Chapter Seven

Wild Cards

This is my prediction for the future--whatever hasn't happened will happen and no one will be safe from it.   --J. B. S. Haldane⁴⁸¹




Defense planning is primarily a matter of risk assessment. However, there are some risks to national security which, by their very nature, can be conceived, but not predicted or fully anticipated. Because they cannot be anticipated, such events are very difficult to plan for effectively. At least two reasons apply. First, by their very nature, these events alter the international system by their reversal of significant trends, thereby undermining the facts upon which future planning is built. Second, many of these events fall outside the scope of traditional or permitted defense planning.⁴⁸²

Events that cannot be fully anticipated are characterized in futures studies as wild cards. Although individual sources may forecast wild cards as if they were anticipated events, such singular forecasts are analytical outliers concerning topics that generally have not been addressed by the main body of future security environment literature. Other wild cards are not forecast by any source and remain on the edge of plausibility. However, the prospective effects of these outliers/wildcards can be so devastating to American security that their consideration in creating hedging strategies is of vital importance.⁴⁸³ While anticipating the unanticipated may seem a contradiction, this is indeed a primary purpose in constructing alternative futures and, ultimately, forms the basis for comprehensive planning. The survey of sources identified the seven outliers/wildcards below as having potential effects on defense planning.

Assessing the potential effects of wildcards may bring one to the point where imagination overtakes research. Nevertheless, sketching the outlines and prospective impacts of such unanticipated events helps to identify the alternative against which hedging strategies may be appropriate.

According to the vision of its founders, the fundamental purpose of the UN is the prevention of war. This was intended to be done through encouragement and offices for the pacific settlement of disputes (UN Charter, Articles 33-38) as well as collective self-defense under the auspices of the Security Council (Articles 39-51). Article 42 of the UN Charter empowers the Security Council to "take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." To achieve this, Article 43 requires all members to "make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security." Article 45 specifically requests members to "hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action." Control of these forces would be exercised by the Security Council through a Military Staff Committee consisting of "the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives" (Article 47).

As a practical matter, the Cold War division between the Soviet Union and the other members of the Security Council ensured--with one exception--the ineffectiveness of the collective security Articles.⁴⁸⁴ The Military Staff Committee has remained moribund. Instead, peacekeeping operations have largely been conducted under the auspices of the General Assembly and through the personal efforts of the Secretary-General, whose de facto powers have greatly expanded.

Proponents of world government have championed the increase in General Assembly-sponsored peace enforcement as an alternative to the domination of the Security Council's great power Permanent Members. Though the end of the Cold War appeared to bring the potential for a renewal of Security Council efforts at collective security, proponents have continued the effort to divorce UN military actions from great power influence. Calls for the creation of a standing UN military force that would not be under direct Security Council control have continued throughout the 1990s.⁴⁸⁵

Many of these proposals have taken on the form of forecasts, although the practical hurdles to the establishment of an independent UN military force would seem near insurmountable. Few nations seem willing to give up direct control of their military forces, the possible exceptions being smaller states that view peacekeeping actions--in which their soldier's salaries are paid from UN funds--as a source of revenue and expanded international influence. Secondly, command and control of sizable multinational forces, with their differing weapons systems, doctrines, and organization, is extremely difficult. It was the dominant size of the U.S. effort--rather than tight coordination--that ensured the success of the Desert Storm coalition (which was supported by UN sanctions, but without direct UN involvement). It is unlikely that a UN-appointed commander could achieve a similar success without a lead nation being "more equal than others."

Nevertheless, the creation of a standing UN military force could have both positive and negative impacts on U.S. national security efforts. On the positive side, a UN military force could relieve the United States of much of its humanitarian intervention and international peacekeeping efforts, reducing the operation tempo and conserving the resources of U.S. forces. This, in turn, would allow the United States to focus military preparations on MTWs and defense of the homeland, ensuring high readiness for both missions.

