Deterrence of Irregular Threats

[William F. Owen]

Wilf,

On deterrence correlation is not causation. Other factors may play a prominent or decisive role in "preventing" action. Gauging the reasons an enemy chooses a particular course of action is not always straightforward as it appears and the opportunity for assumption and mirrior-imaging are significant. In fact, failed deterrence is the result of failing to properly understand the motivations of an adversary.

Wallah! If my Aunt had wheels she would be truck.
Can you deter anything but an action? No you cannot.
Correctly applying the threat of harm to your opponent is required. Did I say anything different?

[Entropy]

Wallah! If my Aunt had wheels she would be truck.
Can you deter anything but an action? No you cannot.
Correctly applying the threat of harm to your opponent is required. Did I say anything different?

We can use HA as an example. To what can/should we attribute their lack of attacks against Israel since 2006? From your earlier comments in this thread it appears you believe that the cause of their inaction is the deterrent effect from the 2006 campaign. There may be something to that, but there are other causes that are probably just as important if not more so. After all, Nasrallah publicly said the event that precipitated that conflict was a mistake and that HA did not expect the Israeli response. IOW, it was miscalculation that caused that conflict and not any failure of deterrence. Deterrence has limited power over miscalculation.

The point is that lack of action is not proof an opponent is deterred since there can be (and often are) many reasons an actor may not pursue a particular COA. The danger is that one may think deterrence is "working" when in fact it isn't working at all.

[William F. Owen]

The point is that lack of action is not proof an opponent is deterred since there can be (and often are) many reasons an actor may not pursue a particular COA. The danger is that one may think deterrence is "working" when in fact it isn't working at all.

So what is proof that deterrence has worked?

Deterrence is obviously dynamic, and not an absolute state. It is predicated on deterring certain actions. Yes, you will never know if the effect you sought was actually achieved. - so what?
Wars start because the credible deterrence breaks down. - again - so what?
We know all this.
What worries me is there seems to be such an imperfect understanding of how deterrence is applied. Regardless of the effectiveness, or duration, or reason, if you wish to deter, you are required to credibly pose a very great threat. Logically, that means doing things that are threatening to those you seek to threaten. What am I missing?

[Entropy]

What worries me is there seems to be such an imperfect understanding of how deterrence is applied. Regardless of the effectiveness, or duration, or reason, if you wish to deter, you are required to credibly pose a very great threat. Logically, that means doing things that are threatening to those you seek to threaten. What am I missing?

I'm not sure how else to explain it. The fact that HA has not attacked or provoked Israel since the 2006 conflict is not self-evident proof that Israel is deterring HA.

[William F. Owen]

I'm not sure how else to explain it. The fact that HA has not attacked or provoked Israel since the 2006 conflict is not self-evident proof that Israel is deterring HA.

Agreed, but what would constitute evidence that it is? That in no way negates having and exercising levels of capability and intent, that may be producing a deterrent effect for the time being.

[Ken White]

Bob's World:

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

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.

On Item 1. I strongly doubt that it is possible to deter all irregular threats. I believe that an effort to disrupt potential irregular threats is vastly preferable to the rather to passive effort of deterring. Particularly when such deterring is going to be in a mostly now unidentifiable form.

Re: item 2, disruption is also preferable -- and cheaper -- the disadvantage is that it requires knowledge and action early on; areas in which the US does not excel...

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.

I very much agree; I'd agree even more if it read 'Deterrence and disruption..."

This is the essence of the AQ phenom. The ability of a non-state to act like a State to conduct UW across many states while protected by the sanctuary of their status of not being a state, so having no state-based vulnerabilities that can be either targeted or deterred in a classic sense.

True -- thus disruption has to be an alternative.

Entropy:

In fact, failed deterrence is the result of failing to properly understand the motivations of an adversary.

I'm not sure that's always correct. I can understand your motives and still fail to deter you because I attempted to counter a feint -- or because you were deflected enroute to your target and selected another. It's also quite possible that my selected mode of deterrence was poorly chosen or just flat wrong...

Slapout, as always, applies some common sense and realiistic thinking and makes two statements with which I strongly agree

1-I don't think it is more complex, there are just more of them, it's the quantity and massive geographic area to be covered that is daunting.

2-Personal motives vs. political motives. The Lone Revenge Bomber who is mad at the world and has no definable organization, but yet can affect large population targets is a big problem and this type of terrorist can not be deterred IMO.

The first is I believe the crux of the matter -- we make this harder than it is and we do have a global reach and thus we have simply increased the problem quantitatively, not qualitatively.

