Outplayed: Regaining Strategic Initiative in the Gray Zone
Authored by Mr. Nathan P. Freier, Lieutenant Colonel Charles R. Burnett, Colonel William J. Cain Jr., Lieutenant Colonel Christopher D. Compton, Lieutenant Colonel Sean M. Hankard, Professor Robert S. Hume, Lieutenant Colonel Gary R. Kramlich II, Colonel J. Matthew Lissner, Lieutenant Colonel Tobin A. Magsig, Colonel Daniel E. Mouton, Mr. Michael S. Muztafago, Colonel James M. Schultze, Professor John F. Troxell, Lieutenant Colonel Dennis G. Wille.
Brief Synopsis
U.S. competitors pursuing meaningful revision or rejection of the current U.S.-led status quo are employing a host of hybrid methods to advance and secure interests contrary to those of the United States. These challengers employ unique combinations of influence, intimidation, coercion, and aggression to incrementally crowd out effective resistance, establish local or regional advantage, and manipulate risk perceptions in their favor. So far, the United States has not come up with a coherent countervailing approach. It is in this “gray zone”—the awkward and uncomfortable space between traditional conceptions of war and peace—where the United States and its defense enterprise face systemic challenges to U.S. position and authority. Gray zone competition and conflict present fundamental challenges to U.S. and partner security and, consequently, should be important pacers for U.S. defense strategy.
Re: “regaining the strategic initiative in the gray zone,” to first suggest that the U.S./the West “stood tall and looked good” in the previous “gray zone” conflict period/environment, to wit: that such “gray zone” conflict period/environment known as the Old Cold War.
http://warontherocks.com/2015/04/america-did-hybrid-warfare-too/
At this time, as we remember, it was:
a. The “imperialist” Soviets/the communists that were doing “expansion” — of their alien and profane (think modern/secular) way of life, way of governance, etc. And it was
b. The Western-led “Rest of the World” that was — in the face of this such an imperialist effort — doing “containment” and “roll back” of communism.
Post-the Old Cold War, however, these such strategic roles would seem to have essentially been reversed with, today, it being:
a. The “imperialist”(?) West that is doing “expansion;” in our case, of our alien and profane (think modern/secular) way of life, way of governance, etc.
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/lakedoc.html And
b. The “Rest of the World” that is — (in the face of this such imperialist threat/effort?) — doing “containment,” “roll back,” etc.
In our such “expansionist”/”imperial” case today, however, there appears to be what might be called “special circumstances;” as described here by Prof: Samuel P. Huntington cir. 1997:
BEGIN QUOTE
… Alone among civilizations the West has had a major and at times devastating impact on every other civilization. The relation between the power and culture of the West and the power and cultures of other civilizations is, as a result, the most pervasive characteristic of the world of civilizations. As the relative power of other civilizations increases, the appeal of Western culture fades and non-Western peoples have increasing confidence in and commitment to their indigenous cultures. The central problem in the relations between the West and the rest is, consequently, the discordance between the West’s–particularly America’s–efforts to promote a universal Western culture and its declining ability to do so. The collapse of communism exacerbated this discordance by reinforcing in the West the view that its ideology of democratic liberalism had triumphed globally and hence was universally valid. The West, and especially the United States, which has always been a missionary nation, believe that the non-Western peoples should commit themselves to the Western values of democracy, free markets, limited government, human rights, individualism, the rule of law, and should embody these values in their institutions. Minorities in other civilizations embrace and promote these values, but the dominant attitudes toward them in non-Western cultures range from widespread skepticism to intense opposition. What is universalism to the West is imperialism to the rest.