On the negative side, it is possible that a standing UN military force under the control of the Secretary General or General Assembly--and not the Security Council in which the United States retains a veto--could be used to oppose U.S. interests. The worse case might be a scenario in which UN troops were deployed to prevent U.S. military actions, whether as peacekeepers interspersed between U.S. forces and an aggressor, or as a directly opposing force. What, for example, would have been the result if a UN peacekeeping force had been deployed to the Saudi-Kuwaiti border as an effort to ensure that peaceful negotiations between the invading Iraqis and the exiled Kuwaitis took place without outside interference? Guided by a principle of absolute sovereignty for all member states, could a standing UN force have been used to oppose U.S. intervention in Panama or Grenada, however justified such intervention might be?

Although a wildcard, the potential for the creation of a standing UN military force in the 2001-2025 time-frame is worth some modest planning consideration. Policy choices for Washington would range from attempting to politically preclude its creation, to wholehearted support as a means of ensuring U.S. influence over its use.

Domestic Law Enforcement

One of the fundamental principles of American democracy has been the absolute and unquestioned subordination of the military to civil authority. Part of this tradition, stemming from a consistent interpretation of the Constitution, includes prohibitions on the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. These prohibitions are largely confined to the United States and a number of constitutionally-governed nations. In contrast, many if not most states routinely use their military forces as gendarmerie or a national police force. This is particularly true in Africa, where many of the national armies have been primarily organized for the quelling of civil unrest. Indeed, the inability of the Iraqi armed forces to put up much of a battle against coalition forces, yet their relative ease in massacring Kurds and other domestic opponents, has made public the fact that the primary enemy of the so-called professional military of the authoritarian states are actually the civilian citizens of their own state.

Fear of the possible imposition of a military dictatorship and of the potential alienation of the military from civil society have been the twin drivers of Constitutional prohibitions. The early American colonial experienced the frequent quartering of British troops in their homes, spurring greater support for independence. America's significant experience of the use of Federal troops in domestic law enforcement was during the Civil War, primarily--but certainly not exclusively--in recaptured areas. This prompted enough legal and political opposition to make President Lincoln and his administration--although facing a bloody and divisive rebellion--show considerable restraint. The Union military leaders likewise appear to have avoided, as much as possible, involvement of their troops with law enforcement. This historical reluctance to involve the military in maintaining domestic order has evolved into a unique separation between the regular Army, Army Reserve, and National Guard. The National Guard, primarily consisting of reservists, has been the military element used for domestic law enforcement in extenuating circumstance, and usually only under state--not Federal--authority. This system has insulated regular, full-time active duty members of the Armed Forces from having any involvement in posse comitatus.⁴⁸⁶

It is conceivable, though counter to the American tradition, that Congress could seek to void the prohibitions on military use in domestic law enforcement. The most likely circumstance would be widespread terrorism or violence internal to the U.S. homeland. Catastrophic terrorism with weapons of mass destruction would seem to be the potential trigger for an internal military response. Sources suggesting panic in the city as the result of the threat or use of WMD on U.S. soil, paint a picture in which the American people might demand that the U.S. military be used for internal security. Whereas many of the identified homeland defense functions--such as national missile defense--do involve action against a foreign military force, internal security performed by regular military components would seem a fundamental break from current concepts governing U.S. military policies and organization.⁴⁸⁷ Support for domestic authorities, when it involves consequence management or disaster relief, is one thing. The arrest, detention, or interrogation of American citizens by soldiers would be quite another thing--a drastic change akin to a wildcard event. The regular U.S. military is not structured, trained, or predisposed to internal security, and such a legal change would require a near-complete reorganization of the Department of Defense.

