Deterrence of Irregular Threats

[slapout9]

Could a corporation be a "non-state actor", absolutely. Now, most corporations have to operate primarily within the law, so we have strings on them that work quite well. My main concern then are those non-state actors with no such compulsion to be constrained by law. I am also more focused on those with political agenda, vice profit agendas.

If, however, a corporation chose to act outside the law to pursue a political agenda they would fall in this group; but again, we can always yank them back by fact that they must operate primarily within the law.

Flat out the most dangerous opponent out there....I am convinced we will fight a rogue corporation in the future and the military may not win they invent the hardware and know how to turn it off, the military could be a total sitting duck. A Trans National Corporation is nothing but a Criminal (RICO) organization.

[Entropy]

BW,

There is that perception in some cases, but there's also the realization that pursuit of nuclear weapons (as opposed to actually possessing them) is going to increase one's chances of getting bombed by the US. The US has demonstrated and clearly stated its willingness to use force to prevent that.

I also think the history of nuclear proliferation shows that governments are willing to risk those consequences if they perceive an existential threat. That was the case with Brazil/Argentina, Iran/Iraq, Israel/Arab World, and India/Pakistan. The case of Brazil and Argentina is particularly instructive since it demonstrates how reduced tensions and bilateral transparency can lead to states deciding that nuclear weapons are no longer in their interest.

On Iran, my analysis indicates that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons during the 1980's and 1990's because of Iraq, not the US or Israel. Now that Iraq is no longer a threat to Iran, Iran's strategic rationale for nuclear weapons is gone. The policy problem I see is that most policymakers and analysts believe Iran's program is independent of its strategic position and that Iran is "bent" on acquiring weapons regardless. To me that is a dangerous and ahistorical view that will lead to self-fulfilling policymaking.

For most of the rest of the world, however, I think the bigger issue is the perception (and often the reality) that the US works to deny nations the benefits of nuclear technology while failing to live up to its disarmament obligations under the NPT. A big reason the NNWS originally agreed to the limits imposed on them by the NPT was access to nuclear technology.

Personally, I think unless things change, the NPT's days are numbered. The NNWS are not going to collectively adhere to the NPT when they believe the US and other NWS are breaking the spirit and letter of the agreement.

[marct]

Hi Bob,

I very specifically used the term "actor" for the non-state category as they do not represent nor have a direct official link to any state. Could a corporation be a "non-state actor", absolutely.

I suspected that was the case, but it was important for me to check .

Now, most corporations have to operate primarily within the law, so we have strings on them that work quite well. My main concern then are those non-state actors with no such compulsion to be constrained by law. I am also more focused on those with political agenda, vice profit agendas. If, however, a corporation chose to act outside the law to pursue a political agenda they would fall in this group; but again, we can always yank them back by fact that they must operate primarily within the law.

Here's where I suspect we disagree. Which law controls multi-national corporations actions? It certainly isn't US law that controls their actions outside of US jurisidiction. International law? Tricky, especially when numerous states don't follow it or, if they do, they often have different, and sometimes contradictory, interpretations of it.

As far as "strings" are concerned, we, like most good analogies, they work both ways. As an example, consider the prevalence of corporate strings into various governments and their ability to manipulate and/or outright construct the "law" (legislation).

I'll also note that, historically, we have seen a lot of wars and other conflicts start as a direct result of corporate actions.

Flat out the most dangerous opponent out there....I am convinced we will fight a rouge corporation in the future and the military may not win they invent the hardware and know how to turn it off, the military could be a total sitting duck. A Trans National Corporation is nothing but a Criminal(RICO)organization.

More importantly, Slap, they control the politicians who control the military .

[slapout9]

More importantly, Slap, they control the politicians who control the military .

YEP!


The Law/Treaties have a lot to do with why we will NEVER be able to deter attacks against the US. Except for Ken probably nobody remembers that before the SALT 1 treaty EVERY city in the US (above 200,000 I think) was protected by an ARMY ADA (air defense artillery battalion)..... that was given away during the SALT treaty......we completely disarmed ourselves against a basic Air Strike did you ever hear of a single Guvmint 911 investigation into that.....don't think so.


