<font size="5"><center>U.S. sets its sights on asymmetric warfare</font size></center>
Asia Times
By Ehsan Ahrari
January 25, 2006
The Pentagon has offered the press a sneak preview of its Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) 2005. The two big items of international interest are that the focus of the US military for the next several decades will be on fighting asymmetric warfare and on "influencing" such nations as China that are at a "strategic crossroads" in their world role.
At the same time, there is ample emphasis on using "futuristic" forces of robots, drone aircraft and networked computers. But this is a continuing tradition of the US armed forces to remain at the cutting edge of high-tech-dependent warfare. In this realm, it remains peerless.
The QDR is a top military document required by Congress. It sets US defense strategy, guides plans for forces and military platforms, and plays a major role in determining defense spending for the next decade or so.
Even though the "war on terrorism" has been a declared policy of the US administration since the events of September 2001, the US military has not exactly been moving swiftly to enhance its capabilities in fighting asymmetric war. While the QDR was being compiled, two schools of military thought were pulling the debate of defense strategy and spending in opposite directions.
One school is that insufficient attention is being paid to asymmetric warfare, and that, in terms of setting defense priorities, there is too much competition between military platforms that are designed to meet "state-type threats" versus systems that are aimed at tackling "non-state-type threats".
The second school is still interested in promoting conventional weapons. It argues that the rise of global terrorism did not exactly diminish conventional threats. Meanwhile, the congressional committees overseeing the US armed forces were watching these debates, but wanted to conduct their own review. They believe that an inordinate amount of attention is paid in the Pentagon to the budgetary preferences of the various military services, and, more often than not, the issue of "affordability" remains a driving force of debate conducted inside the Pentagon.
Anyway, it seems that the QDR has settled this spirited debate in favor of asymmetric warfare, at least for now. The intensity of the Iraqi insurgency appears to have persuaded a number of defense-related influentials in Washington that the Islamist insurgency, if anything, has become a global challenge. A number of indicators are grabbing attention lately.
There have been a number of news dispatches lately suggesting that not only are the insurgents in Afghanistan escalating their activities, but al-Qaeda-related groups are also gathering momentum in Europe. Last week's audio tape that allegedly contains the voice of Osama bin Laden ominously mentions a new terrorist campaign in the planning stage.
Even though the voice on the tape remained focused on the United States, it captured the attention of a number of European leaders. The European countries are especially concerned because the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's International Security Assistance Force is in the process of taking over a whole gamut of security operations in Afghanistan. Consequently, there is a growing fear in Europe that a number of NATO countries might be targeted by al-Qaeda.
The QDR has four major goals: defeating terrorism, defending the homeland, influencing such nations as China that are at a "crossroads" in their world role, and preventing hostile states or actors from acquiring nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons (look out Iran!).
In terms of fighting terrorism, the focus is on increasing the size and enhancing the capabilities of the Special Forces. They will be expanded from 15 to 20 active-duty battalions. Ninety more "A teams" (12-man highly skilled teams to conduct special operations) will be created and be deployed in areas considered vulnerable to terrorist or extremist influences. The US military will also increase its capabilities on tracking and eliminating the "most valued military targets", a euphemism for terrorist leaders. The US Air Force's special-operations wing will create unmanned aerial drones to maintain endless watch on regions of the world with a high terrorist presence.
The QDR will also spend huge resources to prepare for "irregular", "catastrophic" and "disruptive" attacks from insurgencies, or terrorist groups with biological weapons, or attacks on the information systems from countries such as China.
The Pentagon has long been aware that China is studying US information systems and developing countermeasures that are focused on its vulnerabilities. The Taiwan conflict has never diminished its significance as a highly contentious issue dividing China and the United States. Thus a great amount of attention and resources are being spent by the Department of Defense in nullifying whatever advantages the People's Liberation Army might have acquired (ie, countering the countermeasures), which might be used in the event of a military conflict involving Taiwan.
As much as the US has remained focused on developing intricate high-tech defensive and offensive systems against the known capabilities of its potential adversaries, what befuddles China is the seemingly endless capacity of the US military to develop unique campaign plans to win conflicts. That nimbleness and dexterity remain the most valuable characteristic of the US military, a characteristic that is very hard to counter. In this sense, Beijing will be watching with rapt attention when the QDR is considered by Congress for development of new military platforms.
