
(Note: All graphics in this monograph were created by the authors or used with permission from Microsoft Clipart Gallery®, Corel Gallery®, or Microsoft PowerPoint clipart with courtesy from Microsoft Corp.)
Gulliver's Travails is a world of rampant nationalism, state- and nonstate-sponsored terrorism, and fluid coalitions.1 Most US citizens consider their nation to be the world's policeman . . . fireman, physician, social worker, financier, mailman, and bartender. It is much like being a traffic cop on an incendiary New York City Friday afternoon when the traffic lights stop working. Just when everyone foresees the illusory weekend escape from the rat race, they instead must compete to relax. A zero-sum calculus pervades much of the globe, and random firefights occur in a world where everyone is armed and many are envious.
This is an age in which agrarian and industrial civilizations often dominate the stage with unruly behavior, threatening to topple more "advanced" states when "primitive" conflicts create problems that spill across borders. Though the reasons for the conflicts may appear primitive, the weapons used are often modern.2 Furthermore, newly anointed leaders are clever enough to realize refugees pose a threat to the stability of their regime, be it an autocracy, a people's republic, or an economic enclave. Those in power assume, usually correctly, that the displaced will seek to return to their homes, or at the least to gain revenge.3 Consequently, to ensure their new state's security, governments seek some means for controlling the passions of those who might oppose them. In some cases, internal repression and external terrorism are the mechanisms chosen.4
Traditionally the United States could ignore some of these activities, but as the world has gotten smaller, the problems of terrorism are no longer confined overseas. Small states or groups may seek to either spur or deter US action in pursuit of their own agendas. The problem is there are too many actors, all clamoring for attention, frequently in direct opposition to one another. Addressing these claimants' issues is vital to the US because groups that are neither controlled nor appeased may export terrorism to America.
Nationalism lurks everywhere, usually asserting itself along ethnic, economic, religious, cultural, or racial schisms.5 In many areas, a man who is not one's brother is one's enemy. States which secede from within existing borders are themselves subject to civil wars, and states propagate as ever more groups seek self-determination. Territory is important in this world, because the emergent groups need land to form states. Because land matters, border disputes continue long after these tenuous states initially form.6 The violent, nationalistic conflicts concomitantly displace millions of people. Refugees stream across borders seeking food, shelter, and security, but their presence often sparks reactionary nationalistic movements in the "invaded" country.7
America, though without peer, finds its forces dispersed around the world, trying to answer all the alarms. As shown in figure 3-1, the American World View is Global; the United States is heavily involved worldwide in order to hold threats at arms length. The World Power Grid is characterized as Dispersed. New actors are constantly appearing, alliances rapidly shift, and small actors can produce disproportionate effects. DTeK is Constrained because technological changes are occurring at an evolutionary rate, and not everyone benefits equally. The US government has not emphasized the funding of basic research and development (R&D), relying instead on commercial developments. This R&D strategy is repeated around the world, so the United States has maintained a military edge in many dual-use critical technologies, particularly those related to operations in space.
Figure 3-1. Strategic Planning Space for Gulliver's Travails
Gulliver's Travails is a world experiencing an explosion in the number of territories claiming statehood, as depicted in figure 3-2. The late twentieth century dismantling of the Soviet Union inaugurated a trend, as various groups sought to assert their national identity. States such as China and many African states continued to break apart, sometimes generating "micronations" that lacked the population or resources to defend their borders.8 In 2006, China fragmented along economic cleavages that had developed as industrialization and commercialization created distinctly different regions of financial development.9 Though Taiwan, Shanghai, and the other advanced Chinese states continue to espouse a "one China" philosophy, the current reality is that these regions cooperate where possible and compete when necessary.10
Figure 3-2. Plausible History for Gulliver's Travails
The constant formation of new states generated two primary threats. The first threat is state- and nonstate-sponsored terrorism. States use terror to control internal dissent and to influence nations with whom they cannot otherwise directly compete. Nonstate actors use terrorism to attack the legitimacy of governments they disagree with and to discourage other groups from supporting policies unfavorable to the terrorists.
The first large-scale terrorist incident on American soil was the biological attack launched at the 2002 Olympics in Utah, resulting in over a million American casualties, including a quarter-million dead.11 Though a link to the Dugway Proving Ground was originally suspected, foreign terrorists were later proven responsible.12 This incident sparked civil demands that authorities use all appropriate national instruments to deter and prevent terrorist acts within US borders. One step, taken in 2019, was to dedicate the training of specific National Guard units to antiterrorism efforts inside US borders. 13 Threats of terrorism, at home and abroad, continue to drive national security initiatives.
