposed. See Gerard O’Dwyer, “New
Poll Shows Sharp Shift in NATO Support,” Defense News, September 17, 2015, available
at <www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/leaders/2015/09/17/new-poll-
shows-sharp-shift-nato-support/32549641/>.
28
Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson, “Iceland in a Sea of Change,” speech delivered at St.
Gallen Symposium, May 7, 2015.
29
The five Arctic littoral states are Canada, Denmark (via Greenland), Norway, Russia,
and the United States. The text of the Illulissat Declaration is available at <www.oceanlaw.
org/downloads/arctic/Illulissat_Declaration.pdf>.
30
Philip Steinberg, Jeremy Tasch, and Hannes Gerhardt, Contesting the Arctic (New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 1–6, 73–74.
31
Sauli Niinisto, “Speech at the Opening of Parliament on 3 February 2016,” available
at <www.presidentti.fi/public/default.aspx?contentid=341376&culture=en-US>.
32
Alastair MacDonald and Noah Barkin, “European Leaders Fear the Refugee Crisis
Will Tear the EU Apart,” Reuters, January 18, 2016, available at <www.huffingtonpost.
com/entry/european-leaders-fear-the-refugee-crisis-will-tear-the-eu-apart_569cf-
c32e4b0778f46fa010c>.
33
Other venues include the United Nations and its subsidiary entity (International
Maritime Organization), European Parliament, Nordic Council of Ministers, and NATO,
depending on the issue and the countries involved.
34
For additional information on the Polar Code, see <www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/
HotTopics/polar/Pages/default.aspx>. For texts of the agreements on Arctic search and
rescue and oil spills, see <www.state.gov/documents/organization/205770.pdf>; and
<www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/05/209406.htm>.
35
The United States maintained a robust scientific research agenda in the area and
has been a mainstay in the Arctic Council. It also has a nuclear submarine presence in the
region and military facilities in Alaska. That said, the Arctic has not been a priority region
for U.S. policymakers since the Cold War.
36
See statements by Leonid Kalashnikov, Russia’s First Deputy Chairman of the Du-
ma’s Committee on International Affairs, quoted in Thomas Nilsen, “Norway Summons
Russian Ambassador,” BarentsObserver.com, April 20, 2015, available at <http://barentsob-
server.com/en/politics/2015/04/norway-summons-russian-ambassador-20-04>.
37
For a review, see Donald Rothwell, “The Canadian-U.S. Northwest Passage Dis-
pute,” Cornell International Law Journal 26, no. 2 (Spring 1993), 331–372.
38
According to Swedish Supreme Commander General Micael Bydén, “We also know
that areas in our region, the Baltic and increasingly the Arctic, constitute areas of friction
between Russia and the West.” Quoted in O’Dwyer.
39
The current U.S. strategy for the Arctic was written in 2013, before events in
Crimea. See National Strategy for the Arctic Region (Washington, DC: The White House,
May 2013), available at <www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/nat_arctic_strategy.
pdf>.
• 374 •
The High North
40
David Auerswald, “Geopolitical Icebergs,” Proceedings 141, no. 12 (December
2015), 18–23.
41
The Arctic Economic Council is a public-private entity that seeks to coordinate
business activities in the region. See <http://arcticeconomiccouncil.com>.
42
For information on Nordic Defense Cooperation (NORDEFCO), see <www.nordef-
co.org>. For a discussion of NORDEFCO expansion to the Baltics, see Henrik Breiten-
bauch, “Strengthening Nordic-Baltic Defense Capabilities,” in Advancing U.S.-Nordic-Baltic
Security Cooperation, ed. Daniel Hamilton, Andras Simony, and Debra Cagan (Washing-
ton, DC: Center for Transatlantic Relations, 2014), 135–155.
43
Note that while information-sharing is proceeding well, coordinating weapons
acquisition across NORDEFCO nations has proved difficult in the extreme.
44
The Obama administration has begun this process with its $3.4 billion request
for fiscal year 2017 to deploy weapons and equipment to Eastern Europe. Preposition-
ing standoff weapons and refurbishing and hardening airfields in the Nordic states are
critical additional steps, however. On the administration request, see Mark Landler and
Helene Cooper, “U.S. Fortifying Europe’s East to Deter Putin,” New York Times, February
1, 2016, available at <www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/world/europe/us-fortifying-eu-
ropes-east-to-deter-putin.html>.
45
Note that the United States already participates in exercises involving Nordic
members of NATO and partner nations such as Sweden and Finland. The proposal here
is to tailor those exercises to more accurately reflect war plans that include Swedish and
Finnish territory and militaries as full participants.
46
Deeper transatlantic security cooperation for the European Arctic was one of the
subjects discussed at the May 2016 U.S.-Nordic summit. See “U.S.-Nordic Leaders’ Sum-
mit Joint Statement,” May 13, 2016, available at <http://tpk.fi/Public/default.aspx?conten-
tid=346273&culture=fi-FI>.
47
Yasmin Tadjdeh, “Coast Guard Releases Solicitation for New Polar Icebreaker,”
National Defense, January 13, 2016, available at <www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/
Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=7c996cd7-cbb4-4018-baf8-8825eada7aa2&ID=2060&utm_
source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_ter-
m=%2ASituation%20Report>.
• 375 •
Contributors
Dr. R.D. Hooker, Jr., is The Theodore Roosevelt Chair in National Se-
curity Affairs and Director of the Institute for National Strategic Stud-
ies (INSS) at the National Defense University (NDU). A member of the
Council on Foreign Relations, he previously served as the Dean of the
NATO Defense College in Rome and as a White House staff member in
the administrations of George H.W. Bush, William Clinton, and George
W. Bush. He holds an MA and Ph.D. in International Relations from the
University of Virginia.
Dr. David Auerswald is Professor of Security Studies in the National

