• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Strategic Horizons: The Military Implications of Alternative Futures

Authored by Dr. Steven Metz.

March 7, 1997

57 Pages

Brief Synopsis

A year ago the Chief of Staff of the Army initiated the Army After Next Project (AANP) as a means of stimulating constructive thinking about the Army's future throughout the service. AANP has quickly developed into a primary vehicle for long-range planning. Under the leadership of the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), the AANP has conducted an ambitious program of studies, symposia and workshops, culminating in a Winter War Game and Senior Seminar held at Carlisle, January 27-February 6, 1997.

A key line of initial inquiry for us has been to forecast the nature of the future security environment in which the Army will operate.

That is the task Dr. Steven Metz set for himself in this monograph. In the pages that follow he propounds "currents of change" that will determine the future and sketches a series of plausible future security systems. Each system is characterized by the forms of conflict that will dominate it, the major strategic issues the United States might face, and the resulting military implications. While Dr. Metz's analysis leads to observations certain to be controversial, he illustrates quite clearly the primacy that environmental context will have in shaping our national security outlook and military strategy. Thus, Dr. Metz's observations on trends and systems warrant careful consideration as national policymakers and the Army's leaders build the military force of the future.

Summary

It is important to analyze long-term changes in the global security environment in order to begin preparation for the post- Force XXI U.S. Army. Existing currents of change suggest a number of feasible yet very different future security environments as defined by the primary source and form of violence conflict. Each would require a different type of U.S. Army.

Part I: Currents of Change. The most important overarching currents of change which will shape the future security environment include:

• Interconnectedness" which is the increasing electronic and physical linking of individuals, groups, commercial entities, and organizations of all sorts;

• The compression of time; and,

• "Demassification" which is the replacement of very large commercial and political entities with smaller, more flexible ones.

In the realm of technology, the information revolution will continue and blend with ongoing changes in engineering to allow a range of "brilliant" machines and various types of nanotechnology. Eventually the information revolution will meld with a nascent biological revolution growing from genetic engineering.

For the future security environment, the most important economic currents of change are:

• The continued transnationalization of corporations and markets;

• The emergence and consolidation of post-industrial, knowledge-based economies;

• The geographic shift of industry;

• The transformation of corporations from hierarchies to networks; and,

• The outright collapse of formal economies in parts of the world.

Important political currents of change include:

• The devolution of power from sovereign nation-states;

• Changes in the nature of security; and,

• A decline in the legitimacy of states.

The most salient social and demographic currents of change are:

• Continued population growth and urbanization;

• Continue escalation of crime; and,

• The emergence of economically superfluous segments of state populations.

The ethical and psychological currents shaping the future security environment include:

• An intensified search for new frameworks of personal identity; and,

• Increased resistance to rapid and radical change.

The most important military currents of change are:

• Increased heterogeneity among global armed forces; and,

• A redefinition of civil-military relations.

Part II: Alternative Futures. There are five forms that the security environment of the year 2030 and beyond might take. Each would require a radically different U.S. military.

A state-based, balance-of-power system is one in which sovereign nation-states seek their national interests, sometimes using traditional forms of military force. State-on-state war remains the most significant form of armed conflict. In such a system, shifting coalitions maintain the balance and serve as counterweights to powerful states. As the most powerful state, the United States is likely to see coalitions designed to constrain it. For the U.S. military, warfighting would remain the primary mission. Both unilateral and coalition capabilities would be necessary. The United States could face a peer competitor, but this would more likely be a coalition rather than a single state. Many other opponents would use asymmetric counters to American military strength.

A trisected global security system is the most likely one. In this, the world would be divided into three tiers. The First Tier would be composed of advanced, stable regions and states with information-based economies. There would be significant political, economic, cultural, and military integration within the First Tier. First Tier states would not wage traditional war against each other. The Second Tier would consist of a range of diverse and autonomous nation-states, most with industrial-based economies. These states would retain traditional military forces, and would occasionally wage war on each other. Most Second Tier states would acquire weapons of mass destruction. The Third Tier would be characterized by endemic violence, ungovernability, and a range of ecological problems. Armed forces would take the form of militias, warlord armies, and terrorist gangs. Third Tier states would not have the capability to wage sustained, largescale warfare. The U.S. military would need very different capabilities in each tier, so the grand strategy framed by American policymakers would determine the shape of the armed forces. While the U.S. military would use traditional force against Second and Third Tier enemies, it would seldom if ever wage sustained campaigns.

An ideology-based system is one in which conflict arises from the reemergence of transnational ideologies and mass belief systems. Most conflict would occur along the fault lines between ideological blocs, and the use of force would be only partially contained by normative restraints. This means that wars can easily escalate, even to the point of full-scale world war between hostile ideological blocs. The U.S. military would be larger and more robust in an ideology-based system than in the other feasible alternatives. Power projection and support to allies would remain key components.

In a security system characterized by internal collapse, internal violence rather than state-on-state war poses the greatest problems. Many weak states will fragment or collapse, and even strong, developed states will face internal violence, often provoking draconian responses. The U.S. military will not be configured for conventional warfighting, but will focus on the sorts of functions handled today by Special Forces, such as raids and support to allies.

Finally, a system dominated by economic warfare would see the intense, sometimes violent struggle for resources and markets cause armed conflict. Transnational entities would develop their own security interests separate from states. Intelligence gathering and security would undergo privatization, with powerful transnational security firms performing functions that state militaries cannot or will not. In the use of force, though, there would be pressure to minimize collateral damage and civilian casualties. In such a system, the U.S. military would need only a very limited capacity for traditional warfighting and would, instead, focus on information warfare. Nonlethal weapons of all kinds would be particularly significant.

Conclusions. It is not yet clear which of the alternative future security systems will actually come to pass. In any of them, though, factors such as non-state enemies and weapons of mass destruction are likely to be important. At this point, all the U.S. military can do is continue to debate and analyze the implications of each so that it is prepared once the future system does begin to take shape.

Access Full Report [PDF]: Strategic Horizons: The Military Implications of Alternative Futures