The second major threat is ethnic- and nationalistic-inspired border disputes such as the Turko-Kurdish problem which flared up in 2004 (see map at fig. 3-3). 14 Power continued to disperse in the world when NATO proved ineffective in resolving the Turko-Kurdish conflict. NATO had sufficient military resources, but the alliance was unable to muster the collective will to contain the conflict before it spilled across borders into Iraq, Iran, Syria, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan, putting over 340 million people at risk.15
Figure 3-3. Map of Turko-Kurdish Conflict Region
As the conflict continued without foreign intervention, chemical and biological weapons were used on the battlefield. Undeterred by world opinion, the use of these weapons threatened to become standard practice by 2011. At this point, a loosely linked United States-led coalition, including Russia, stepped in to announce that further use of these weapons would be met by severe reprisals. Though the conflict continued, no further chemical or biological incidents occurred, as the combatants proved reluctant to test the resolve of the coalition. The coalition was able to concentrate on containment until the war-weary states signed an armistice in 2012. However, a critical threshold had been passed, and in 2025 the actual or threatened use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is standard in many conflicts. Only the nuclear threshold has not been crossed, due to the relatively slow spread of nuclear weapons technology and the apparent unwillingness of combatants to use nuclear devices. Some terrorist organizations have claimed to possess primitive nuclear devices, though they have not detonated one.
The latest round of African wars began in 2022, continuing to redraw the map lines created during the colonial era.16 As a consequence of these and similar conflicts, the resources of noncombatant nations around the world, particularly those states along the Mediterranean, are strained by mass migrations of refugees.17 Along with the problem of providing food and shelter for these refugees, the refugee camp conditions often spur the spread of diseases.18
The end result of all these economic restructurings, civil wars, wars of national liberation, wars of ethnic identification, and scenes of general xenophobic disorder is an unstable world, with threats from increasing numbers of actors in all quarters. Reflecting the growth in the number of actors, UN membership stands at 297.19
The fates of three groups dominate the stage in Gulliver's Travails: terrorists, both state and nonstate; international organizations; and the United States. Though the European states and Japan remain key economic players in the world, domestic interests and constrained DTeK have hindered their economic growth. Both areas look to the United States for leadership in constraining terrorists, addressing worldwide refugee flows, and ensuring equitable access to resources. Both Russia and China have fractured along internal schisms and are not currently major global players.
Terrorism increases worldwide as relatively weak states seek to assert sovereignty, particularly with respect to the policies of the most visible world actor, the United States. Meanwhile, nonstate terrorists also commit heinous acts in the name of establishing their legitimacy, or attacking the legitimacy of a government whose policies they disagree with. Many suspect some of these international groups exist solely as extortion rings, accepting blackmail or ransom payments in return for releasing hostages to fortune.
International organizations have experienced mixed successes and failures in the unstable international environment. UN conflict resolution mechanisms and resources are saturated by the influx of new members, many of whom squabble with each other. The UN's credibility declines further when it cannot constrain state-sponsored or antistate terrorism.20
Temporary coalitions have become the order of the day as states operate from crisis to crisis. Some international organizations, such as the Red Cross, remain on the scene, often providing vital resources to coalitions combating famine and disease. These groups, however, are loath to cooperate with the United States on humanitarian missions lest they be accused of complicity with the Americans. The risk of becoming terrorist targets outweighs the value of access to American logistics.
Anxious to reduce the sources of local, regional, and international turmoil, many nations and states look to the United States for help in restoring stability and combating both state and nonstate terrorists, who have occasionally threatened to use WMD. The continuing terrorist threat guarantees domestic support for the US decision to assume a worldwide leadership role in trying to deal with global problems. Ever-increasing political, economic, and military resources are expended trying to control interstate conflicts, combat terrorism, and conduct other military operations.
The Nature of International Politics
The United States is, in effect, not a superpower because it cannot dictate its will to an increasingly uncooperative world. Relative to any single nation, however, the United States is an economic and military giant. US membership in alliances has been highly sought, particularly after this country successfully brokered an armistice in the Turko-Kurdish Wars. Some coalitions have formed to oppose US interests, but these were usually unstable due to their limited shared aims.
The Nature of US National Security Strategy
The strategic challenge in this world is to defend against WMD-equipped terrorists while maintaining a high operations tempo in other mission areas. Much of the high operations tempo is caused by numerous overseas involvements responding to constant border disputes brought on by rampant nationalism. These border disputes create massive refugee flows and generate taxing humanitarian and peace enforcement operations.
Therefore, the two principal dangers the military must address are regional instability and the transnational danger of terrorism.21 As a consequence, the primary national security objective is promoting stability, thereby supporting American partners and deterring aggressors who might export terrorism to America. To support this objective a strategy evolved for rapidly projecting power and civil-military operations capabilities, in combination or separately, as necessary. Projection is the mechanism of choice because it is dangerous to maintain concentrations of forces overseas, and most states will not accept permanent US military bases. Antigovernment and foreign terrorists have attacked governments that made basing concessions to the US.