Given the American penchant for over-control and centralization, we need distributed thinking; the NSC and State should have regional super-Ambassadors and Desks with real clout. DoD should defer to the CoComs and SOCOM to their regional commands. You cannot run the World from Pennsylvania Avenue; the Armed Forces from E-Ring; all of the SO stuff from MacDill. As long as we continue to do that, we'll keep having the same old problems and the sheer number will overwhelm attempts at sensible decision making.

Slap's absolutely right that some types cannot be deterred -- and I'll add or disrupted for long -- IOW, we're going to have to live with a degree of risk. We always have, we just communicate more quickly and widely now so folks are more aware more rapidly and this allows minor panics to (wrongly) influence government into taking foolish actions.

Strategies and policies need to take those things into account.

Lastly,Bob's World again, he sums up the root of the whole problem:

The real fact is that the fabric was beginning to unravel and we did not recognize it as such, choosing to believe that old ways would continue to work in the face of change.

True. That factor is prevalent in much of our history. Even given the 1953 coup and some -- not many -- Iranians being quite angry over that, what happened later was totally preventable. We ignored it -- and then came up with the WRONG reaction when there was an eruption. Those failures and the cults of centralization and "I am in charge, here, now..." control are part and parcel of our current situation.

We cannot undo our history, we are where we are and that has to be accepted, not apologized for going forward. We need to look to the future. So we aim to deter and disrupt.

That requires adequate and effective early warning or knowledge -- and there still is no guarantee we will take the correct action...

Wilf said it well and we'd be far better off as a nation if we paid heed:

In many ways, today military action is far less decisive and thus the world is more predictable.

Ran across this gem in the NYT today:

TALLIL AIR BASE, Iraq — In this desert brush land where the occupiers and occupied are moving into an uneasy new partnership, American and Iraqi commanders sat side by side earlier this week and described their biggest problems to Robert M. Gates, the visiting defense secretary.

For Staff Maj. Gen. Habib al-Hussani, the commander of the 10th Iraqi Army Division, the trouble was not enough equipment for patrols on the border with Iran. For Col. Peter A. Newell, the commander of the first American advisory brigade to Iraqi troops, it was something else.

“The hardest thing to do sometimes,” he told Mr. Gates, “is step back and not be in charge.” (LINK).(emphasis added /kw)

That about sums it up...

[Entropy]

Agreed, but what would constitute evidence that it is? That in no way negates having and exercising levels of capability and intent, that may be producing a deterrent effect for the time being.

Unless your adversary is willing to tell you directly, then there isn't any way of knowing for sure. Obviously, the better one studies and understands an opponent, the better one is able to estimate their motivations and use all the policy tools available to affect those motivations, not just deterrence. That's why good intelligence is critical to policymaking.

What I object to are simplistic pronouncements of cause and effect - that "x" has not happened because of "y" which, in this case, is deterrence. It's nice rhetorically because that argument is usually impossible to disprove. Other examples include "x" policy has worked or GWB is a great President because there hasn't been another attack since 9/11. Or, more recently, my own government leaders have claimed that if it hadn't been for the stimulus package, the economy/unemployment would be much worse. It's impossible to disprove or quantify such assertions when they are framed that way.

Maybe it's misperception on my part, but ISTM many elites and policymakers have too much faith in "deterrence" over other forms of influence and have drawn false conclusions based on the "success" of deterrence during the Cold War. For example, the idea that deterrence will prevent a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran (should it acquire nuclear weapons) is dangerously naive. People miscalculate. Nations miscalculate. We got lucky at several times during the Cold War and our intelligence was able to tell us when our attempts at projecting a deterrent posture had the opposite effect. That happens more that people realize.

In short, putting too much faith in deterrence as a strategy provides a false sense of security.

[Bob's World]

Ken,

No arguements about the "disrupt" component. Hanging onto the "disrupt" task; and dumping the "defeat" task (which is not feasible, suitable, or acceptable, by the way if you really think about it) and replacing it with "deter."

This gives us the foundation for a new framework for the GWOT plan that we can build upon and that won't by its very terms alienate our allies and our own interagency community.

So what I am really looking at is two different things here. One is an overall review and revision of how we approach deterrence as a whole to more accurately and completely address the many actors on today's scene. Second is to then Re-write the GWOT plan in the context of detering (and yes, exactly right Ken,)Disrupting Irregular Threats.

[William F. Owen]

What I object to are simplistic pronouncements of cause and effect - that "x" has not happened because of "y" which, in this case, is deterrence. It's nice rhetorically because that argument is usually impossible to disprove.

Concur. That's why I think EBO is drech. However if the enemy's specific lack of action is the condition that gives you benefit, what do you care?

The fallacy is in attempting to apply a deterrence against something you have not identified. You cannot physically threaten something you cannot fix in time and space. No physical threat. No deterrence.