A non-wild card aspect of homeland security would be the transformation of the National Guard into an organization completely dedicated to the homeland defense mission. This is, in fact, an active proposal articulated in political and military literature. However, there is still an unarticulated assumption that these homeland defense functions would remain primarily military in nature, or supportive of civilian agencies. Law enforcement functions utilizing National Guard troops, such as for temporary riot control, would still remain under a separate chain of authority primarily controlled by state governors. In these functions, the National Guard essentially performs as a militia rather than a military service.

Economic Collapse

It is our natural preference to believe that economic security is a human birthright. And, in fact, universal economic improvement--in the long run--is a historical fact. In selected periods, however, economic downturns have been the cause of both personal suffering and domestic and international conflict. The most widespread interpretation of the rise of fascism and communism in Europe, along with the eventual cataclysm of the Second World War, is that it was fueled by the economic deprivation caused by a growing worldwide depression that was not felt in the United States until 1929.⁴⁸⁸

The great depression and World War II were defining experiences for a whole generation in the United States, Europe, and Asia. However, this is a generation that is reaching the end of its life span, and the concern they held toward a repeated economic collapse appears to be faded. In fact, the current, repeated rhetoric of mainstream economists, national governments, and the financial industry is that a world wide economic collapse is an impossibility. Investor disinterest in the gold market is but one point of evidence that the possibility of a persistent economic downturn is discounted.

Yet, if globalism is the dominant phenomenon of the international system, it stands to reason that one of its effects would be the transmission of local economic difficulties into the overall world economy. As previously discussed, greater interdependence means the greater vulnerability of individual nations. If historical patterns remain, cascading economic downturns could easily lead to wars as individual nations scramble to protect themselves and ensure access to critical wealth-producing resources. Contrariwise, many globalists argue that the international system will eventually become so interdependent that no nation would be able to make war. However, this forecast carries with it the echoes of the European socialist movement circa 1914.

Other sources, however, argue that the world economy is largely regionalized and--like the European Union--becoming more so. In a regionalized world system, certain regions can prosper even while others might decline. In fact, a globalized financial market might even promote greater regional disparities as it becomes easier for capital to flee distressed regions for more stable ones, making the stable regions even more prosperous. It may also mean that conflict fueled by economic crises may affect only certain regions. This regionalization theory is one of the more frequent explanations of why the downturn in Asian economies in the 1990s had unexpectedly slight effects on financial markets in the United States and Europe.⁴⁸⁹

Whether through regionalized or global effects, the potential economic collapse would hold several implications for defense policy. The first is one of the employment of forces: if economic crises leads to greater regional conflict, it is more likely that the Armed Forces would be involved in regional conflict.⁴⁹⁰ To some extent, the threat consists of failed states, writ large. But what exactly could U.S. defense policy do for a failed world? Intervention in multiple simultaneous regional wars is a scenario that could quickly overtax American military capabilities, leaving the United States vulnerable to a type of conflict that most prefer not to contemplate--the starving have-nots of the Western hemisphere versus the North American haves.

But another implication is the shifting of resources away from defense as a reaction to strains in the U.S. economy. Congress could decide that the United States simply cannot afford a robust defense, and particularly not one based on high-technology and power projection. It is possible that the United States could adopt a neo-isolationist policy that eschewed any overseas military involvement while the nation healed its own economic wounds. The resulting effect in the international system is not something current defense policies envision.

Even if desired, formulating plans to hedge against this wildcard would be extremely difficult. First, a defense policy based on the potential for economic collapse would certainly not be a confidence builder in the domestic economy. Likewise, it would be at odds with current policies on world trade and investment. It would be difficult for most administrations to exhort popular faith in economic growth at the same time its Defense Department appears to be planning for economic collapse.

Secondly, an economic collapse could put current friends or allies of the United States into the have-not camp. It would not appear prudent for the Department of Defense to construct formal plans for defense against our current friends and allies--at least, not if we want them to remain friends and allies.

