7th Annual SMA Conference – What Now, What Next?

7th Annual SMA Conference: Over a Decade into the 21st Century…What Now? What Next?

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

The 7th Annual Strategic Multilayer Assessment (SMA) Conference was held at Joint Base Andrews from 13-14 November 2013. The conference was focused on global megatrends and their implications in all spheres of national security. It is no exaggeration to state that the world today is a very different place than it was barely 12 years ago when the war against al Qaida and its affiliates began. As we move forward, continuing advances in various spheres such as the sociotechnical world will present both challenges and opportunities. The conference examined these and related themes and highlighted new insights from the social and neurosciences.

As in previous years, the conference addressed the needs of the Geographical Commands. Representatives from the Commands discussed their pressing needs and key operational requirements so that SMA’s wide network of experts could assist in identifying capabilities that match these needs.

Findings from Panel Discussions

Guest speaker Brig. Gen. David B. Béen, Deputy Director, Special Actions and Operations, J-3, spoke about the unique ability of SMA to bring together representatives from a diverse community—including from the DoD, academia, industry, media, etc.—to address core requirements of the Combatant Commands (COCOMS). This community can help the DoD succeed in its main duties: 1) being mindful of future threats to the United States and 2) exploiting emerging opportunities to make the world a more stable place. The DoD has a responsibility to engage in rigorous analysis, informed debate, and top-flight research with partners. Members of the SMA support community also bear certain responsibility to build relationships, learn more about operational needs, and apply their considerable talent to help operators achieve mission success.

Guest speaker Mr. Earl Wyatt, Rapid Fielding Office, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, spoke about the need to bring various resources from across the government, industry, and academia to bear on DoD’s objectives. The force of the future will be leaner, more agile, more flexible, and technologically advanced. While U.S. forces will be called on to do more with less, this is not a down time for innovation; it is a challenge to do more with less. The DoD will be particularly challenged to engage in innovative thinking to mitigate threats in nonkinetic ways. Partner capacity will be key to this conversation. The DoD is moving toward a more balanced prototyping portfolio to include developmental as well as operational prototyping to provide a hedge against technical uncertainty or unanticipated threats; enhance interoperability and reduce lifecycle costs; and explore the realm of the possible without commitment of follow-on procurement.

Guest speaker Mr. Ben Riley, Rapid Fielding Office, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, spoke about the value SMA provides to the DoD by bringing together a diverse group of academic and technical perspectives on difficult problems. However, the DoD still needs to open its aperture more widely to encounter new ideas and perspectives. In a time of resource constraint, there is a tendency to circle the wagons around traditional defense programs, but it is important to continue to engage in rigorous, innovative, and unexpected thinking to meet the commanders’ needs.

Keynote speaker, LTG Michael Flynn, Director, DIA, spoke about accelerating change in the defense intelligence community. The two big challenges facing the defense intelligence community are skyrocketing demand and resource reduction. In order to meet the two challenges, the DIA needs to restructure and adapt. The DIA needs a new model to prepare the foundation that provides U.S. forces with agility, flexibility, and resiliency. The USG must be prepared for unknown, highly complex, uncertain environments. One failure of the last decade has been our limited ability to understand the operational environment, which led to mismatch in resources and capabilities. This failure needs correction in order to meet the challenges of tomorrow.

Panel One discussed the use of religious engagement by the United States to improve global prospects for peace. It is important that the USG engages the full realm of social actors when trying to understand operational environments. Within this group, religious leaders are some of the most influential actors—specifically in Muslim communities. In many cases, religious leaders are more credible than the highest-ranking political officials in that community are. U.S. organizations like the Special Envoy to the OIC have committed to religious engagement in areas including healthcare, maternal health campaigns, religious freedoms, and countering violent extremism. The panel agreed that the commitment by the United States to continued religious engagement in these areas and beyond is crucial. Furthermore, the United States must ensure that its religious engagement efforts are viewed as legitimate by the local communities in the places where the religious engagement is taking place.

Panel Two discussed four significant megatrends likely to emerge in the next decade: demographic change, resource stress, further diffusion of power, and individual empowerment. There are two particularly relevant projections that support the diffusion of power megatrend: 1) by 2030, Asia will have surpassed the United States and Europe in power and size while Europe, Japan, and Russia continue to decline, and 2) by 2030, the international system will transition from hegemony to multi-polarity. With regard to the resource stress megatrend, competition and scarcity involving natural resources are emerging as security threats for the United States and its allies. U.S. allies are particularly vulnerable to natural resource shock. The perfect storm involves youth bulge, unemployment, ability to organization through information technology, and a food shock. Furthermore, the convergence of multiple trends means individuals and groups are angrier and more dangerous. With regard to demographics, the most relevant finding for the USG is that the ratio between young adults and older adults in some of the world’s most unstable regions is declining, which statistically suggests greater stability and democracy in the coming decades. However, some of the countries that the USG is, or has been, most involved in still have high fertility rates and very youthful populations.