The West is attempting and will continue to attempt to sustain its preeminent position and defend its interests by defining those interests as the interests of the “world community.” That phrase has become the euphemistic collective noun (replacing “the Free World”) to give global legitimacy to actions reflecting the interests of the United States and other Western powers. The West is, for instance, attempting to integrate the economies of non-Western societies into a global economic system which it dominates …
END QUOTE
https://harvardmagazine.com/1997/01/forum.html
(The above suggesting that the West, in the first half of the current century, much like the Soviets/the communists, in the last half of the previous century, having simply substituted “transformation” for “colonization;” this, as the primary means/method of [a] gaining greater power, influence and control over outlying states and societies and, thereby, [b] gaining greater access to and greater utilization of these such outlying states and societies’ human and other resources?)
Thus, might we say that:
While we “stood tall and looked good” — and had much the “Rest of the World” as our allies in the “gray zone” conflict period/environment known as the Old Cold War of yesterday — this, because we were righteously doing “containment,” “roll back,” etc., back then,
Such does not appear to be the case in the “gray zone” conflict period/environment of today’s New/Reverse Cold War. This, because (a) of the less-righteous(?) (as viewed by much of the “Rest of the World?) imperialist/expansionist role that the U.S./the West adopted immediately post-the Old Cold War of yesterday and because (b) of the West’s significant imperialist past? (Both such matters being discussed by Huntington above.)
Bottom Line:
Have we lost the “strategic initiative” — and, indeed, lost the legitimacy needed to operate successfully in the “gray zone” — this, because we have embraced such a very difficult (and internationally offensive?) strategic objective, to wit: the “expansion” of our alien and profane (think modern/secular) way of life, way of governance, etc.?
If such is the case, then to regain the strategic initiative, and regain the necessary legitimacy needed to “stand tall and look good” in today’s “gray zone” “New/Reverse Cold War” conflict environment — this may, indeed, take some very innovative thinking.
Bill C and Bill M….I was once told here I was “melodramatic” in certain views towards events in the EU/Russia…
Russia has worked hard for UK leaving the EU and poured millions and tons of propaganda across the net into UK…..
THIS was is in fact the first hardcore hard fought “grey zone” economical/political war of the 21st century and the Obama/Rhodes “literally slept through it” without really using their soft power that they do in fact have and just one visit to the UK and one speech and public forum was never enough.
This will ripple through to France, Holland and reinforce the Italian drift out of the EU and massively increase the various Russian supported “neo right none EU/Euro parties”……..
That was what I was attempting to get many in the States to fully and completely understand…we are no longer “talking theory of grey zone conflicts”…we are in them already….
While it initially sounded “melodramatic”…..I was in fact totally correct……UK out of NATO and the EU who would have assumed that 24 hours ago….
Another sad day for a Obama/Rhodes WH who has basically retrenched from the entire world regardless of the overall cost….the next President will literally have to dig US FP out of the Grand Canyon…..
This is the most troubling chart coming out of UK this morning…..and no explanation for it….a complete generational split…just as we see as well in the current US politics…..
Age breakdown on Brexit polls tells underlying story. Older generation voted for a future the younger don’t want:
AND the Obama/Rhodes WH never saw this “grey zone war” coming straight them….
German news radio and TV angrily listing all the demands British politicians have made of EEC, EC and EU over the years. Patience snapped.
BREAKING: Sinn Fein says “British government has forfeited any mandate to represent economic or political interests of people in N Ireland”
Look at #France,look at the #Netherlands.
This was no #Brexit.
This was the start of the #EUxit.
Moscow is cheering.
“The difference between Scotland and the rest of the UK couldn’t be more stark now” – @BBCsarahsmith #Brexit
BREAKING #Scotland ‘sees its future as part of the EU’: First Minister – @AFP
UK as a nation state is now splitting because they did not like Polish workers cleaning toilets…..how strange is that???
In two hours the UK economy has lost $350 BILLION. That’s equivalent to 40 years of EU contributions.