Bob's World..... Tampa had one of the largest if I remember. You should see if you can find some of the history of the unit down there.....I guarantee they had a protocol on what to do if a civilian aircraft was used to attack Tampa(Mafia Town protects their own). Many of these threats and responses were figured out in the late 50 and 60's when I was growing up. What we are calling non-state actors were called Sub-National threats back then. Dealing with those threats is part of the reason why we have an Interstate highway system.....which was actually called the Strategic Interstate highway system .....these threats also led the Army to spur the development of............THE INTERNET so they could communicate if the regular communications system were attacked. And then there was CONELRAD ahhh the good old days.

[Bill Moore]

There are numerous academic books and books along the lines of tabloid exposes on the challenges that multinationals pose to the nation state. I'm pulling this from memory, so it is only approximate at best. Out of the 100 largest economies in the world, MN corporations compose around 60 of them. Walmart and Exxon being among the largest have larger economies than many (perhaps most) nations. That is power, because they have the freedom to wield that power without going through Congress or being restricted by a mature bureaucracy that limits what the government can and can't spend money on.

There are at least a couple of so-whats to this. First, they wield considerable influence with their spending power. As Marc eluded to they can buy politicians, they can also buy lobbyists, and wage well funded media campaigns to support their objectives. A corporation within a State falls under that State's laws (though they can buy protection from the law in many instances). A multinational falls under international law which is interpreted differently in different countries, and of course if you're getting off and your a corrupt third world politician you're probably going to look the other way at human rights abuses, environmental violations, etc., other wise the MN will move to another country where they can get the legal environment they want.

Several people and organizations, NGOs and governments alike, are calling for international cooperation through the EU and UN in an attempt to reel in some of the MN's power by establishing international rules that will be enforced. The concern is that MN's are run by CEO's who are not democratically elected and their loyalty is to their investors, not the people or the State. This simply reinforces my point (and many others) that the nation-state (to include the U.S.) is becoming less powerful and more and more just another player on the global stage. The world is being reshaped, we're not reshaping it.

I'm not aware of any MN directly starting a conflict, but they likely have influenced political leaders to some extent to either get involved or stay away from a conflict due to risk or gain to their business interests. Perhaps a more subtle example of a MN corporation influencing policy is CNN. Arguments have been made that the CNN effect at least weighed in on the decision criteria of the Clinton administration to get involved in Somalia. On the other hand, the media (especially CNN) attempted to drag us into Sudan over the Dafur issue and failed, so there are limits, but still they are a non-state actor that is defnitely a player on the world stage.

What concerns me is the unrealized potential to date that MN's have to influence global events beyond the control of any government for less than altruistic purposes. I suspect that Pandora's box hasn't been fully opened yet in this regard. I suspect it will be easier (not easy) to deter a MN than a fanatical group.

[Dayuhan]

Maybe I'm too much of a stickler for definitions, but I think the second, limited definition, is what most people think of when considering "deterrence." The first is either "influence" or "disincentive" or "dissuasion." I agree with a lot of what BW is saying, I just think using "deterrence" to include things like "improving governance" is only going to confuse people.

There seems to be a lot of overlap with "strategic influence." I'm reminded of this RAND monograph I read a couple of years ago for a class:

I agree on the definition (or perceived definition) of deterrence, which is why I think "Deterrence of Irregular Threats" is probably not the best start for a discussion of the full range of tactics available to counter these threats.

Deterrence based on physical retaliation is part of the toolbox, but it can't be the only part. Retaliation against an enemy that has no discrete geographical base is often difficult, and a predictable policy of retaliation can actually be used against us. Islamist radicals in particular would like to see overt US intervention in as many places as possible; that strains our resources, tires our populace, and feeds their propaganda mill. If our response to attack or threat becomes predictable, this allows our antagonists to effectively manipulate us. We need deterrence, but it has to be unpredictable deterrence: the last thing we need is to back ourselves into a corner where our own deterrence policy can be used to drag us into an ever-increasing number of extended conflicts.

Influence, disincentive, and dissuasion will have little impact on the hard core of committed true believers at the core of most irregular threats, but they can play an important role is isolating that core from its sources of support and sanctuary.

There's also a wide range of possible preemptive measures. These involve using the widest possible range of intelligence methods to identify who is plotting against us and what they are plotting, then using military or LE resources to neutralize the plotters before they are able to execute their plans.