Thirdly, an economic collapse could mean considerable reduction in the defense budget. How, exactly, could the Defense Department hedge against that? It could purchase less sophisticated weapons that cost less to operate and maintain. But that seems in considerable conflict with policies that emphasize full spectrum dominance, precision weaponry, and information systems. Likewise, a policy of financial investment that could create an endowment for the Department of Defense to spend in lean times does not seem like prudent policy for a democracy. Nor can defense reinsurance policies be purchased to indemnify national security in a coming economic collapse.

Such are the true characteristics of a wildcard--plausible, but unlikely, unpopular to contemplate, and nearly impossible to prepare for.

Environmental Disasters

Futures assessments conducted by environmental-issue NGOs have consistently pointed to an increase in pollution and environmental degradation, particularly as lesser-developed nations seek to expand their industrial capacity. While environmental issues have yet to lead directly to international conflict, access to resources that are sensitive to environmental conditions--such as cod fisheries--has been the source of skirmishes and potential military confrontation. Fossil fuels have also been the source of ongoing conflict and military build-ups; currently, a potential conflict over territorial claims entailing oil rights in the Spratly Islands of the South China Sea pits China against the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Taiwan. Another possibility previously noted is the prospect of conflict over water rights in much of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

In addition to conflict over individual environmental resources, there is indeed a future potential for hostilities over pollution and other environmental degradation. This possibility would be particularly acute if a cascading environmental disaster involving a multitude of nations were to occur.

Although generally optimistic about the potential for change, most assessments of the future of the natural environment will not rule out the prospect of a global economic disaster that puts much of the world's population at risk.⁴⁹¹ Ozone depletion, deforestation, and destruction of ocean resources, such as reefs, are but three environmental blights that could have worldwide effects, even if they occurred in but one region. If a series of cascading environmental disasters were to occur, it is possible that both civil and international wars would ensue as individuals, groups, and states scrambled for access to remaining resources. Action to prevent further degradation might foment violence; it is not inconceivable that states or alliances might invade other states for the express purpose of preventing them from polluting.

Other states may attempt to turn environmental degradation into a direct weapon of war. Saddam Hussein's troops set fire to oil wells and opened pipelines that spilled oil into the Persian Gulf, nominally to disrupt coalition military operation, but more likely as yet another form of international blackmail. Weather control weapons have been a staple of science fiction novels and movies.

But is a cascading environmental disaster something that should be inserted into defense planning? Can military power act as a hedge against its development? Clearly the Department of Defense could prevent its own participation in growing environment degradation by being a good steward of its resources.

On the other hand, through the expenditure of ordnance, fuels, other toxic substances, war and the resulting physical destruction of combat is a source of pollution--an obvious fact that environmentally oriented, anti-war activists proclaim with great solemnity. But the environmental results of all of the wars of history do not equal any of the routine effects of industrial production. And it is unclear exactly how defense policy could hedge against further environmental disasters unless the United States identified regional or international pollution as a cause for intervention.⁴⁹² Currently, such a policy would seem as much of a wild card as a cascading disaster itself.

Military Near Peer

With the consensus indicating that a military near-peer competitor is unlikely in the 2001-2025 timeframe, the possibility of an unexpected peer becomes a wild card. But if the rise of a military near peer is indeed inevitable in the long run (sometime beyond 2025), it would be a wild card of somewhat higher probability.

Preparation for global conflict with a near peer was the posture of the U.S. military throughout much of the Cold War. The United States retains many of the power-projection capabilities developed throughout that era. Thus, from a conceptual point of view, shifting from today's focus on regional conflict to a global conflict focus would not pose a great difficulty--it would not be a voyage in uncharted waters.

But such preparations would also require an increase in U.S. defense expenditures in order to maintain the overall force structure and level of readiness at a global war level. Two major theater wars do not equal a global war against a military near peer.