Moscow’s Mayor upbeat about Brexit: “Without UK in the EU, there’s no one there who’ll back sanctions against us so stridently,” he tweeted
Senior Russian MP: Brexit a “personal failure of Barack Obama.” https://twitter.com/Alexey_Pushkov/status/746246254389305344 …
BREAKING: Sinn Fein says “British government has forfeited any mandate to represent economic or political interests of people in N Ireland”
East Ukraine’s Donetsk separatist Zakharchenko: “I congratulate the people of Britain. You did what we did two years ago.”
So now does everyone see Russian non linear warfare hard at work in the grey zone and the Obama/Rhodes WH response…….still waiting for something to happen….
Outlaw,
You continue to give a lot of credit to Russia for the failures of EU as a whole. Russia may or may not find UK’s decision to leave the EU beneficial to their interests. I think an influential EU weakened NATO, so in the long run the UK leaving may strengthen NATO which will counter Russia’s interests. The only thing we can hold up as a fact is that neither you, I, nor anyone else knows how the impact of this decision will unfold over time.
You claim Russia has three goals, all of which make sense, but they’re also beyond the reach of Russia to accomplish.
1. damage and discredit NATO (they managed to start the process of strengthening NATO with their assertive behavior, to include pulling more U.S. forces back into Europe).
2. damage and discredit EU (maybe, but EU is damaged goods to begin with. Their socialist policies are unsustainable, and their existence actually weakens strong European states like the UK by constraining their freedom of action, and effectively undermining their sovereignty. Seems to me that the referendum in the UK was about regaining their sovereignty).
3. completely disconnect the US from Europe and ME (they want to do so, but in fact their actions are pulling us deeper into both).
You also argue Russia’s actions in the Ukraine are a win for Russia. I’m arguing it was only a short term win, and now the West is implementing its own gray zone strategy doesn’t to counter Russia short of armed conflict, and we’re doing O.K. if you look at the trend over time. What exactly is Russia achieving in the Ukraine beyond bleeding out resources they can ill afford to lose? The cost benefit to Russia for that little adventure so far has been a net loss for them.
I don’t doubt that Russia and other countries pumped money into their favored information/propaganda surrogates in the UK that were promoting their views on the topic. However, I doubt that it was effective, because the British people have been thinking about this long and hard based on their personal circumstances, and what or who they blamed on their successes or failures. There is a backlash against the current trends associated with globalization throughout much of the world. We see that backlash in the U.S. with the rise of Trump as a Presidential candidate.
The promises of riches associated with globalization are not being delivered (perception) to many in the developing countries. It often seems the only actors that benefit are the large multinational corporations who could move their factories to wherever labor is cheap and environmental laws are non-existent. In democratic countries like the UK and the U.S., you see a growing trend to reject the so called benefits of reducing sovereignty to facilitate economic growth via tying into the global economy. The politicians often seem to be blind to the fact their constituents are increasingly under employed, and their salaries and benefits have been declining.
Russia didn’t make this happen through some sophisticated gray zone strategy. We collectively created a system that is not delivering, and the people are now rejecting it. What replaces it, if anything, could prove to be worse. The global economy and its associated politics are at a turning point in history. Governments will now adapt or fail.
As for the majority of voters in the UK voting to exit from the EU, that is just a symptom of a larger problem, not Russian propaganda. That doesn’t Russian propaganda wasn’t a factor, but it wouldn’t have worked if the negative conditions didn’t exist in the first place. Of course this decision it will lead to market turmoil over the short term (perhaps severe). For the long term, no one knows where it will go. Much like the experts telling us that the UK would vote to stay in the EU based on their analysis of the data, I suspect any experts predicting the future over the next few days will be equally wrong. We’ll just have to wait and see where this goes.
Bill M…..the leave group is now suddenly confronted with the true game of politics…the EU Commission just stated that they want the UK to immediately start the Article 50 trigger as UK wanted it to only trigger in 2018 and leave in 2020 meaning continue to eat the EU cake…..and complain at the same time against the EU…..the EU does not want to drag out the financial turmoil for more than two years which I think the Brits underestimated.