War College at NDU. Earlier in his career he served on the faculty in the
Department of Political Science at The George Washington University
and as a congressional staff member with the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. He is a graduate of Brown University and earned an MA and
Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California, San Diego.
Dr. Charles L. Barry is a Visiting Senior Research Fellow in INSS. He

focuses on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), as well as
European and trans-Atlantic affairs. Since 1990 he has assisted senior
U.S. and NATO officials in developing three NATO Strategic Concepts
and preparing for 14 NATO summits. Dr. Barry served 5 years as head
of the Strategy Branch at U.S. European Command. He graduated from
Loyola University Chicago and Western Kentucky University. He holds a
DPA from the University of Baltimore.
John P. Caves, Jr., is Deputy Director of the Center for the Study of Weap-
ons of Mass Destruction, INSS, and a Distinguished Research Fellow at
NDU. He previously served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
including as Deputy Director for Counter Proliferation Policy. Mr. Caves
has an MPA in International Relations from the Woodrow Wilson School
of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and an MS in
National Security Strategy from the National War College.
• 377 •
Contributors
Dr. R. Kim Cragin is the Senior Research Fellow for Counterterrorism

in the Center for Complex Operations, INSS, at NDU. Prior to joining
NDU, she was a Political Scientist at RAND. Dr. Cragin recently served
as Senior Staff on the 9/11 Federal Bureau of Investigation Review Com-
mission. She has conducted fieldwork in Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Sri
Lanka, Thailand, and Yemen, among others. Dr. Cragin has an MPP from
the Sanford Institute of Public Policy at Duke University and a Ph.D.
from Cambridge University (Clare College) in the United Kingdom.
Dr. Craig A. Deare is Dean of Administration and Professor of National

Security Studies in the College of International Security Affairs at NDU.
A career Army intelligence and Foreign Area Officer, he served in Hon-
duras and Mexico, taught at the U.S. Military Academy and the Center
for Hemispheric Defense Studies, and acted as a Country Director in the
Office of the Secretary of Defense. Dr. Deare is a graduate of the Univer-
sity of Arizona and earned an MA and Ph.D. in International Relations
from the School of Advanced International Studies at The Johns Hopkins
University.
Rear Admiral Janice M. Hamby, USN (Ret.), is the Chancellor of the

Information Resources Management College at NDU. She leads the col-
lege’s strategy and execution to provide graduate-level education to se-
nior military officers and civilians who will lead the cyberspace domain
in the future. Previously she led the Navy’s Information Professional
career field and served as a Deputy Department of Defense Chief In-
formation Officer and as Vice Director, Joint Staff J6, among other key
cyberspace assignments. She holds an MBA and MS in Management In-
formation Systems from Boston University, an MA in National Security
and Strategic Studies from the U.S. Naval War College, and is a doctoral
student at the University of Maryland University College.
Dr. T.X. Hammes is a Distinguished Research Fellow in the Center for

Strategic Research, INSS, at NDU. He focuses on future conflict and
strategy. Dr. Hammes has a Masters in Historical Research and a Doctor-
ate in Modern History from Oxford University. He is also a graduate of
the Canadian National Defense University. He is the author of two books
and over 150 articles and opinion pieces and has lectured at U.S. and
international staff and war colleges.
Dr. F.G. Hoffman is a Distinguished Research Fellow in the Center for

