2016 CSS-US Army TRADOC Mad Scientist Conference at the Georgetown University Center for Security Studies

by Georgetown University Center for Security Studies, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command and SWJ Editors

SWJ Blog Post | August 17, 2016 - 10:24am

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2016-css-us-army-tradoc-mad-scientist-conference-at-the-georgetown-university-center-for-securi

2016 CSS-US Army TRADOC Mad Scientist Conference at the Georgetown University Center for Security Studies

2016 CSS-US Army TRADOC Mad Scientist Conference Day 1 Welcome: COL David Maxwell, USA (ret.), Associate Director, Georgetown University Center for Security Studies

2016 CSS-US Army TRADOC Mad Scientist Conference Day 2 Welcome: General David G. Perkins, Commanding General, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command

2016 CSS-US Army TRADOC Mad Scientist Conference Day 1: Dr. Albert Palazzo, Director, War Research Center, Australia

2016 CSS-US Army TRADOC Mad Scientist Conference Day 1: Dr. Elizabeth Chalecki, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Nebraska, Omaha

2016 CSS-US Army TRADOC Mad Scientist Conference Day 1: Dr. Chris Rice. Deputy Director, Strategic Studies Group

2016 CSS-US Army TRADOC Mad Scientist Conference Day 1: Dr. Jonathan Moyer, Director of the Frederick S. Pardee Center for International Futures at the University of Denver

2016 CSS-US Army TRADOC Mad Scientist Conference Day 1: Dr. Paul Horn, NYU Distinguished Scientist in Residence, Senior Vice Provost for Research, Senior Vice Dean for Strategic Initiatives and Entrepreneurship, Tandon School of Engineering

2016 CSS-TRADOC Mad Scientist Conference Day 2: Max Brooks, Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security's Art of the Future

2016 CSS-TRADOC Mad Scientist Conference Day 2: Peter Singer, Strategist at New America. Editor at Popular Science Magazine

2016 CSS-US Army TRADOC Mad Scientist Conference Day 2: Dr. Steven Mintz, University of Texas at Austin, Department of History and the Founding director of the University of Texas System's Institute for Transformational Learning

2016 CSS-TRADOC Mad Scientist Conference Day 2: Dr. Jonathan Moreno, Professor of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, of History and Sociology of Science, and of Philosophy, University of Pennsylvania

2016 CSS-US Army TRADOC Mad Scientist Conference Day 2: Dr. Baruch Fischhoff, Howard Heinz University Professor in the departments of Social and Decision Sciences and of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University

2016 CSS-US Army TRADOC Mad Scientist Conference Day 2: Forecasting the Future Panel Discussion

2016 CSS-US Army TRADOC Mad Scientist: Military Panel on the Strategic Security Environment

2016 CSS-US Army TRADOC Mad Scientist Conference Closing Remarks: LTG Kevin W. Mangum, Deputy Commanding General/Chief of Staff, U.S. Army TRADOC

Average:Select ratingPoorOkayGoodGreatAwesome

Poor

Okay

Good

Great

Awesome

No votes yet

Tags : Mad Scientist

About the Authors

Georgetown University Center for Security Studies

The Georgetown University Center for Security Studies (CSS) in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service offers an expansive curriculum, in-depth research and critical dialogue on security issues. Former Director Michael E. Brown created the Center in 2000 with a mission to produce a new generation of analysts, policymakers, and scholars fully knowledgeable about the range of international and national security problems and foreign policy issues of the 21st Century.

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command

Established 1 July 1973, the United States Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) is a command of the United States Army headquartered at Fort Eustis, Virginia. It is charged with overseeing training of Army forces and the development of operational doctrine. TRADOC operates 37 schools and centers at 27 different locations. TRADOC schools conduct 1,304 courses and 108 language courses. The 1,304 courses include 516,000 seats (resident, on-site and distributed learning) for 443,231 soldiers; 36,145 other-service personnel; 8,314 international soldiers; and 28,310 civilians.

