Disturbing Content in Pentagon Briefing Today

[Leatherneck]

I attended one of those general-interest, professional development, come if you can briefings by the Director  of a small study group at Joint Forces Command in Suffolk, VA. His group-JOE-Joint Operational Environment_ seeks to answer General Mattis's challenge: "Tell me the nature of war in 2030 or 2035." It was an excellent briefing based on his 2010 report which you can see here: http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/JOE_2010_o.pdf

They considered demographics, economic, technology, and political trends around the world. There bumper sticker: "We won't get it all right; but we can't afford to get it all wrong."

So far, so good. The gent was an excellent briefer and thought well on his feet. Bottom line: We ain't gonna be the big dog forever.

The part of his analysis that bothered me was talking about the rise of armed militias and the danger they posed. His briefing material pointed to Hezbollah, but the language cited challenges with training and equipping the National Guard and reserves. He posited that they don't really need tanks and aircraft so much. He also had a slide citing several historical wars/campaigns including our Civil War.

The implications of that line of thought chill me.

Read as much of the report as you'd like and share your reactions. Am i being paranoid?

TC

[vaskidmark]

Without reading the report I can reassure you that your paranoia is well founded.

The probability of a major global or theater conflict is deminishing daily.  Is "asymetrical" still the current phrasing I am looking for?

Conflicts that the USA will continue to engage i will not be against nation-states but against ideologues.  We are already in the middle of an unwinnable war against global terrorism, and that's just a warm-up for the stage where we will close our borders and become isolationist to the n-th degree.

Until then the fights we will most likely be engaging in will not need tanks and B-52s as much as portable HE-AT for breaching purposes, and lots of rotary-wing air cover/support along with counter-mortar/rocket battaries.

The good news is we will be doing the majority of that fighting in places where it is either hot/dry or cold/dry, as opposed to wet.  The "cultural revolution" in the Pacific island chains can pretty much be ignored as they are more dependant on us (the West) than the other way around, and for the most part they will not be venturing out to sea just to harass/impede shipping until quite some time from now.  Additionally, our Chinese overlords will most likely deal with them should they disrupt the flow of goods to Wal-Mart and money back to Bejing.

The only thing I am not too clear on is where the tipping point will be to start the ethnic cleansings here on the mainland.  It's going to either be something a whole lot bigger than 9-11 or something that was the one additional straw that collapsed the camel.  I'm just not sure which right now, but am more willing to put my money on the former than the latter.  Check back in 10 years to see if that has changed.

Wish I could tell you a more specific set of circumstances, but unfortunately we are dealing with politicians who do not want to make a political stand and economists who actually believe the BS they are proposing vs. the fundamentalists who cannot look far enough forward to see that if they start winning they will lose satellite phones as detonators and other modern, civilized trappings and thus start losing.

I'm heading for the cave to install some solar-powered air conditioning so I can hibernate year-round.  Somebody come wake me up when a winner has been declared.

stay safe.

skidmark

[Jim147]

I'll have to finish reading later. But the quick look was interesting.

I'd like to run it past a few generations of servicemen next week to see what kind of thoughts they have.

jim

[MillCreek]

I have thought that future wars will have certain characteristics:

Asymmetrical warfare
Exploiting our dependence on space and cyber technology
Be against ideologies more than nation states
Be fought over natural resources such as petroleum products or potable water
Use of chemical, biological or nanotechnology warfare

[230RN]

Am i being paranoid?

I've found that thinking of something they might do, even though they haven't, is called paranoia nowadays.

It used to be called "strategic thinking."

Terry, 230RN

[Firethorn]

I've found that thinking of something they might do, even though they haven't, is called paranoia nowadays.

It used to be called "strategic thinking."

Terry, 230RN

Agreed.  It's not traditional paranoia to 'plan for the worst, hope for the best'.

Look at the whole Y2K mess.  Why'd it blow over more or less without incident?  We got enough paranoia over it we fixed the problems beforehand.

[Bogie]

Future wars will be economic. In the "developed" countries, it's no longer about "us vs. them" or basically xenophobic genocide; it is about "we need them to remain in place and productive so that we can take everything beyond subsistence."
 
Of course, this will tend to run into resistance from less developed countries, who will go with the tried and true "us vs. them, and back off and nuke 'em from orbit if we have a chance" method...
 