Strategic Research, INSS, at NDU. He is a retired Marine infantry officer
and has held two political appointments in the Pentagon. Dr. Hoffman is
• 378 •
Contributors
a graduate of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. He

earned an MEd from George Mason University, an MA in National Stra-
tegic Studies from the U.S. Naval War College, and an MPhil and Ph.D.
from King’s College London.
Dr. Christopher J. Lamb is a Distinguished Research Fellow in the Center

for Strategic Research, INSS, at NDU. Previously he served as a Foreign
Service Officer in Haiti, Ivory Coast, Benin, and then in various Pentagon
management positions to include Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Resources and Plans in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. He
received a Ph.D. in International Relations from Georgetown University.
Professor Julian Lindley-French is a Distinguished Visiting Research Fel-

low at NDU and Fellow at the Institute of Statecraft in London. He is a
member of the Strategic Advisory Panel of the United Kingdom Chief of
Defence Staff. Dr. Lindley-French holds a doctorate from the European
University Institute in Florence and a graduate degree in Modern History
from the University of Oxford.
Dr. Thomas F. Lynch III is a Distinguished Research Fellow in the Cen-

ter for Strategic Research, INSS, at NDU. He holds an MPA along with
an MA and Ph.D. in International Relations from the Woodrow Wilson
School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. He is
a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Adjunct Professor in
the Security Studies Program, School of Foreign Service, at Georgetown
University.
Hilary Matfess is a Research Analyst focused on governance and security

in Sub-Saharan Africa. She has conducted field work in Ethiopia, Nigeria,
Rwanda, and Tanzania and has worked with NDU, The Johns Hopkins
University, and Institute for Defense Analyses. Ms. Matfess’s commen-
tary has been featured in Newsweek, Washington Post, and Foreign Affairs,
among others. She earned an MA in African Studies from the School of
Advanced International Studies at The Johns Hopkins University.
Brigadier General Michael J. Meese, USA (Ret.), is Chief Operating

Officer of the American Armed Forces Mutual Aid Association. He con-
cluded his 32-year career as Professor and Head of the Social Scienc-
es Department at the U.S. Military Academy. Brigadier General Meese
earned an MA, MPA, and Ph.D. from Princeton University. He is an Ad-
junct Professor at Georgetown University and a Visiting Distinguished
Research Fellow in the Center for Strategic Research, INSS, at NDU.
• 379 •
Contributors
Dr. Denise Natali is a Distinguished Research Fellow in the Center for

Strategic Research, INSS, at NDU. She holds a Ph.D. in Political Sci-
ence from the University of Pennsylvania and an MIA from the School
of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. Dr. Natali is a
member of the Council on Foreign Relations and International Institute
for Strategic Studies. She is also an Adjunct Professor in the Security
Studies Program, School of Foreign Service, at Georgetown University.
Dr. James J. Przystup is a Senior Research Fellow in the Center for Stra-
tegic Research, INSS, at NDU. He graduated summa cum laude from the
University of Detroit. Dr. Przystup received an MA from the Committee
on International Relations at the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. in
History from the University of Chicago. He studied Japanese at Colum-
bia University and was a Visiting Scholar at Keio University in Tokyo.
Dr. Theresa Sabonis-Helf is Professor of Security Studies in the National

War College at NDU. She has lived in seven countries of the former Sovi-
et Union, working with development organizations and think tanks. Dr.
Sabonis-Helf received a Ph.D. in Political Science from Emory University
and an MPA in International Relations from Princeton University. She is
a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Adjunct Professor in
the Science, Technology, and International Affairs program at George-
town University.
Dr. Phillip C. Saunders is Director of the Center for the Study of Chi-
nese Military Affairs and a Distinguished Research Fellow, INSS, at NDU.
Previously he worked at the Monterey Institute of International Studies,
where he was director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program from
1999 to 2003. Dr. Saunders served as an officer in the U.S. Air Force
from 1989 to 1994. He attended Harvard College and received an MPA
and Ph.D. in International Relations from the Woodrow Wilson School
of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University.
Dr. Thomas C. Wingfield is Professor of Cyber Law in the Information