SWJ Editors

U.S. Army Special Operations Command Primer on Russian Unconventional Warfare in Ukraine 2013-2014

Page Count: 78 pages
Date: June 2015
Restriction: None
Originating Organization: U.S. Army Special Operations Command
File Type: pdf
File Size: 8,767,432 bytes
File Hash (SHA-256):2F98D69E0550FB86FB8820C6C936948C0B6B0E3B81C788C4B061A2B6244D93AA

 Download the full PDF file (~8mb) here: https://publicintelligence.net/usasoc-little-green-men/

---

This document is intended as a primer—a brief, informative treatment—concerning the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. It is an unclassified expansion of an earlier classified version that drew from numerous classified and unclassified sources, including key US Department of State diplomatic cables. For this version, the authors drew from open source articles, journals, and books. Because the primer examines a very recent conflict, it does not reflect a comprehensive historiography, nor does it achieve in-depth analysis. Instead, it is intended to acquaint the reader with the essential background to and course of the Russian intervention in Ukraine from the onset of the crisis in late 2013 through the end of 2014. The document’s key points are summarized below.

PART I. CONTEXT AND THEORY OF RUSSIAN UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE

·         Key Principles

o    Strategy to deal with states and regions on the periphery of the Russian Federation

o    Primacy of nonmilitary factors: politics, diplomacy, economics, finance, information, and intelligence

o    Primacy of the information domain: use of cyberwarfare, propaganda, and deception, especially toward the Russian-speaking populace

o    Persistent (rather than plausible) denial of Russian operations

o    Use of unidentified local and Russian agents

o    Use of intimidation, bribery, assassination, and agitation

o    Start of military activity without war declaration; actions appear to be spontaneous actions of local troops/militias

o    Use of armed civilian proxies, self-defense militias, and imported paramilitary units (e.g., Cossacks, Vostok Battalion) instead of, or in advance of, regular troops

o    Asymmetric, nonlinear actions

·         For the purpose of clarity and uniformity within this study, the authors use the term unconventional warfare to embrace the wide variety of military, informational, political, diplomatic, economic, financial, cultural, and religious activities Russia employed in Ukraine.

·         Evolution of Russian unconventional warfare. Russian intervention in Ukraine has featured refined and modernized techniques evolved through observation and analysis of Western methods (the color revolutions, Arab Spring) and Russian experiences since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Specifically, they drew lessons from interventions in:

o    Lithuania, 1991

o    Transnistria, 1990–1992

o    Chechnya (and Dagestan), 1994–1996 (1999–2009)

o    Georgia, 2008

·         Russian information warfare has emerged as a key component of Russian strategy. Igor Panarin and Alexandr Dugin are the primary theorists.

·         Russian Chief of Staff Valery Gerasimov’s model for interstate conflict reflects the growing importance of nonkinetic factors in Russian strategy.

PART II. RUSSIAN UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE IN UKRAINE, 2013–2014

·         Historical Context

o    Ukraine’s historical, cultural, religious, and economic ties to Russia make it a vital interest to Moscow.

o    Western encroachment into the Russian sphere of influence, primarily through North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) expansion and European Union (EU) economic ties, stimulated a reactionary movement among Russian conservatives to stop the loss of peripheral states to the West.

o    The Crimean peninsula, with a majority of ethnic Russians, includes Russia’s Black Sea naval base of Sevastopol and is a vital interest to Moscow.

o    The Maidan movement is viewed as a product of Western—especially American—conspiracy.

o    Vladimir Putin has boosted his popularity by portraying himself as the defender of Russian nationalism and Russian Orthodoxy in Ukraine.

·         Russian Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures in Ukraine, 2013–2014

o    Political organization within the conflict region to create and sustain pro-Russian political parties, unions, and paramilitary groups

o    Recruitment and support of regional SPETSNAZ

o    Importation of “little green men”—unidentified Russian agents (usually SPETSNAZ) to organize and lead protests and paramilitary operations

o    Importation of Cossack, Chechen, Serbian, and Russian paramilitary “volunteers”

o    Persistent (rather than plausible) denial of Russian operations, even in the face of photographic evidence and firsthand testimonials

o    Domination of television, radio, and social media through the use of highly trained operatives, including “hacktivists” and seemingly independent bloggers; use of Russia Today television as a highly effective propaganda tool; use of professional actors who portray themselves as pro-Russian Ukrainians

o    Use of blackmail, bribery, intimidation, assassination, and kidnapping against regional political opponents and government officials, including police and military officials

o    Use of “relief columns” to import weapons, soldiers, equipment, and supplies to pro-Russian forces

o    Small-scale invasion and precision operations by conventional Battalion Tactical Groups (BTGs) based along the Russian border

o    Issuing Russian passports to pro-Russian populations and touting Moscow’s need to defend the Russian diaspora against alleged abuses

CONCLUSION

·         Driven by a desire to roll back Western encroachment into the Russian sphere of influence, the current generation of Russian leaders has crafted a multidisciplinary art and science of unconventional warfare. Capitalizing on deception, psychological manipulation, and domination of the information domain, their approach represents a notable threat to Western security.