We need to work the financial end of the picture as well: we may never make it impossible to finance irregular threats, but we can certainly make it more difficult and more dangerous.

We have protective measures to consider: defending vulnerable targets, improving screening at key immigration points, monitoring incoming cargo, etc. In itself insufficient of course, but a component of an overall strategy.

All of these components, and others, need to be involved in the effort to counter irregular threats. That's why I don't like to talk about "deterrence of irregular threats": it emphasizes threat-based deterrence over the other equally important elements of a comprehensive strategy to counter irregular threats.

One of the stark realities of the irregular threat is that no matter how effectively we plan and execute our counter-strategy, we will still be vulnerable. A small group of committed extremists is very difficult to preempt, deter, or dissuade, and there will never be any assurance that we will be 100% effective. That's certainly no reason not to try.

[Dayuhan]

Which law controls multi-national corporations actions? It certainly isn't US law that controls their actions outside of US jurisidiction. International law? Tricky, especially when numerous states don't follow it or, if they do, they often have different, and sometimes contradictory, interpretations of it.

Very simple answer: operations of a multinational corporation are subject to the laws of the country in which the operation in question is located. Has to be that way, really. If operations of company x in country y were governed by US law, international law, or some sort of supranational body, country y would effectively be relinquishing its right to determine its own internal policies, and no sovereign state is ever going to relinquish that right to a multilateral body, still less to a foreign government.

I personally think the threat of multinational corporations is somewhat overrated, and largely influenced by legions of movies and novels. I'm not saying they are benevolent, but neither are thy malevolent. Most governments do nurture and cultivate their business ectors, including corporations, but that's not because they are controlled by big business, its because no matter how good a scapegoat "the corporations" make and no matter how much politicians love to rail against them, at the end of the day every country needs them and depends on them. Even those who most love to hate them need them: without multinationals and their products the Naomi Kleins and Noam Chomskys of the world would be reduced to writing out their screeds in manuscript and nailing them to church doors.

[slapout9]

Link to 1979 article "Principles Of Deterrence" by John M. Collins, Colonel USA,ret.



http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchr.../jcollins.html

[Bob's World]

Slap, I have to take back some of the bad things I say about the AF. This is a pretty good piece, and surprisingly comprehensive and balanced. I see a few sound bytes I can use as I package this up.

My (modest) intent is to make the case that:

1. Our overall concept of how we deter must be reassessed to more fully and accurately take into account these new actors;

2. To make the case that "Deterrence of Irregular Threats" is a worthy concept to consider to replace the largely unpalatable one of "Irregular Warfare;" and

3. That Deterrence of Irregular Threats makes a better umbrella than Counterterrorism for the next revision of our GWOT plans.

I appreciate all the thoughtful comments and input over the weekend from everyone.

[William F. Owen]

1. Our overall concept of how we deter must be reassessed to more fully and accurately take into account these new actors;

What new Actors? Do you mean, "new" as in new group, or do you mean "new political aims and means"?

[marct]

Hi Bill,

There are at least a couple of so-whats to this. First, they wield considerable influence with their spending power. As Marc eluded to they can buy politicians, they can also buy lobbyists, and wage well funded media campaigns to support their objectives. A corporation within a State falls under that State's laws (though they can buy protection from the law in many instances). A multinational falls under international law which is interpreted differently in different countries, and of course if you're getting off and your a corrupt third world politician you're probably going to look the other way at human rights abuses, environmental violations, etc., other wise the MN will move to another country where they can get the legal environment they want.

That's a good listing of the "so what's", thanks Bill! Let me add in a few others that, I believe, are directly relevant to Bob's model.

1. MNC's have the ability to manipulate the economies of nation states via changes in employment (opening or closing local organizations), by "investment", and via changes in import / export markets. The largest group doing this, at least in the 1980's, were the auto manufacturers and the oil companies. The ability to manipulate the economy can lead to either a stabilization of a regime or a destabilization of it.

2. Some MNCs have the ability to control information flow in a society (both access and message). While we would notmally think of media companies such as CNN or Al Jezzera, it also includes telecom companies such as Alcatel, Shanghai telephone and Telegraph, Nokia, Seimans, Cisco, etc. This gives these companies the potential to manipulate both messages and communications channels.

