Violent Non-state Actors in the Gray Zone A Virtual Think Tank Analysis

The 10 page report can be downloaded at this link:  http://nsiteam.com/social/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/17.01.09_VEO-GZ-Report-Finalv2-1.pdf

Violent Non-state Actors in the Gray Zone

http://nsiteam.com/violent-non-state-actors-in-the-gray-zone/

 January 2017  No Comments

Violent Non-state Actors in the Gray Zone A Virtual Think Tank Analysis (ViTTa).

Author | Editor: Canna, S., Peterson, N. & Popp, G. (NSI, Inc).

Using the Virtual Think Tank (ViTTa) expert elicitation methodology, NSI asked six leading gray zone experts whether Violent Non-state Actors (VNSAs) belong in the definition of the gray zone. However, experts were reticent to answer this question; they thought the question missed the point. The focus should not be how to define the major threats that are facing the USG, but rather how to leverage all instruments of national power to respond to them. When pushed to answer the original question, experts largely conceded that VNSAs, by themselves, do not rise to a level of significant threat in the gray zone, but are key tools used by state actors to achieve their ends. They concluded by identifying other challenges and solutions facing the USG in the gray zone.

In January 2016, General Joseph Votel (US Army) requested that the Strategic Multi-Layer Assessment (SMA) office examine how the United States Government (USG) can diagnose, identify, and assess indirect strategies, and develop response options against, associated types of gray zone challenges. More specifically, the request emphasized that if the USG is to respond effectively to the threats and opportunities presented in the increasingly gray security environment, it requires a much more detailed map of the gray zone than it currently possesses. One core question raised by General Votel was whether violent non-state actors (VNSAs), like violent extremist organizations (VEOs) and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), fit into the definition of the gray zone.

To respond to this question, NSI applied its Virtual Think Tank (ViTTa) expert elicitation methodology to the problem set. As part of this effort, NSI interviewed six leading gray zone experts (see Table 1 and Appendix A) on whether, and under what conditions, VNSAs rise to a level of significant threat in the gray zone.

Their answers surprised us.

We Asked the Wrong Question

We initiated this effort with the objective of defining when and under what conditions VEOs and TCOs fit into the definition of the gray zone. However, experts were reticent to answer this question; they thought the question missed the point. The focus should not be how to define the major threats that are facing the USG, but rather how to leverage all instruments of national power to respond to them.

However, despite challenging the premise of the question, David Maxwell suggested that exercises like this one are useful not so much in determining the “right answer,” but rather to engage in a meaningful discussion that will help the nation better assess the challenges it faces, develop effective courses of action, and formulate plans to achieve key objectives. “Ultimately, the focus should not be on whether or not a conflict should fall into the gray zone. The US tends to try to organize everything into a clear category or create a clear label for everything,” Maxwell stated. The gray zone is ambiguous and complex, and is not suited to clear, crisp definitions.

Similarly, Adam Elkus noted that although the US would like to develop a clear dividing line between conflict and competition including who can engage in gray zone activities, other countries (primarily non-Western ones) do not think about achieving state objectives in this way. That makes it easier for them to exploit US relations without severe repercussions. Despite these reservations, we did ask the experts to respond to the original question.

I Corps troops to turn focus on Pacific

Very interesting priorities articulated below  by the reporter from ADM Locklear during his visit to Ft Lewis (I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume that the reporter put them in that priority order because he has ADM Locklear saying "for instance, the climate change could make some coastal areas uninhabitable).  

But I take some exception to only thinking about the nuclear armed aspect of north Korea.  While from the "One Percent Doctrine" perspective north Korea's nuclear programs is a threat, I think the threats from north Korea are more, varied, and far worse than just the fact that it is currently a noncompliant, unsafe, nuclear experimenter trying to develop an nuclear capable ICBM for its own use and for export to Iran.  I fear war and regime collapse and those will only be made worse by the fact that it is trying to develop a nuclear capability but we should not myopically focus on its nuclear and missile program but instead try to understand the larger context and issues of north Korea and the range of threats the ROK-US Alliance faces.

But first I guess PACOM priorities are global warming, violent extremist organizations, international drug smuggling and human trafficking, pandemics and after we have those down then we can think about north Korea.

V/R

Dave

Published February 23, 2013

I Corps troops to turn focus on Pacific

ADAM ASHTON 

http://www.theolympian.com/2013/02/23/v-print/2433964/i-corps-troops-to-turn-focus-on.html

The Defense Department’s highest ranking officer in the Pacific visited Joint Base Lewis-McChord on Friday to get battle-hardened Iraq and Afghanistan veterans thinking about new challenges as diverse as climate change and rising Asian powers.

Navy Adm. Samuel Locklear’s trip sent another signal in the Pentagon’s shift in focus from wars in the Middle East to emerging threats and neglected alliances in other parts of the world.

“We can’t stay Middle East-focused forever,” Locklear, commander of U.S. Pacific Command, told Lewis-McChord’s I Corps.

The base supplied about 10,000 soldiers a year to Iraq and Afghanistan for much of the past decade. About 5,000 Lewis-McChord soldiers are in Afghanistan today, but most should be home by August.

With the wars ending, the Pentagon assigned new responsibilities to the I Corps under Locklear’s command. That means local soldiers will be expected to respond to humanitarian crises in South Asia, nurture relationships with allied armies and work to prevent large-scale conflicts from unfolding.

Locklear told I Corps soldiers that a complex Pacific environment calls on them to prepare for:

 • A warming planet causing the rise of sea levels and destabilizing Pacific countries.

 • Violent extremist groups, such as ones that have carried out terrorist attacks in India and the Philippines.

 • International narcotics smugglers and human traffickers.

 • Pandemics.

 • A nuclear-armed North Korea.

His forward-looking speech urged soldiers to study up on their new territory and to look at how the region might change in the near future. For instance, climate change could make some coastal areas uninhabitable and exacerbate natural disasters.

“The world is getting warmer,” he said. “When you potentially have millions of people impacted by weather and climate change, that’s going to have a potentially significant impact on security.”

So far, the Pentagon is protecting Lewis-McChord’s new task in the Pacific from budget cuts. Lewis-McChord soldiers over the next 12 months are on course to carry out exercises in Australia, the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, South Korea and Japan.

(Continued at the link below)

http://www.theolympian.com/2013/02/23/v-print/2433964/i-corps-troops-to-turn-focus-on.html