[Leatherneck]

Future wars will be economic.

That's what all wars forever have been about, Bogie.

TC

[AZRedhawk44]

Wow... surprised by China's population pyramid on page 15.  I'm not as afeard of them now.  They are nearing unsustainability, unless they choose to rather mercilessly kill several hundred million retiring workers in the next 10-20 years rather than support them.

India is going to make for an interesting bulwark against radical Islam.  They've never been friendly with Persians through their history.

[Unisaw]

AZ, I haven't read the JOE report yet, but my understanding from work (investment) reading material is that China has about 20 years to get its new market-based economy firmly established before its demographic bomb hits.

[Leatherneck]

India is going to make for an interesting bulwark against radical Islam.  They've never been friendly with Persians through their history.

Did you go so far as to see the projection of India's population?

India will be the Big Dog in 2030, according to JOE.

TC

[AZRedhawk44]

Did you go so far as to see the projection of India's population?

India will be the Big Dog in 2030, according to JOE.

TC

Only if their health infrastructure can sustain that, and rampant poverty doesn't drag the country down while it tries to take off.

I expect another Gandhi to come along in the next 10-20 years there, with a bit more of a violent streak.  I think India will be a regional power (and an excellent check against Iran), but not a world superpower.

[Balog]

Just started reading it, but this bit in the intro has already soured me on it.

In our guardian role for our nation, it is natural that we in the military focus more on possible security challenges and threats than we do on emerging opportunities. From economic trends to climate
change and vulnerability to cyber attack, we outline those trends that remind us we must stay alert to
what is changing in the world if we intend to create a military as relevant and capable as we possess
today.

 

[mellestad]

Just started reading it, but this bit in the intro has already soured me on it.

 

Page 32 expands on that, it isn't what you think.

[Bogie]

Think about things this way...
 
You are in control of a developing country. You want a piece of the pie. You have some resources, but you don't have the ways and means to become a world player.
 
Hire a deniable actor to do your dirty work, and convince one of the major players that they need to subsidize your operations to make it stop. In return for their support, they will be ensured a base to operate from.
 
I wonder what the Philippines will do when Saudi, etc., starts to run dry...
 

 

[MillCreek]

I have thought that future wars will have certain characteristics:

Asymmetrical warfare
Exploiting our dependence on space and cyber technology
Be against ideologies more than nation states
Be fought over natural resources such as petroleum products or potable water
Use of chemical, biological or nanotechnology warfare

Huh. Richard Clarke just wrote a book about this:

http://www.slate.com/id/2252391/

I am going to keep my eye out for it.

[dm1333]

In our guardian role for our nation, it is natural that we in the military focus more on possible security challenges and threats than we do on emerging opportunities. From economic trends to climate
change and vulnerability to cyber attack, we outline those trends that remind us we must stay alert to
what is changing in the world if we intend to create a military as relevant and capable as we possess
today.

There ain't nothing wrong with that Balog.  The Coast Guard, for example, is already planning a much bigger presence in the Arctic because of the retreating ice there.  Would you rather have the military sitting around with it's collective head up it's butt, not planning for any changes in the future?

[Balog]

If I believed in "ZOMG global warming climate change!!!11!!1!!!eleventyone!!" I might prefer they take it into account. Since it's a massive crock of s*** I'd prefer they not plan on it. But 1. I haven't read to that part of it yet & B. AGW debates are up there with abortion debates in terms of getting threads locked, so let's not screw up this thread by veering it into that territory ok?

[dm1333]

The impact of climate change, specifically global warming and its potential to cause natural disasters and other harmful phenomena such as rising sea levels, has become a concern. Scientific conclusions about the potential effects of climate change are contradictory, with some arguing that there will be more and greater storms and natural disasters: others, that there will be fewer.22
Climate change is included as one of the ten trends most likely to impact the Joint Force. For example, sea
ice has been shrinking dramatically in Arctic regions each summer, and in the future this could open new
shipping routes across archipelagic Canada and Northern Russia that could dramatically shorten transit times between Europe and Northeast Asia. Furthermore, shrinking sea ice opens new areas for natural resource exploitation, and may raise tensions between Arctic nations over the demarcation of exclusive economic zones and between Arctic nations and maritime states over the designation of important new waterways as international straits or internal waters. As an early move in this new competition, in 2007 two Russian submersibles made an unprecedented dive 2.5 miles to the arctic sea floor, where one ship dropped a titanium capsule containing a Russian flag. Retreating ice creating access to previously unavailable natural resources is but one example of potential security challenges that did not exist in the past.