Hedging--that is, taking some modest preparations that could be rapidly expanded if the wild card occurred--is a much more affordable course. Arguably, preparations to fight two overlapping MTWs is already a considerable hedge against sudden emergence of a near peer. From a force structure viewpoint, a solid base for rapid expansion is already present. However, conflict against a military near peer would imply the use of state-of-the-art, complex, military systems. A more significant requirement for hedging effectively may be an increase and expansion of weapons modernization and organizational transformation. And that is exactly the argument of many military transformation opponents: we need to take steps now to prepare for the inevitable competitor--and those preparations cannot wait until 2025.

Collapse of Regional Ally

A hostile regime change in a key U.S. regional friend or ally is certainly not a completely improbable event. Obviously, it has happened in the recent past, the fall of the Shah of Iran being the most notable example. But it is a difficult event to prepare for, since the requisite preparations may counteract the very policies intended to maintain the friendship or alliance.

Arguably, maintaining the support of regional allies is even more important to today's regionally-focused military posture than it was during the Cold War. If the expected conflict is one against a regional competitor, the implication is that the United States is intervening to support a regional ally and that access to the region is facilitated by that ally. And, indeed, a key element of antiaccess or area-denial strategies is to remove--through coercion or the application of force--support for U.S. intervention. Thus, the collapse of such a key regional ally--an occurrence very difficult to predict--would be a defining event for U.S. military regional posture.

As a hedge against a collapse or hostile regime change, the United States could simply increase the level of engagement with the state at risk, hoping to sustain pro-democratic forces. Or, it could seek to maintain multiple allies within the region in order to ensure access if any one ally faced domestic uncertainty. From this perspective, hedging against the collapse of an alliance with any one particular state is part of normal policy.

However, the collapse of a key regional partner is an event that could bring the premises of U.S. security policy into question. Libertarian groups have long argued that alliance relationships in themselves enhance the security threat to America, since few states would have cause to challenge the United States, if it were not involved in regional security. If the United States were to eschew regional entanglements, according to this logic, there would be no cause for conflict unless the U.S. homeland were directly threatened.⁴⁹³ Though the libertarian position may not currently be a popular one, collapse of a key regional ally could bolster the prospect of an inward-looking or Fortress America defense policy. Arguably, such a collapse would indicate that the policy of engagement is failing and that the United States simply could not rely on regional allies. A variant of this argument is implied in discussion of the divergence point on the defensibility of overseas bases, namely, that a regional ally that refuses U.S. forces unfettered access to its bases and facilities is simply not worth supporting.

Neo-Fascism

The tragedy of ethnic cleansing and sectarian warfare in the former Yugoslavia has awakened much of the international community to the fact that ultra-nationalism is still an ideological force that can propel conflict. This came as a shock to many who envisioned the breakdown of ethnic barriers through globalization, and particularly the gradual strengthening of the European Union.⁴⁹⁴ Though great violence and even genocide occurred in a number of places in the world during the 1990s, it was presumed that the defeat of Nazi Germany forever stilled the appeal of ultra-nationalism, ethnic hatred, and fascism in civilized and cosmopolitan Europe. The Cold War struggle was seen in terms of potentially coexisting ideologies and rival economic systems, and not in terms of ethnic struggle, even though some authorities pointed to the Soviet Union as the prison-house of nations. The fact that ethnic conflict resurrected itself as communism retreated hints of the impermanence of imposed ideologies.

But native ideologies are another matter. It is notable that ultra-nationalism seems to translate into ethnic conflict in states with neo-fascist government masquerading as pseudodemocracies. The current Serbian government of Slobodan Milosovic has become the archetypal case. But such governments have struggled against pro-democracy forces throughout post-communist Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, as well as post-colonial Africa and Asia. To some extent, they are a legacy of the inexperience of the newly liberated in representative government, but even more, they are the result of impatience with the gradual economic improvements resulting from democratic market systems--the danger identified in the 1998 National Security Strategy. Rising to power on waves of anger, disappointment, or disillusionment, such governments generally require continued outward-focused anger to sustain their power. And the best source of such anger remains the smoldering hatreds of past ethnic injustice that can be fueled by charismatic demagoguery.

