Wrong War

After the Vietnam War, the U.S. military deliberately began to forget everything they had learned about the brutal and unpleasant war case against guerrillas. The generals acted under the assumption that if they did not prepare for that kind of war, they would not be required to fight it. The emphasis in the 1980s and 1990s, even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, was on fighting conventional and uniform opponents. This worked well in the 1991 Gulf War, but left the US Armed Forces severely prepared for wars after the 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq event.

I'm afraid history may be ready to repeat itself. For discussion of my new book on the work of the legendary Vietnam-era secret operative Edward Lansdale, I have visited military installations, including Army War College, Fort Banning, Sea Passive School and Pentagon. And wherever I went, I heard the military is moving its focus from security to conventional conflict.

This is in line with the National Defence Strategy of Defence Secretary Jim Mattis, who says: “Interstate strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the main concern for US national security”. Mattis acknowledges that “threats to stability are also long-standing terrorist groups that continue to kill innocent people and to threaten peace at a total of”, but he is most concerned by the threats of “revisionist” (Russia, China) and “deceptive regimes” (Iran, North Korea).

Its analysis makes sense at a certain level, given that all those anti-American countries are expanding their military capabilities. But the low-intensity conflict is not leaving. This kind of conflict has existed since the dawn of humanity (the tribal war is essentially the guerrilla war) and will remain a major threat despite the loss of Califat from the Islamic State.

While we still face terrorist and guerrilla threats, we also face unusual challenges from countries such as China, Iran and Russia that have established what is known as the “asymmetrical conflicts”, “with grey zone” or <x4hibride”. As the National Defence Strategy notes: “in competition without armed conflict, the powers revision and fraudulent regimes are using corruption, predatory economic practices, propaganda, political collapse, satellite allies and the threat or use of military force to change facts on the ground”.

Russia is particularly capable of this kind of war. Special Prosecutor Robert S. Mueller III accused and the Treasury Department imposed sanctions on the Internet Research Agency in St Petersburg for its successful efforts to overthrow the 2016 elections. At almost the same time, Russian mercenaries working for a private firm called the Wagner Group attacked a US base in Syria, suffering major losses from American air power.

The Internet Research Agency and the Wagner Group are owned by the same person: Yevgeny Pigozin, a Russian oligarch known as “chef” of President Vladimir Putin, because he began his career by opening restaurants. Prigozy wouldn't even go to the bathroom without Putin's permission, but the fact that he's not a government employee gives the Kremlin “the optimism” in committing her aggression. Using “small green men” in Ukraine and Syria, Putin has expanded his influence by minimizing the risk of World War III.

The Russian dictator has used a similar, unstable approach, with his actions in Europe and the United States. He has supported Russian leaders like Trump, Silvio Berlusconi in Italy and Victor Orban in Hungary, planting differences and confusion in Western societies. Mueller's incident details how Trump campaign leader Paul Manafort paid a group of European politicians, reportedly including former Austrian Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer, $2.5m to lobby on behalf of a pro-Russian government in Ukraine.

There is nothing wrong with rebuilding the conventional military capacity of the United States. At any cost, we have to buy more jets and ships. It takes more artillery and tanks training. Those weapons are needed to maintain the status quo and maintain peace. But don't think all this firepower will keep us safe. The United States urgently needs to improve its protection against hybrid warfare.

Countries such as Sweden and Italy are working to combat Russian election intervention, educating citizens for “false news” and closing gaps hackers can exploit. Still, Admiral Michael S. Rogers, head of the US Cyber Command, told Congress he was not given enough authority to fight against the Kremlin intervention and that Russians “have not paid a price. . that would be enough to make them change their” behavior.

The generals are often accused of fighting the last war. Indeed, they are more likely to prepare for a future war that never arrives as they neglect a current conflict. The Pentagon will repeat that mistake if it focuses its energy on conventional wars rather than the hybrid threat. To be fair, it's not all Mattis' fault. The commitment against hybrid warfare requires broad civilian-military co-operation. But it's hard to fight a war when the main beneficiary of enemy attack is the chief commander. / The Washington Post Read.al