Suddenly now the leave voices are getting “buyers remorse”….
It’s mental. My parents voted Leave b/c of immigration, then admitted today “Actually, that won’t change, will it?”
With leave voters in Manchester for BBCNews -most told us they woke up thinking “what have I done?” & didn’t actually expect the uk to leave
“Gray Zones” of today are no more mysterious than the Schlieffen Plan of the last century. If you put all your deterrent eggs into a single “Maginot Line” of capabilities, your opponents possessed with interests and capabilities of their own will simply go around.
Gray Zones are not the fault of “revisionist states” (we love to apply derogatory names to those who dare to challenge the existing system); they are the fault of the keepers of that existing system for not developing effective deterrent options for the era we actually live in today. Our package of conventional and nuclear deterrent options are our modern Maginot Line – good for what they are designed to do, but wholly inadequate for what needs to be done.
It is throwing good money after bad to reinforce traditional deterrence. Now is the time to invest in new deterrence options designed for the current strategic environment. SOF and Cyber both possess huge growth potential in that market. After all, the primary shared trait of current revisionists is that they fear segments of their own population far more than they fear Western military power. Unconventional Deterrence (UD), which is simply establishing a credible threat of UW toward those one seeks to deter could be very powerful in helping to seal our current exposed flank.
Likewise, the Marines are the perfect force for a renewed Punitive Expedition capability. Sometimes a government or its autocratic leader just needs a good “tune up;” and who better than the Marines to show up in person, rough a government up and impose costs with the threat of “clean up your act, or we’ll be back.” Excessive use of airpower (manned or unmanned) has made us look weak and fearful for this type of operation. Some things need to be done in person.
But UD isn’t in our SOF playbook. Punitive Expeditions are not in the Marine playbook. We need a new playbook.
Bill M…….Not non linear warfare in the grey zone…..
Anne Applebaum @anneapplebaum
Russia has spent years pumping money, overtly and covertly, into euroskeptic parties and media all across Europe. Now it can reap the reward
This is exactly why disinformation and info warfare is so critical to counter….
Russian official: Brexit “separates Europe from Anglo-Saxons, i.e. the US. We’ll have a united Eurasia in 10 years.” https://www.facebook.com/boris.titov.92/posts/1073530176046119?pnref=story …
Re: regaining the strategic initiative, I believe the U.S./the West has made some progress in this regard of late. For example:
The U.S./the West has recently acknowledged that it will not be dealing with a “cooperative world;” one in which the Rest of the World (both great states and small and both state and non-state actors) will (1) follow the U.S./the West’s lead and its wants, needs and desires, and will, thus, (2) act to transform their respective states and societies more along modern western political, economic and social lines.
Rather, the U.S./the West has now embraced the understanding that, instead, we will live in a “uncooperative world;” one in which the Rest of the World has determined that it will resist this such Western initiative. (Herein, the Rest of the World believing that they will lose power, influence, control, identity, dignity, independence, their way of life, etc.; this, by succumbing to these such Western demands/desires/requirements.)
Thus, it is not so much U.S. “competitors” who are “employing a host of hybrid methods to advance and secure interests contrary to those of the United States.”
Rather, it is those “uncooperative”/”resisting” state and non-state elements — which make up the Rest of the World — who are (a) employing these such methods to (b) achieve these such objectives.
Thus, to suggest that it is in the context of — not so much “competition” but rather “lack of cooperation”/”resistance” — that “the United States has not come up with a coherent countervailing strategy and/or approach?”
Thus, it is in THIS “gray zone” — which is indeed “the awkward and uncomfortable space between traditional conceptions of war and peace” — where the United States would appear to need to focus both its strategic thinking and its “soft” and “hard” power?
(As for the “status quo,” should we say that it is not our opponents — but rather the U.S./the West — that seeks to upend this? This, given the U.S./the West’s grand transformational designs for the Rest of the World?)