The resulting conflicts are indeed a significant target of U.S. military planning for smaller-scale contingencies. The ethnic cleansing that resulted in NATO intervention in Kosovo has been formally identified as a threat to international security. But such events are seen as the sporadic and disconnected results of failing states, rather than as indicators of a growing ideological challenge to democracy. Even in the face of widespread ethnic violence, the dominant belief among Western intellectuals is that multiethnic societies can be equitably governed and are the preferred model for nation-states. Military forces have been used to support this preference, with intervention justified on humanitarian grounds.

However, history indicates that the rise of ultra-nationalism in the form of fascism can break down harmonious, multicultural societies. Although the consensus remains that there will be no world-wide ideological movement comparable to Cold War communism that will challenge democratic capitalism in the 2001-2025 period, the cumulative effects of ultra-nationalist movements in scattered nations could pose a challenge to the democratic peace.

The wild card event would be the development of an international movement that links ultra-nationalist governments across states. This anti-democratic alliance has always been the fascist ideal and would be a likely cause of international conflict. But could prevention of such an event by military means be planned?

In the general case, the answer is yes. The current U.S. military mission of engagement is intended to strengthen the support for democracy and subordination to civil authority in foreign militaries. The U.S. military--the world's most powerful--is held up as a model for foreign militaries, particularly those of emerging democracies. Presumably, adoption of the model would facilitate greater organizational interaction with U.S. forces, thereby increasing the effective strength of the foreign military. The message repeated to foreign military leadership is: if you are more supportive of democracy, you will become more militarily effective. At the same time, the United States has intervened against selected despotic regimes, including operations to restore democracy. Unfortunately, some of these operations have not been completely effective.

This leads to a realization of the limits of planning for this wild card. A policy of pro-democratic intervention could lead to increasing levels of military operations in a continuous democratic crusade. Such, support for international democracy could collide with support for international sovereignty, as it has in the past. Accepting a high probability of occurrence for this wild card carries the implication that the operational tempo of U.S. forces involved in smaller-scale contingencies would be significantly higher than today. Choices would have to be made as to whether to increase defense force structure or downgrade readiness of the overall force for major theater wars.

Hedging is not an unfamiliar method to military planning. Developing worst-case scenarios, often denounced as a justification for military gold-plating, is essentially a hedging technique. But whatever method is used to articulate the implications of unanticipated events, hedging needs to be integrated into the normal planning process if it is to have much value.

Yet, all wild cards are not of equal probability. A careful selection needs to be made as to which are the best candidates for further study. Among the best guides are the degree to which current plans could be adjusted quickly to a particular unexpected event and the relationship between the particular wild card and the dissenting arguments identified through the development of the consensus.

In the first case, events that cannot be adequately handled by adjusting current plans might require the acquisition of inefficient resources tailored solely for the wild card. Such resources can be thought of as building additional flexibility into current plans. But acquiring these resources, even in the relatively small numbers appropriate for hedging, may require decisions that contradict the standard requirement definition process. An appropriate rule of thumb would be to answer the question: would capabilities currently have any effect on neutralizing the wild card if it occurred? If the answer is no, prudence may suggest the acquisition of tailored resources.

In the second case, themes repeated in the dissenting arguments may indicate the probability of occurrence of a wild card. If, for example, dissent on the issue of a competing ideology grows strong, it may indicate that the occurrence of a related wild card is growing more likely.

Integrating hedging with normal planning carries with it the requirement for constant review of the accepted plan. In light of the dangers of unexamined assumptions, such as the British Ten-Year Rule, this required review technique may be the most important aspects of attempting to hedge, particularly if safety for that which has not yet happened is to be achieved. In developing a consensus scenario, the following chapter also attempts to identify practical hedges for the unexpected.




Table of Contents  |  Chapter Eight  |  Endnotes