Panel Three examined the current era and why it is special. First, it has produced an increasing number of mega-issues. Mega-issues are not simply larger public policy issues; they are significantly different from issues of the past. There are two primary mega-issues facing the current era: mega-disasters and megacities. The mega-issues of today are challenging because the currently existing policy is not designed to deal with this magnitude of challenge. Furthermore, other issues facing the current era—such as under-development, ethnic diversity, regime stability, etc.—can only be addressed through collective action and a global perspective. However, this is quite difficult because many of these issues are viewed differently throughout the world. Finally, it is important to be careful when trying to compare different eras in different times. Analysts today are likely biased in thinking that the current era is unique because they are living in it. This era may be unique, but it is not

Panel Four reviewed the role of social sciences in national security as well as validation and validity concepts. Understanding and utilization of social sciences is critical for DoD operations in the 21st century. Social science uses theory to understand intentions and to explain causal links between actions and outcomes. We need an entire spectrum of social science disciplines (economics, sociology, communications, history, etc.) to understand complex problems. From an operational viewpoint, a set of validated social science theories are a good foundation for building a framework capable of informing decision-making. However, social science theories are often not validated for specific military decision- making processes. Thus, it is dangerous for operators to treat a discipline’s theories as fact without first consulting with scientists familiar with the limits of those theories. There is a mismatch between the defense and social science culture. One necessary way to bridge the divide is to train and develop a cadre of military social scientists.

The Feedback from Commands Panel provided an opportunity for representatives from the commands to discuss their pressing needs and key operational requirements. First, all of the commands emphasized the need for greater cooperation within the DoD as well as the whole of government. Building relationships with non-traditional and non-government entities, like those attending the SMA conference today, are increasingly important in a resource constrained environment. USNORTHCOM identified countering threat networks as its primary operational focus. Therefore, it is imperative for DOD to invest in interagency collaboration and provide support to law enforcement partners in combating transnational organized crime. This will provide for a better understanding complex, transdimensional networks. PACOM has the most diverse portfolio of all of the COCOMs; therefore, its requirements range from nuclear deterrence, counterterrorism, geo-political stability, transnational crime, natural disaster response, cyber security, and human trafficking. PACOM’s chief objective is to stay in steady state operations while strengthening relationships with countries in its area of responsibility (AOR). AFRICOM faces multiple challenges as well including terrorism, weak governance, natural resource management, illicit trafficking, humanitarian assistance, training, border security, maritime security, and defense institution building. AFRICOM relies on soft levers of power to address many of these issues. CENTCOM is facing new threats (threat financing, supporting rule of law, etc.) that traditional military forces have not had to face. These threats require a multi-layered solution that relies on cooperation, liaison, and engagement with non-traditional partners. SOCOM’s challenges include an uncertain future, volatile trends, redistribution of power, and the increasing role of non-state actors (NSAs) and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs). Other threatening trends include youth bulges, shifting demographics, and urbanization. Globalization and accelerated change place pressure of the system making the scale of the problem worse. SOCOM will meet its challenges by strengthening its global soft power network. This means increasing the capacity of allies, partners, and the interagency community to respond to the world’s problems. SOUTHCOM’s mission sets include counternarcotics trafficking, counter TCO, and disaster response. SOUTHCOM has always operated with resource constraints. It has developed strong interagency partnerships to compensate.

Panel Five discussed the “new” face of transnational criminal organizations (TCOs). The continually evolving strategic environment, coupled with the ascendant role of TCOs, necessitates a comprehensive understanding of these organizations. TCOs represent a globally networked national security threat and pose a real and present risk to the safety and security of Americans and their partners across the globe. The TCOs of today are profit driven organizations. One of the key challenges in combatting TCOs is to identify the illicit networks and finance organizations that are the oxygen of a TCO. TCOs are sophisticated organizations that are constantly evolving and trying to combat them is becoming more difficult. Often times, legislation does not keep up with the sophistication and evolution of these TCOs and their tactics. It is imperative that legislation continues to evolve as the TCOs become more sophisticated. Furthermore, when combatting TCOs, it is essential that a collaboration effort exist between the defense, intelligence, law enforcement, and other interagency partners. The United States must continue to build the capacity and capabilities of its partners and the interagency community in combatting the TCO threat.

