The base premise here is simply that:
1. What we are really attempting to do through GWOT is deter irregular threats from attacking the US and US interests.
2. The US also has an enduring mission to deter "regular" threats from doing the same
3. In this post cold war, globalized world several categories of newly empowered politically oriented actors with global reach are on the stage creating a new complexity across this total spectrum of actors (that I attempt to lay out on the slide).
4. What may be an act of war if done by one actor may be a criminal act if done by another (and requires a different response that is appropriate to the nature).
5. What may have been deterrent to one actor before, may be less effective now; what may be deterrent to one actor may be provocative to others. This creates a new complexity that must be taken into account to shape a new, holistic family of deterrence and response that is calculated and balanced across the full spectrum of actors and actions.
What one sees in the initial responses and comments above is a great example of the challenges to getting from where we are, and what we are doing currently, as we are all mired in what we have been taught and currently believe. We must step back, take a deep breath, and look at the entire problem set from a fresh perspective. Many changes may be subtle, some may be substantial.
But just as we changed the name of the War Department to the Department of Defense; there is very positive strategic communication in change the name of the Global War on Terrorism to a campaign of Deterrence of Irregular Threats.
CT leads to an Intel driven, reactive chasing of whoever they label as "threat" and conducting a very similar family of engagement against those threats regardless of their actual nature or purpose. Many argue that such an approach has eroded our national credibility globally, and though we have not been attacked, may in fact havecontributed to an even broader range of those who would do us harm today than we had in 2001.
Deterrence allows us to step back from waging war against the world, and chasing threats to an approach more focused on building a credible package of deterrence balanced across the full spectrum. I think it is a concept worth considering.
Bookmarks