·         The new forms of Russian unconventional warfare challenge the structure of the NATO Charter, because they obviate the appearance of “armed invasion.”

Who is the real enemy: Republicans, Democrats, or Russians?

Given the hack of the DNC, who is the real enemy?

No matter how much we criticize our political process and the candidates we have nominated we should remember that it is our political process and they are our candidates and we should allow no one from the outside to meddle in our political affairs.  

I think it might be useful to understand "Political Warfare" from the Russian context.  The following is an excerpt from a report from the Latvian Defense Ministry (page 5, link below) that I think is very much worth perusing whether you are a Republican, Democrat, or Independent (like me). We should pay close attention to how the Russians are thinking about the future of war and warfare, to include political warfare.

While we argue, debate, and spew all kinds of rhetoric (and dislike - I hope we can simply dislike and not hate) at each other over our choices for president we should be united in the idea that we are the only ones who get to participate in the process and the Russians do not get a vote.  Please give some thought to the analysis below and ask if the Russians are executing their form of political warfare?  More importantly as Republicans face off with Democrats and Democrats face off with Republicans neither should view the other as the enemy - just someone with a different world view - the real enemy is the one who is attacking our political system and trying to manipulate the American public.

As a result, it follows that the main guidelines for developing Russian military capabilities by 2020 are:

i. From direct destruction to direct influence;

ii. from direct annihilation of the opponent to its inner decay;

iii. from a war with weapons and technology to a culture war;

iv. from a war with conventional forces to specially prepared forces and commercial irregular groupings;

v. from the traditional (3D) battleground to information/psychological warfare and war of perceptions;

vi. from direct clash to contactless war;

vii. from a superficial and compartmented war to a total war, including the enemy’s internal side and base;

viii. from war in the physical environment to a war in the human consciousness and in cyberspace;

ix. from symmetric to asymmetric warfare by a combination of political, economic, information,

technological, and ecological campaigns;

x. From war in a defined period of time to a state of permanent war as the natural condition in national life.

Thus, the Russian view of modern warfare is based on the idea that the main battlespace is the mind and, as a result, new-generation wars are to be dominated by information and psychological warfare, in order to achieve superiority in troops and weapons control, morally and psychologically depressing the enemy’s armed forces personnel and civil population. The main objective is to reduce the necessity for deploying hard military power to the minimum necessary, making the opponent’s military and civil population support the attacker to the detriment of their own government and country. It is interesting to note the notion of permanent war, since it denotes a permanent enemy. In the current geopolitical structure, the clear enemy is Western civilization, its values, culture, political system, and ideology.

RUSSIA’S NEW GENERATION WARFARE IN UKRAINE:

IMPLICATIONS FOR LATVIAN DEFENSE POLICY

http://www.naa.mil.lv/~/media/NAA/AZPC/Publikacijas/PP%2002-2014.ashx

Call for Papers 2016 Annual Special Operations Reserach Association Symposium

I hope people will contribute and participate in this especially those in the National Capital Region.

Call for Papers

2016 Annual SORA Symposium

http://www.specopsjournal.org/symposium.html

The Special Operations Research Association is pleased to announce the 2016 Annual Symposium, 28-29 October 2016, in Old Town Alexandria, VA. Events will be held at the Embassy Suites. 

The theme of this year’s conference is Special Operations at the Crossroads.  Special operations forces have never been more popular as instruments of national policy.  This popularity is reflected in the growth of special operations organizations and their budgets, as well as the willingness to deploy them. Is this short-term trend merely a fad that will be reversed or will special operations perhaps become a "sixth armed service" to address hybrid threats and “gray zone” challenges?

The primary focus of this conference is on the exchange of ideas through scholarly presentations by researchers, policy makers, and operators on the broad range of issues facing the SOF community today and in the future.

