The shift from interstate to intrastate war and the increasing capacity of non-state actors to commit acts of megaviolence reflect how patterns of conflict have changed since the end of the Cold War.  Today warfare is increasingly described as “asymmetric.” Traditional military powers, like the United States, are confronted by increasingly atypical adversaries— non-state ideologues, transnational criminal syndicates, and rogue states— that employ unconventional tactics in wars ambiguous in both place and time.  Today, conflict is more likely to occur between warring factions on residential streets than between armies on battlefields.  As before, many belligerents still fight for power and/or wealth, but an increasing number are fighting purely for ideology. Acts of terrorism have become the major vehicle for their malcontent, especially for well-organized and well-funded Islamic groups like al-Qaeda.  The attacks of September 11, 2001 and similar incidences in recent decades have shown that even small groups of terrorists can carry out sophisticated attacks that result in an incredible loss of life.  The proliferation of nuclear and biological technologies only ups the ante for future incidences. [19]

Terrorism and Transnational Crime

Over the past few decades the size and scope of terrorists’ abilities have become truly alarming.  Terrorist organizations have evolved from scrappy bands of dissidents into well-organized groups with vast human and capital resources.  This situation is forcing governments around the world to develop strategies to both neutralize these groups where they operate and maintain security at home.  The United States has met some success in combating terrorist organizations, killing high-level officials and isolating certain sub-groups, but the War on Terror has had the unintended consequence of forming “micro-actors,” individuals driven by foreign military operations to militant extremism.  These individuals, or groups of individuals, operate in poorly organized cells and as such use internet technologies to spread their message and share plans of attack.  Perhaps paradoxically, this disorganization and decentralization makes these groups a greater threat to the military as it is harder to detect and track them. [1] Terrorism has also had the effect of heightening tensions between sovereign nations. After the Mumbai terrorist attacks of 2008, India and Pakistan neared war after India accused Pakistan of harboring terrorists and Pakistan refused to turn over individuals for prosecution.

To finance their illegal activity, terrorist organizations are becoming involved in transnational crime, especially drug trafficking. Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director of the American Center for Democracy, has stated, “The huge revenues from the heroin trade fill the coffers of the terrorists and thwart any attempt to stabilize the region.” [2] Over the last two decades, we have witnessed a surge in transnational crime, in large part because of the dissolution of Cold War alliances that helped keep criminal syndicates in check.  Organized crime activity is not limited to the smuggling of illicit drugs, but includes the trafficking of arms, drugs, and human beings.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

According to President Obama, “In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up.” [3] International mechanisms established in recent decades have by and large kept the nuclear ambitions of superpowers at bay.  However, the fall of the Soviet Union and the increasing prevalence and power of criminal networks have made it more likely that a single actor could get his or her hands on a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD).  The term WMD is used to describe any weapons technology (radiological, chemical, biological, or nuclear) that is capable of killing a large number of people. [4] By and large it is believed that WMD pose the greatest threat in the possession of belligerent states like Iraq, North Korea, and Iran.  However, experts are warning that a more urgent threat would come from WMD in the hands of non-state actors.  Nuclear material and technical knowledge are frequently exchanged on the black market, especially in post-Soviet countries, where security personnel charged with guarding nuclear facilities are easily bribed into selling nuclear plans and materials. [5]   With the help of the United States, Russia and its neighbors have made strides in securing these sites and improving oversight of the nuclear industry, but there is no telling how much material has been traded over the years. [6]   The WMD threat does not only come from groups operating in the developing world, however, as recent biochemical attacks attest.  The prime suspect in the anthrax attacks of 2001 was a government scientist, and the sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway was committed by a religious organization that enjoyed official government recognition.  The ease with which these materials have become available, especially through online resources, is forcing governments to restrict their use.  International governing bodies will need to find an acceptable paradigm that allows for the benign applications of these technologies, as in power generation, while deterring the nefarious ones.

Force Transformation

In the face of these new asymmetric threats, militaries around the world will be forced to adapt to keep pace with the challenges posed by non-state actors.  In 2008, the US Army released a new field manual for stabilization operations in what signified a major shift in military strategy.  In effect, the Army admitted that the enemy had changed and that it was unlikely to change back. According to the Secretary of the Army, Pete Geren, the armed forces needs to prepare for the full spectrum of military engagements, meaning that the military must grow accustomed to modern, unconventional warfare, like that seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Additionally, he argued, military leaders will need to put more emphasis on officer development and education to better prepare soldiers for modern day threats. [7]   Today, a soldier capable of speaking the local language is often more valuable than a soldier that can drive a tank. All the while, the military must maintain its technological edge. The proliferation of cheap but sophisticated military technologies to enemy combatants is making this more difficult.  The military will need to develop new technologies that are not only deadly but precise and adaptable to different theaters. 

 Erik Peterson on Conflict

To learn more, please click here

Photo Credit: Petty Officer 2nd Class Shawn Handley, U.S. Navy; U.S. Department of Defense.