Invited speaker Brig Gen Timothy Fay, JS/J33, noted that during the Feedback from COCOMs panel, none of the representatives mentioned nuclear deterrence, yet it is one area where the DoD needs SMA’s help. One of the biggest challenges of nuclear deterrence is the lack of articulate, informed, rigorous discussion and research. For example, little effort has been applied to understanding the illicit networks that built many of today’s nuclear programs such as that of Pakistan and North Korea. Urban legends—such as that the United States no longer needs or uses its nuclear arsenal—continue to drive the debate. Strategic weapons are made for deterrence, not deployment. We use these weapons every day. They are effective and a part of our adversary’s decision calculus. Another challenge facing the DoD today is how to further adapt policy and strategy in alignment with a smaller arsenal and a more uncertain world environment. SMA has done some great work to contribute to this conversation, but there is a lot more that needs to be done.

Panel Six discussed the sociotechnical world and its new era of disruption and opportunities for innovation. The rapid and continual coevolution of the social and technological sectors is creating a globally pervasive sociotechnical ecosystem. The current security problems facing the United States are social change problems. As a result, it is crucial to understand the full social realm—narratives, networks, interests, identities, vocabularies, desires, and disgusts. Cultural dynamics drive the evolution of technologies as much as the actual technological problem. Connectedness is a new dynamic that is crucial and underpins the current era. Connectedness is what makes mega-issues and mega-events possible. When talking about the framing of problems on a global scale, it is the awareness of the problem that makes it mega, and connectedness increases overall awareness. The operational environment is constantly evolving. The question becomes, how does the United States operate in this changing environment, and what does this change mean for stability? Stability needs to be defined as the ability to adapt to a changing situation. The new status quo is that there is no status quo.

Invited speaker, Lieutenant General Robert E. Schmidle, Jr., USMC, spoke about the intersection of national security and universal principles. He argued that universal principles do not exist; context matters. Some saying the admonition not to kill is a universal principle, but killing to defend oneself is permissible. He further argued that the assumption that rationality guides decision-making is also flawed; man can reason his way through anything. Instead, people rely on hinge beliefs—practices that define a culture. Not knowing or understanding a partner’s or adversary’s hinge beliefs puts one at a disadvantage from the beginning. The search for universal principles is debilitating to our ability to come up with a coherent national security strategy.

Panel Seven examined the importance of understanding megacities in the 21st century. Megacities are rapidly growing and changing population centers where urbanization often far outstrips the ability of governments to enforce rule of law and provide basic socio- economic services such as clean water, sanitation, etc. As a consequence of these deficiencies, these densely populated urban areas can become spawning grounds for public resentment, criminal activity, and political radicalization, which is a national security concern for U.S. policymakers. Understanding megacities is crucial. Urban areas are the key terrain of the future. Developing world megacities thus far have been surprisingly resilient, but the potential for a natural disaster or threat to sovereignty from a non-state actor loom. Megacities are new phenomena and must be understood for future U.S. defense and diplomacy actions. A significant challenge to understanding megacities is the sheer amount of data that is involved in the process of understanding, making interagency collaboration and information sharing key. A method for making sense of all of this data and visualizing it clearly needs to be created. There is a need for a planning support framework for understanding megacities—a model that marries the benefits of rigorous critical thinking with the applied setting in which planners and operators work. A method needs to be developed for fusing these two aspects together to produce a more holistic understanding of megacities.

Panel Eight explored long- and short-term regional and sub-regional stability in South Asia and the Western Pacific region. Panelists argued that the division of South Asia into two COCOM AORs makes it difficult for analysts and planners to address transboundary concerns. Furthermore, analysis must take place at the regional or sub-regional level. India is a rising power, but it is cautious not to be seen as a counterbalance to China. India wants regional balance, participation in the region’s strategic dialogue, and translation of dialogue into actual cooperation. Countries in Asia are concerned about what the future presence of the USG in the region will be given budgetary constraints and China’s aggressiveness in the South China Sea. Countries in Asia will still look to the United States for security, but they will also begin diversifying.

Panel Nine discussed neuroscience and its implications for national security operations. The Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative is a new research effort started by President Obama to revolutionize the understanding of the human brain by accelerating the development and application of innovative technologies. Approximately $100 million will be invested for scientific research during FY 2014 as part of the BRAIN initiative, which will be led by the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The study of the brain is important because it is the wellspring of human behavior. In the national security domain, especially, there should be an interest in understanding the brain because it is part of the ecology that drives human behavior that is important to national security. Neuroscience allows us to access and engage the brain. This insight into the brain is beneficial for the healthcare, public life, global relations, and public defense realms. It is clear that neuroscience represents a viable science and technology pursuit for the next 10 to 20 years. Areas for growth that need to be developed over this timeframe with respect to understanding the brain include improving the understanding of how the brain recognizes problems, influences culture, and functions in groups.

In conclusion, LTC Matthew Yandura thanked the panelists, moderators, and conference attendees for another successful SMA annual conference. He encouraged participants to build on relationships formed during this conference. There has to be value in relationships or conferences like this go away. The military community should remember that they are not just recipients of this scholarship and research; they are part of the community in service of this nation.

 

Download Publication