We invite papers across the full range of issues related to special operations, both historically and contemporary and unilaterally or multilaterally. We encourage submissions from a diverse population of those with expertise and interests in special operations, including scholars and researchers from different academic disciplines, military practitioners and strategists, and policy makers and analysts.

Potential topics include:

• Special Operations and State Actors

• Policy and Strategy Implications of Special Operations

• Special Operations as Instruments of National Security

• Small State and Coalition Considerations of Special Operations

• Special Operations: The Fourth Offset?

• Special Operations and Gray Zone Challenges

• Special Operations: Realist, Liberal, and Constructivist Perspectives

• Special Operations, Deterrence, and “Compellence”

• Economic and Social Aspects of Special Operations

• Organizational and Cultural Aspects of SOF

• The Legal and Ethical Dimensions of Special Operations

Paper proposals should consist of a title, abstract (150-300 words), contact information (name, affiliation, address, phone, email), and 1-page CV. Along with your proposal, please indicate if you would be willing to serve as a panel chair or discussant at the conference.

Panels consist of a panel chair/discussant, and 3-4 paper presenters. Panel submissions must provide all of the following information: title/theme of panel; contact information (name, affiliation, address, phone, email), and 1-page CV for chair, discussant, and all presenters; and paper proposals for all presenters on the panel (title and 150-300 word abstract).

Roundtable proposals should consist of a title/theme; brief summary of why topic is important and what questions will be addressed by the roundtable (150-300 words); and 1-page CV and contact information for all proposed roundtable members (name, affiliation, address, phone, email).

Submissions  This year we are using a rolling acceptance policy, meaning we will try to get your paper accepted within 1-2 weeks of submission, if not sooner. This will allow people to make the necessary plans to participate at the conference. All proposals should be submitted via email to editor@specopsjournal.org. More information is available at our website at www.specopsjournal.org

Video: Korea Conference 2016: Security Challenges on the Korean Peninsula

At the link below are the videos from the four panels from our recent Korea security conference.  Also below is the complete speaker's list for each panel.

Korea Conference 2016: Security Challenges on the Korean Peninsula

• Georgetown University Center for Security Studies
• 6 videos
• No views
• Updated today

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8vonBYKTpH4qacbM-soalyFXGhaKfX0L

• 		WATCHED	Security Issues on the Korean Peninsula in 2016: Conference Opening by Georgetown University Center for Security Studies			12:57
  			Panel 2 Political Economy of the Two Koreas by Georgetown University Center for Security Studies			1:52:19
  			Panel 1 Four Power Relations on the Korean Peninsula by Georgetown University Center for Security Studies			2:33:04
  			Panel 3 The US Korea Security Alliance by Georgetown University Center for Security Studies			1:58:39
  			Panel 4 Korean Unification and Human Rights by Georgetown University Center for Security Studies			1:58:21
  			Closing by Georgetown University Center for Security Studies

• 

The Annual Conference
of
The International Council on Korean Studies
and
The Council on Korea-U.S. Security Studies
Co-sponsored by
Korea Institute for National Unification,
Korea Institute for Maritime Strategy,
The Committee for Human Rights in North Korea,
The Korea Economic Institute of America,
The One Korea Foundation, The Korea Foundation,
The Hwajong Peace Foundation & Institute 21C for Peace Studies,
The Dong-A Ilbo, and Delta Air Agency, Korea
and
The Center for Security Studies, Georgetown University
Partially funded through generosity of the
Philip and Patricia Bilden Asian Security Studies Fund

June 29-30, 2016
Georgetown University
Copley Formal Lounge, 37th  and O Street NW, Washington, DC 20007

SECURITY CHALLENGES ON THE KOREAN PENINSULA IN 2016:
ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

June 29, 2016, Wednesday

08:15 AM        Registration
08:45 – 09:15 AM    Opening Remarks

    Speakers    General Jae-Chang Kim, ROKA (Retired), Co-Chairman
                         Council on U.S.-Korean Security Studies (ROK Council)
            General John H. Tilelli, Jr., USA (Retired), Co-Chairman
                         Council on U.S.-Korean Security Studies (U.S. Council)
            Dr. Jinwook Choi, President
                Korean Institute for National Unification
            Dr. Bruce E. Bechtol, Jr., President
                International Council of Korean Studies and Angelo State University
            Professor David S. Maxwell, Associate Director,
                Center for Security Studies, Georgetown University