Several people and organizations, NGOs and governments alike, are calling for international cooperation through the EU and UN in an attempt to reel in some of the MN's power by establishing international rules that will be enforced. The concern is that MN's are run by CEO's who are not democratically elected and their loyalty is to their investors, not the people or the State. This simply reinforces my point (and many others) that the nation-state (to include the U.S.) is becoming less powerful and more and more just another player on the global stage. The world is being reshaped, we're not reshaping it.

Yup. In really condensed, academic shorthand, "globalization" is about the destruction of national sovereignties and the creation of a form of techno-feudalism with MNCs as the "fiefs".

I'm not aware of any MN directly starting a conflict, but they likely have influenced political leaders to some extent to either get involved or stay away from a conflict due to risk or gain to their business interests.

The Opium Wars, roughly 50% of the wars in India during the 18th and 19th centuries, and the conquest of Rhodesia are all older examples. The modern ones are much more complex, but include the entry of Japan into WW II (it had to do with Japanesse access to oil) and the "Banana Wars". In general, what would happen would be that a state-based MNC would "convince" the state that their freedom of operation was in the "national interest" and, hence, military action was neccessary.

Perhaps a more subtle example of a MN corporation influencing policy is CNN. Arguments have been made that the CNN effect at least weighed in on the decision criteria of the Clinton administration to get involved in Somalia. On the other hand, the media (especially CNN) attempted to drag us into Sudan over the Dafur issue and failed, so there are limits, but still they are a non-state actor that is defnitely a player on the world stage.

Yup and what with the Chinesse playing a major role in Sudan (oil again), it's a good think in some ways that the US wasn't dragged in . At the same time, getting the AU involved just showed how poor they were.

What concerns me is the unrealized potential to date that MN's have to influence global events beyond the control of any government for less than altruistic purposes. I suspect that Pandora's box hasn't been fully opened yet in this regard. I suspect it will be easier (not easy) to deter a MN than a fanatical group.

I agree, it should be easier, but it is getting less easy that it used to be.

[Bob's World]

What new Actors? Do you mean, "new" as in new group, or do you mean "new political aims and means"?

We have broadly painted a range of newly empowered actors as "terrorists" that tends to conflate what is acutally a very diverse group, both in nature as well as actual aims and means. To additionally call all of this a "global insurgency" clouds the water even more.

Goal here is to attempt to lend greater clarity to understanding these organizations and then designing more effective means of deterring not just these actors from threating the US and our interests; but also to update our deterrence of traditional actors (states) to better account for the full spectrum of engagement.

[slapout9]

Slap, I have to take back some of the bad things I say about the AF. This is a pretty good piece, and surprisingly comprehensive and balanced. I see a few sound bytes I can use as I package this up.

My (modest) intent is to make the case that:

1. Our overall concept of how we deter must be reassessed to more fully and accurately take into account these new actors;

2. To make the case that "Deterrence of Irregular Threats" is a worthy concept to consider to replace the largely unpalatable one of "Irregular Warfare;" and

3. That Deterrence of Irregular Threats makes a better umbrella than Counterterrorism for the next revision of our GWOT plans.

I appreciate all the thoughtful comments and input over the weekend from everyone.

Thought you would like it. The author is an ARMY Colonel Also the time period was not to far from when the Army and Air Force still talked to each other a fair amount. I have been trying to remember stuff that may help you because this has been hashed out in pretty fair detail by the ARMY in the late 50's and 60's the ARMY had much more to do with winning the Cuban Missile crisis then they were ever given credit for, I lived through it and watched it happen at very close range.....some of these history experts that make documentaries about what really happend often have know idea what they are talking about. Good luck. Show us the end product if you can. Roger Dodger.... Over and Out.

[Bob's World]

Thought you would like it. The author is an ARMY Colonel Also the time period was not to far from when the Army and Air Force still talked to each other a fair amount. I have been trying to remember stuff that may help you because this has been hashed out in pretty fair detail by the ARMY in the late 50's and 60's the ARMY had much more to do with winning the Cuban Missile crisis then they were ever given credit for, I lived through it and watched it happen at very close range.....some of these history experts that make documentaries about what really happend often have know idea what they are talking about. Good luck. Show us the end product if you can. Roger Dodger.... Over and Out.

