But the Army can't be so impolite as to mention names. But it is fairly clear who they mean in the draft document (which is not meant to be authoritative so it should not be quoted as defining US doctrine. But I'm not commenting on anything other than the definitions of our focus) "Operating under Conditions of Uncertainty and 15 Complexity in an Era of Persistent Conflict," the draft document on Army focus:
Power struggle in WMD-capable failing state: A hostile failing state government is thrown into chaos by infighting among leadership factions, resulting in instability, potential WMD proliferation issues, and likely threat to key regional U.S. allies. Critical security challenges include anti-access capabilities, WMD proliferation, state use of proxies, hostile, failing states that harbor terrorist and criminal safe havens, and border tensions.
This is likely either Pakistan or North Korea. North Korea is probably the prime suspect here given the threat to US ally part, but the terrorism angle applies more to Pakistan. Although Russia could fit in here, too, God forbid.
Ally launches a pre-emptive surgical strike against a threatening hostile state: This results in regional military conflict, global economic instability, and blocked access to shipping lanes. Critical security challenges include anti-access capabilities, WMD proliferation, hybrid threats, terrorist organizations, state use of proxies, hostile state, and violent extremist organizations.
This means Israel striking Iran's nuclear facilities. In time, it might mean Japan or South Korea attacking North Korea.
Terrorists acquire WMD through transnational criminal organizations: Supported by transnational organized criminal networks, several terrorist groups acquire WMD materials. Critical security challenges include WMD proliferation, terrorist organizations, violent extremist organizations, and criminal enterprises.
This is the bread and butter of the war on terror, recognizing that criminal gangs (likely drug gangs) might assist jihadis in getting and using WMD.
Intra-state insurgency expands beyond state borders to entire region: This threatens UN and U.S. forces conducting counterinsurgency and stability operations. Critical security challenges include terrorist organizations, state use of proxies, hostile state, failing or failed state, violent extremist organization, safe havens, and border tension.
This means Afghanistan and Pakistan. Basically the impact of the latter on the former, but vice versa to some extent.
U.S. ally is threatened by violent extremist organization activities emanating from safe havens in a bordering state: This results in state-on-state conflict. Critical security challenges include terrorist organizations, state use of proxies, hostile state, violent extremist organization, and safe havens.
Colombia was my first thought. But it almost certainly is meant to focus on Iraq. It could even be a different way of talking about Afghanistan.
Advanced hostile state launches an economic attack on U.S. firms: By dumping economic assets and conducting a concurrent wide-ranging cyber attack, an advanced hostile state can create critical security challenges including state use of proxies, cyber attack, unrestricted warfare, and resource competition.
China. That's it. Russia could be cyber-foe but the Russians don't have the economic assets to dump to make it a multi-dimensional assault.
And keep in mind that this is an Army document, so any talk of potential warfare between America and China would be more likely in a Navy, Marine Corps, or Air Force document. But it could mean that we really don't have any plans to ship in Stryker brigades to Taiwan in case China invades Taiwan.
Narco-criminal gang violence along the U.S. borders: This creates instability in border towns and cities and increases illegal immigration due to people fleeing the violence. Critical security challenges include civil security, violent extremist organizations, criminal enterprises, and border tension.
Mexico. And thank you, Canada, for being a stable friend.
Catastrophic natural disaster: The United States suffers a 7.0 or greater magnitude earthquake devastating infrastructure across a large region, triggering internally displaced persons, widespread crime, and large scale civil support responses. Critical security challenges include humanitarian assistance and civil security.
Katrina. Or something like this. The military and federal government won't wait for a state to ask for help next time.
So this is how the Army wants to look at the future, at this point, to guide issues of equipment, organization, training, and deployment.
While this wouldn't be exclusive, since surprises always happen, we'd have to react to other crises within the mindsets and capabilities set forth in this document when it is finalized.
Which means I'd certainly like a generic statement of operations to defend a NATO ally from external threat, even though that is probably a low odds threat. That would mean Russia.