09:15 – 11:15 AM    Panel I. Four Power Relations on the Korean Peninsula

    Moderator    Dr. Seo-Hang Lee, Korea Institute for Maritime Strategy

    Papers:     
 "Japan’s Role in Korean Security Issues"
            Mr. James F. Durand, International Council on Korean Studies

            "Will China Allow North Korea to Collapse?"
            Mr. Gordon Chang, Nuclear Showdown

            "Strength and Consistency: A Key to North Korean Nuke Sanction"        
   Dr. Taewoo Kim, Konyang University

    Discussants    Dr. Andrew Scobell, Senior Fellow, RAND Corporation Washington
            Dr. Ki-Young Sung, Korea Institute for National Unification
            Dr. Daesung Song, Kunkuk University

11:30 AM – 12:45 PM  Luncheon and Luncheon Speech

    Speaker        “Security and Unification Issues on the Korean Peninsula”
            To be announced

    Introducer    General John H. Tilelli, Jr., USA (Retired), Co-Chairman
            Council on U.S.-Korean Security Studies (U.S. Council)

1:00 – 3:00 PM    Panel II: The Political Economy of the Two Koreas

    Moderator    Mr. Robert M. Collins, U.S. Committee for Human Rights for North Korea

    Papers     
 “The North Korean Economic System: Challenges and Issues"
            Mr. Bradley Babson, US-Korea Institute

            “U.S.-Korea Economic Relations and the Next U.S. Administration?”                 
 Mr. Troy Stangarone, Korea Economic Institute of America

     “North Korea and Economic Security”
             Dr. Sang Sin Lee, Korea Institute for National Unification

    Discussants    Dr. Tara O, Pacific Forum CSIS
            Dr. Soon Paik, Washington University of Virginia and ICKS
            Dr. Namsung Huh, Council on Korea-US Security Studies

3:00 – 5:00 PM    Panel III:  The US-Korea Security Alliance

    Moderator    General John H. Tilelli, Jr., USA (Retired), Co-Chairman
            Council on U.S.-Korean Security Studies (U.S. Council)

    Papers    
 "North Korea’s Fourth Nuclear Test and the U.S.-ROK Alliance"
            Mr. Yonho Kim, US-Korea Institute, Johns Hopkins University

            "The ROK-US Alliance and Third Offset Strategy"
            Dr. Patrick M. Cronin and Mr. Seongwon Lee
             The Center for New American Security

            "North Korea's nuclear Threats and Counter-Strategies?”
            Dr. Samman Chung, Korea Institute for Maritime Strategy

    Discussant    Mr. Mark Tokola, Korea Economic Institute of America
            Dr. Bruce E. Bechtol Jr., Angelo State University
            Dr. Ilhwa Jung, Council on Korea-US Security Studies

June 30, 2016, Thursday

9:30 – 11:30 AM    Panel IV: Korean Unification and Human Rights

    Moderator     Lieutenant General Raymond P. Ayres Jr., USMC (Retired)
            Council on U.S.-Korean Security Studies (U.S. Council)

    Papers      
"Romanian Reflections on Korean Unification"
            Mr. Greg Scarlatoiu, Exe. Director, Committee for Human Rights in North Korea

            “US-ROK Alliance: Issues and Opportunities for Korean Unification.”
            Dr. Jai P. Ryu, President, One Korea Foundation 

            “ROK’s Wishful Thinking of Peaceful Reunification”
            Dr. Ryang Kang, Korea Institute for National Security Studies

    Discussants    David Maxwell, Ass. Director, Center for Security Studies, Georgetown Univ.
            Dr. Hugo Kim, Washington University of Virginia and ICKS
            Dr. Jae-Kap Ryoo, Council on Korea-US Security Studies

11:45 – 12:00 PM    Closing Remarks

    Speakers    General Jae-Chang Kim, ROKA (Retired), Co-Chairman
                Council on U.S.-Korean Security Studies (ROK Council)
            General John H. Tilelli, Jr., USA (Retired), Co-Chairman
                Council on U.S.-Korean Security Studies (U.S. Council)
            Dr. Jinwook Choi, President
                Korean Institute for National Unification
            Dr. Bruce E. Bechtol, Jr., President
                International Council of Korean Studies and Angelo State University
            Professor David Maxwell, Associate Director
                Center for Security Studies, Georgetown University

12:00 PM        End of the Conference