Resources Management College at NDU. He holds a JD and LLM from
the Georgetown University Law Center. Dr. Wingfield has taught at the
United Arab Emirates National Defense College, George C. Marshall Eu-
ropean Center for Security Studies, and U.S. Army Command and Gen-
eral Staff College. He is a former Chair of the American Bar Association’s
Committee on International Criminal Law.
• 380 •
Contributors
Brigadier General Peter B. Zwack, USA (Ret.), is the Senior Russia-Eur-

asia Fellow in the Center for Strategic Research, INSS, at NDU. He was
the Senior Defense Official and Attaché to Russia from 2012 to 2014,
Chief of Intelligence for the U.S. Army in Europe from 2006 to 2008,
and Army Intelligence Chief in Afghanistan from 2008 to 2009. Briga-
dier General Zwack holds an MA in National Security Studies from the
U.S. Naval War College and an MS in Strategic Intelligence from the
National Intelligence University.
• 381 •
T he new administration takes office in a time of great complexity.
The President faces a national security environment shaped
by strong currents: globalization; the proliferation of new, poor,
and weak states, as well as nonstate actors; a persistent landscape
of violent extremist organizations; slow economic growth; the
rise of China and a revanchist Russia; a collapsing Middle East;
and domestic policies wracked by division and mistrust. While in
absolute terms the Nation and the world are safer than in the last
century, today the United States finds itself almost on a permanent
war footing, engaged in military operations around the world.
This book, written by experts at the Defense Department’s National
Defense University, offers valuable policy advice and grand strategy
recommendations to those senior leaders who will staff and lead the
next administration in national security affairs. The President and
his staff, Members of Congress, and the many leaders throughout
government concerned with the Nation’s security interests should
find this book valuable. Their task is not an easy one, and this
volume’s insights and reflections are offered with an ample dose
of humility. There are no silver bullets, no elegant solutions to the
complex problems confronting America and its leaders.
This volume provides context and understanding about the current
national security environment to those in the new administration as
they prepare to lead the Nation during challenging times. To those
senior leaders who bear the heaviest responsibilities, these policy
insights may chart a course forward.

Charting A Course PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Charting A Course PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Charting A Course PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strategic Choices for a New Administration

Edited by R.D. Hooker, Jr.

National Defense University Press

Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record of this publication may be found at the

National Defense University Press

NDU Press publications are sold by the U.S. Government Printing

Book design by Marco Marchegiani, U.S. Government Printing Office

Cover photo: Unarmed Minuteman III ICBM accelerates toward test

T he new administration takes office in a time of great complexity.

to seriously crowd out defense spending if not brought under control.

Russia, and violent extremist organizations like Daesh and al Qaeda.

On many of these fronts, diplomatic, informational, and economic

jection, alliances and partnerships, and military and economic strength

R.D. Hooker, Jr.

T his volume represents a year-long effort by some of the best scholars

F rom before the American Revolution, the outlines of an evolving

The Ends of Grand Strategy

view of “a multiplicity of autonomous centers of decision and therefore

• Use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against the homeland.

• Economic disruption from without. The crash of 2008 was largely

• The rise of a hostile peer competitor. For centuries, Great Britain

“rebalance” to Asia and opposition to Chinese territorial moves in

• Direct challenges to key allies. Alliances such as the North Atlan-

There are, of course, other threats of concern to national security

It falls to the dominant state to create the conditions under

These are the actions of a preponderant power but hardly of a classically

The Means of Grand Strategy

widely perceived by Allies as a devaluation of Europe by U.S. leaders,

The Ways of Grand Strategy

trained, equipped, supplied, and led, in numbers and with capabilities

The value of military forces is often better measured in

The Way Ahead

of “homeland defense,” with dozens of civilian agencies and large mili-

never be approached casually, emotionally, or halfheartedly, but, rather,

Despite assertions to the contrary, war is not disappearing. If anything, it is

W ar is unlikely to disappear from human relations.1 In contrast to

have to maintain a relationship with them. A badly executed war may in

drivers of insurgency—corruption, government incapacity, failure to ad-

Hybrid threats incorporate a full range of different modes

Technology Converges, Power Diffuses

from a growing list of materials. AM is dramatically increasing the com-

increases in range, payload, and stealth for a wide variety of vehicles to

Space and Space-Like Capabilities

plications for navigating in agricultural areas and inspecting buildings

with the explosive growth in commercial drones. The Economist predict-

Loss of Immunity to Attack

Tactically Dominant Defense

cheap drones. It is imperative that these systems be tested against a think-

Return of Mass to the Battlefield

• Most importantly, how can strategy neutralize potential opponents’

• How do we protect those nations providing support as we do so—in

• If we forward deploy, how dispersed will forward forces have to be

• What are the political/alliance costs if we choose to station fewer

• Are we willing to employ long-range strike from the United States if

• Once forces are deployed, how do they operate in the presence of

• Do we need to deploy more forces forward to ensure they are there

Whether forward deployed or deployed in a crisis, the increased vul-