22Kerry Emanuel, Ragoth Sundaraarajan, and John Williams, “Hurricanes and Global Warming,” Bulletin American Meteorological Society, March 2008, pp. 347-367.
part ii: trends influencing security
33

Global sea levels have been on the rise for the past 100 years. Some one-fifth of the world’s population
as well as one-sixth of the land area of the world’s largest urban areas are located in coastal zones less
than ten meters above sea level. Furthermore, populations in these coastal areas are growing faster than
national averages. In places such as China and Bangladesh, this growth is twice that of the national
average.23 Should global sea levels continue to rise at current rates, these areas will see more extensive
flooding and increased saltwater intrusion into coastal aquifers upon which coastal populations rely,
compounding the impact of increasing shortages of fresh water. Additionally, local population pressures
will increase as people move away from inundated areas and settle farther up-country.
In this regard, tsunamis, typhoons, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and other natural catastrophes
have been and will continue to be a concern of Joint Force commanders. In particular, where natural
disasters collide with growing urban sprawl, widespread human misery could be the final straw that
breaks the back of a weak state. Furthermore, if such a catastrophe occurs within the United States itself
- particularly when the nation’s economy is in a fragile state or where U.S. military bases or key civilian
infrastructure are broadly affected - the damage to U.S. security could be considerable. Areas of the U.S.
where the potential is great to suffer large-scale effects from these natural disasters are the hurricaneprone
areas of the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, and the earthquake zones on the west coast and along the
New Madrid fault. In the 2030s, as in the past, the ability of U.S. military forces to relieve the victims of
natural disasters will impact the reputation of the United States in the world. For example, the contribution
of U.S. and partner forces to relieve the distress caused by the catastrophic Pacific tsunami of December
2004 reversed the perceptions of America held by many Indonesians. Perhaps no other mission performed
by the Joint Force provides so much benefit to the interests of the United States at so little cost.
pandemics

The bolded sections were highlighted by me.  Not much ZOMG in there, just a realistic look at what is changing and what we should do about it.  And as far as veering into an AGW debate, isn't everything that is in the paper fair game for discussion here?

Just started reading it, but this bit in the intro has already soured me on it.

In our guardian role for our nation, it is natural that we in the military focus more on possible security challenges and threats than we do on emerging opportunities. From economic trends to climate
change and vulnerability to cyber attack, we outline those trends that remind us we must stay alert to
what is changing in the world if we intend to create a military as relevant and capable as we possess
today.

It isn't just the military that is considering what to do up there, oil companies are making plans to move into previously unexplored areas.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=oil+exploration+retreating+arctic+ice&ei=utf-8&fr=b1ie7

But as global warming thaws the ocean's icy layer, oil giants, shipping companies and even the odd enterprising tourist operator are casting their eyes towards the high north.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=7534c4de-0c21-4653-a06b-112bc96b2708&k=6345

A U.S.-based company that has controversially laid claim to nearly all of the Arctic Ocean’s undersea oil said Thursday that new geological data suggests a “potentially vast” petroleum resource of 400 billion barrels.

That figure is backed by a respected Canadian researcher who recently signed on as the firm’s chief scientific adviser.

Las Vegas-based Arctic Oil & Gas has raised eyebrows around the world with its roll-of-the-dice bid to lock up exclusive rights to extract oil and gas from rapidly melting areas of the central Arctic Ocean, currently beyond the territorial control of Canada, Russia and other polar nations.

Those figures might be highly optimistic but as a comparison the known Saudi reserves are around 260 billion barrels. 

[Balog]

If you want to try to start something on AGW go nuts. Throw in a bit on religion, abortion, and if Ron Paul would be a good President while you're at it. I just won't be taking part.

[dm1333]

Uh, I didn't bring up AGW.  Not to mention any of the stuff in the rest of your last post.   

[sanglant]

I've found that thinking of something they might do, even though they haven't, is called paranoia nowadays.

It used to be called "strategic thinking."

Terry, 230RN

unless "they" means the TEAparty, then it's just being prudent.