Ehsan Ahrari is a CEO of Strategic Paradigms, an Alexandria, Virginia-based defense consultancy. He can be reached at eahrari@cox.net or stratparadigms@yahoo.com. His columns appear regularly in Asia Times Online. His website: www.ehsanahrari.com.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA26Ak01.html
Asia Times
By Ehsan Ahrari
January 25, 2006
The Pentagon has offered the press a sneak preview of its Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) 2005. The two big items of international interest are that the focus of the US military for the next several decades will be on fighting asymmetric warfare and on "influencing" such nations as China that are at a "strategic crossroads" in their world role.
At the same time, there is ample emphasis on using "futuristic" forces of robots, drone aircraft and networked computers. But this is a continuing tradition of the US armed forces to remain at the cutting edge of high-tech-dependent warfare. In this realm, it remains peerless.
The QDR is a top military document required by Congress. It sets US defense strategy, guides plans for forces and military platforms, and plays a major role in determining defense spending for the next decade or so.
Even though the "war on terrorism" has been a declared policy of the US administration since the events of September 2001, the US military has not exactly been moving swiftly to enhance its capabilities in fighting asymmetric war. While the QDR was being compiled, two schools of military thought were pulling the debate of defense strategy and spending in opposite directions.
One school is that insufficient attention is being paid to asymmetric warfare, and that, in terms of setting defense priorities, there is too much competition between military platforms that are designed to meet "state-type threats" versus systems that are aimed at tackling "non-state-type threats".
The second school is still interested in promoting conventional weapons. It argues that the rise of global terrorism did not exactly diminish conventional threats. Meanwhile, the congressional committees overseeing the US armed forces were watching these debates, but wanted to conduct their own review. They believe that an inordinate amount of attention is paid in the Pentagon to the budgetary preferences of the various military services, and, more often than not, the issue of "affordability" remains a driving force of debate conducted inside the Pentagon.
Anyway, it seems that the QDR has settled this spirited debate in favor of asymmetric warfare, at least for now. The intensity of the Iraqi insurgency appears to have persuaded a number of defense-related influentials in Washington that the Islamist insurgency, if anything, has become a global challenge. A number of indicators are grabbing attention lately.
There have been a number of news dispatches lately suggesting that not only are the insurgents in Afghanistan escalating their activities, but al-Qaeda-related groups are also gathering momentum in Europe. Last week's audio tape that allegedly contains the voice of Osama bin Laden ominously mentions a new terrorist campaign in the planning stage.
Even though the voice on the tape remained focused on the United States, it captured the attention of a number of European leaders. The European countries are especially concerned because the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's International Security Assistance Force is in the process of taking over a whole gamut of security operations in Afghanistan. Consequently, there is a growing fear in Europe that a number of NATO countries might be targeted by al-Qaeda.
The QDR has four major goals: defeating terrorism, defending the homeland, influencing such nations as China that are at a "crossroads" in their world role, and preventing hostile states or actors from acquiring nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons (look out Iran!).
In terms of fighting terrorism, the focus is on increasing the size and enhancing the capabilities of the Special Forces. They will be expanded from 15 to 20 active-duty battalions. Ninety more "A teams" (12-man highly skilled teams to conduct special operations) will be created and be deployed in areas considered vulnerable to terrorist or extremist influences. The US military will also increase its capabilities on tracking and eliminating the "most valued military targets", a euphemism for terrorist leaders. The US Air Force's special-operations wing will create unmanned aerial drones to maintain endless watch on regions of the world with a high terrorist presence.
The QDR will also spend huge resources to prepare for "irregular", "catastrophic" and "disruptive" attacks from insurgencies, or terrorist groups with biological weapons, or attacks on the information systems from countries such as China.
The Pentagon has long been aware that China is studying US information systems and developing countermeasures that are focused on its vulnerabilities. The Taiwan conflict has never diminished its significance as a highly contentious issue dividing China and the United States. Thus a great amount of attention and resources are being spent by the Department of Defense in nullifying whatever advantages the People's Liberation Army might have acquired (ie, countering the countermeasures), which might be used in the event of a military conflict involving Taiwan.
As much as the US has remained focused on developing intricate high-tech defensive and offensive systems against the known capabilities of its potential adversaries, what befuddles China is the seemingly endless capacity of the US military to develop unique campaign plans to win conflicts. That nimbleness and dexterity remain the most valuable characteristic of the US military, a characteristic that is very hard to counter. In this sense, Beijing will be watching with rapt attention when the QDR is considered by Congress for development of new military platforms.
Ehsan Ahrari is a CEO of Strategic Paradigms, an Alexandria, Virginia-based defense consultancy. He can be reached at eahrari@cox.net or stratparadigms@yahoo.com. His columns appear regularly in Asia Times Online. His website: www.ehsanahrari.com.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA26Ak01.html