...particularly when one spouse got all of the good real estate and most of the money! But I stand by my apology to my AF brothers.

A couple of nuggets (written in 79; but both based on a variety of writings frm the 50s and 60s) that I particularly liked and am using in my pitch:

“Deterrence is a strategy for peace, not war, designed primarily to persuade
opponents that aggression of any kind is the least attractive of all alternative.”

and

“Deterrence induces powers to dissuade, not coerce or compel. Psychological pressure is its prime property; opposing intentions are its principal target. Rival capabilities remain physically untouched.”


I stand by the position that we are not currently at war, merely in a very dangerous complex peace. To look at what we are is as war leads to war-like approaches to problems. To look at it as peace lends it self to applying the principles of deterrence instead. The former muddles along far too much in the realm of the "unacceptable, unsuitable and infeasible"...yet if it is war it must be right. In the construct of deterrence I believe it is easier to see that certain actions cannot acieve the result being sought.

[marct]

Hi Bob,

We have broadly painted a range of newly empowered actors as "terrorists" that tends to conflate what is acutally a very diverse group, both in nature as well as actual aims and means. To additionally call all of this a "global insurgency" clouds the water even more.

A good point, and that type of broad-brush mis-terming has been a serious problem IMO. One problem that comes out of it is that by calling it a "global insurgency" there is an implication that the US claims global sovereignty - a point not lost on many people outside of the US .

Goal here is to attempt to lend greater clarity to understanding these organizations and then designing more effective means of deterring not just these actors from threating the US and our interests; but also to update our deterrence of traditional actors (states) to better account for the full spectrum of engagement.

So, in effect, you are seeking a perceptual model that will allow for the development of a new "convention" for conflict (broadly construed). Is that correct?

[Ken White]

I stand by the position that we are not currently at war, merely in a very dangerous complex peace.

I agree we, the US of A, are not at war -- though some folks in the US Armed Forces sure are in one or more.

I'm not at all sure that the peace is a bit more complex than was that before WWI, WWII or the Cold War. I'd also submit it only seems more dangerous than it need be -- and we made it that way...

To look at it as peace lends it self to applying the principles of deterrence instead... In the construct of deterrence I believe it is easier to see that certain actions cannot acieve the result being sought.

Totally agree on that.

[Bob's World]

Hi Bob,



A good point, and that type of broad-brush mis-terming has been a serious problem IMO. One problem that comes out of it is that by calling it a "global insurgency" there is an implication that the US claims global sovereignty - a point not lost on many people outside of the US .



So, in effect, you are seeking a perceptual model that will allow for the development of a new "convention" for conflict (broadly construed). Is that correct?

Just a new convention for the deterrence of conflict.

This is the irony of current guidance, essentially: "Win the war we're in, then deter future conflicts across the spectrum and be prepared to fight and win if deterrence fails." OK, but what if the current "Defeat" task you are employing against one threat is having such a provocative effect on others that you are making things worse by trying to "win;” when what you really want is simply to be able to go about the pursuit of your national interests without being attacked?

By recognizing what we are actually doing is not warfare but aggressive deterrence; it is easier to tone down the aggression to a more effective brand of deterrence. Winning is not the last AQ guy sitting in Gitmo. Winning is AQ's customers no longer believing that the US is standing between the populaces of their respective countries and good governance in their respective countries. Once that trend is set, AQ fades away because we will have robbed them of their purpose.

[Dayuhan]

The Opium Wars, roughly 50% of the wars in India during the 18th and 19th centuries, and the conquest of Rhodesia are all older examples. The modern ones are much more complex, but include the entry of Japan into WW II (it had to do with Japanesse access to oil) and the "Banana Wars". In general, what would happen would be that a state-based MNC would "convince" the state that their freedom of operation was in the "national interest" and, hence, military action was neccessary.

The colonial-era companies in your earlier examples were arguably "multinational corporations", but bore little resemblance to what we see in the multinational arena today. These entities had government charters allowing them to directly govern large areas; they had their own military forces and the unquestioned ability to call on government military support. They had the ability to initiate and wage war. How many of today's corporations can say the same?

Saying that Japan's entry into WW2 was over access to oil is a stretch, it would be more accurate to say that it was over resources in general: the Japanese needed more than oil. I don't see, though, how corporations played a causative role here. The entire trade structure of the colonial/mercantilist era was built around trade between colonies and mother countries; the companies were only one element in that picture. The mercantilist structure created a closed trading loop, and the only way a latecomer to the colonial table could acquire resources was to conquer them.

It was fashionable at one time to declare that Latin American interventions were "war for United Fruit", just as it was more recently fashionable to call the Iraq intervention "war for Exxon/Mobil". In both cases, there was a little more in the picture than that, though some companies, and many dictators, were quick to exploit the knee-jerk reaction that could be evoked by calling one's opponents "communist".

Deterring corporations is not difficult: you can delist their shares, seize their assets, arrest their executives. It's easier to just pass laws against the things you don't want them to do. Laws aren't always followed, but for the most part companies do try: anyone who has ever watched a company's compliance division trying to steer through mountains of incomprehensible, overlapping, and often contradictory multi-jurisdictional law and regulation knows just how difficult it can be. Laws do have direct and measurable impact: if you want to see the impact of laws barring western corporations from bribery, look at oil deals in Africa. Why do you think Chinese companies are making all the deals? Does anyone really think CNPC is offering deals that better suit the national interest?

If one is setting up a hierarchy of threat, I'd have to put multinational corporations way down the list. There are much more dangerous and much more immediate thrats to manage.

[Surferbeetle]

Deterring corporations is not difficult: you can delist their shares, seize their assets, arrest their executives. It's easier to just pass laws against the things you don't want them to do. Laws aren't always followed, but for the most part companies do try: anyone who has ever watched a company's compliance division trying to steer through mountains of incomprehensible, overlapping, and often contradictory multi-jurisdictional law and regulation knows just how difficult it can be. Laws do have direct and measurable impact: if you want to see the impact of laws barring western corporations from bribery, look at oil deals in Africa. Why do you think Chinese companies are making all the deals? Does anyone really think CNPC is offering deals that better suit the national interest?

(Dr.?)Steve,

As you know CNPC is not the first to be involved with 'outside of the box' business models...

From Frontline: At Siemens, Bribery Was Just a Line Item

To understand how Siemens, one of the world's biggest companies, last week ended up paying $1.6 billion in the largest fine for bribery in modern corporate history, it's worth delving into Mr. Siekaczek's unusual journey.

A former midlevel executive at Siemens, he was one of several people who arranged a torrent of payments that eventually streamed to well-placed officials around the globe, from Vietnam to Venezuela and from Italy to Israel, according to interviews with Mr. Siekaczek and court records in Germany and the United States.

What is striking about Mr. Siekaczek's and prosecutors' accounts of those dealings, which flowed through a web of secret bank accounts and shadowy consultants, is how entrenched corruption had become at a sprawling, sophisticated corporation that externally embraced the nostrums of a transparent global marketplace built on legitimate transactions.

Mr. Siekaczek (pronounced SEE-kah-chek) says that from 2002 to 2006 he oversaw an annual bribery budget of about $40 million to $50 million at Siemens. Company managers and sales staff used the slush fund to cozy up to corrupt government officials worldwide.

From Wikipedia: The Dutch East India Company

The Dutch East India Company (Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie or VOC in Dutch, literally "United East Indian Company") was a trading company, which was established in 1602, when the States-General of the Netherlands granted it a 21-year monopoly to carry out colonial activities in Asia. It was the first multinational corporation in the world and the first company to issue stock.[1] It was also arguably the world's first megacorporation, possessing quasi-governmental powers, including the ability to wage war, negotiate treaties, coin money, and establish colonies.[2]

From Wikipedia: The City-State of Venice

The Republic of Venice was a major maritime power during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, and a staging area for the Crusades and the Battle of Lepanto, as well as a very important center of commerce (especially silk, grain and spice trade) and art in the 13th century up to the end of the 17th century.

Steve

[slapout9]

And lets not forget the Templar Knights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar

What type of attack capability does Boeing Aircraft Corporation have if they really got pissed off?