An uneasiness regarding outsiders, akin to xenophobia, is a characteristic trait of neighborhoods in Gulliver's Travails. So is a fear of gathering in large groups, as many remember the terrorist attack at the 2002 Olympics. The threat of terrorist activity causes groups to trust only those they have known for years, preferably decades.
As a paradoxical consequence, American military members are both admired and mistrusted. They are admired because they enhance stability and safety, but they are mistrusted because permanent changes of station and temporary duty assignments prevent military members from forming close links in the communities where they serve. As a result of the general mistrust of strangers, families have become more important in this world.
In the world of Gulliver's Travails, technology has grown at an evolutionary rate, perhaps due in part to the regulatory structure of government programs around the world. Others argue that disruptions in the world body politic have hindered DTeK, as governments concentrate on terrorist and border threats rather than supporting basic R&D. Evolutionary growth is the most important aspect of technology in Gulliver's Travails, but important developments have begun in at least one area, the exploitation of space.
In America, government funding of R&D, particularly basic research, generally lagged as a result of allocating funds to export military power in a quest to sustain internal security. However, America was able to maintain its lead in certain technologies because of the Constrained nature of DTeK, although that lead is eroding.
Elsewhere, other nations recognized that an indigenous computer and information industry was crucial to a state's long-term vitality, though the policies implemented were often counterproductive.22 For instance, states placed high tariffs on computer imports in attempts to protect nascent industries, but this resulted in reduced access to advances in the state of the art. Another regulatory miscue was seen in some locations where information was taxed to provide revenues, unintentionally stifling initiatives to develop the new industries so desperately sought. Attempts to contain terrorism led many nations to establish controls on the export of dual-use technologies, unintentionally acting as an additional brake on technology development. One readily evident consequence of poorly managed policies and economic competition between states was an information superhighway frequently overloaded with information, debilitated by computer viruses, and slowed by competing architectures.
Developments in space did not labor under similar quantities of regulation. The increased importance of transmitting information led the commercial sector to invest heavily in space communications. (In return for releasing bandwidth to the military, commercial firms now are financially compensated and are granted relief from antimonopoly laws to allow participation in government-sponsored consortiums to improve satellite defensive systems.) Some projects, however, required resources greater than venture capitalists were willing to risk. For example, four international space stations were developed under the aegis of the US government and placed in orbit by 2015.23 Groups that cooperated in this space infrastructure project included both traditionally friendly nations, such as the United Kingdom, and multinational corporations seeking competitive opportunities in zero-g technologies. Spin-off technologies from this effort continue to enhance US military capabilities.
The American military edge garnered by investments in space has not gone unnoticed by potential adversaries. Some states have deployed antisatellite systems (ASAT) to counter the force-multiplier effect of satellite coverage, and in response the United States has developed some satellite defensive systems. However, there remains little defense against inexpensive, nuclear-tipped ASATs.24
The United States has led efforts to coordinate actions to mitigate global warming and environmental degradation.25 Efforts to mitigate environmental damage are an issue the advanced states attempt to address in new states and inside their own borders. A general concern regarding the ecosphere allows the environment in Gulliver's Travails to be characterized as "green."26
Coordinated actions include providing aid to newly industrializing countries, usually in the form of technological know-how. This aid is considered mutually beneficial, providing new states with infrastructure investments and advanced nations with a more stable international political structure. All nations are presumed to benefit from efforts to minimize stress on the environment, particularly the attempt to control the trend in global warming.27
Many advanced countries used taxes to keep the price of fossil fuels artificially high, thereby restraining internal energy consumption. Environmentally friendly government policies created a market for alternate forms of energy including solar, wind, geothermal, oceanic, and biomass.28 Countries with large standing militaries used these forces as testbeds for many alternate energy programs, in addition to curtailing some training activities and closing some training ranges.29 In the United States, the military invested heavily in alternate forms of energy, including solar heat for buildings and hydrogen fuel for aerospace planes. In addition, the military closed energy-inefficient bases and consolidated some geographically proximate facilities.30
The Nature of the Defense Budget
During three decades of economic growth averaging 1.8 percent,31 the budget for the Department of Defense (DOD) sustained a slight decrease in constant year 1995 dollars (see fig. 3-4). To maintain readiness in the face of this decrease, DOD cut support for R&D and modernization programs. As a result, the military industrial base eroded and second- and third-tier contractors disappeared, while major suppliers consolidated horizontally.32 Had it not been for dual-use, off-the-shelf commercial technologies, the US military would already have had to make deeper cuts in readiness, force structure, and modernization programs. These tradeoff decisions were delayed after 2015 when DOD budgets began to increase at a rate approaching 2 percent real growth per year. This funding reflected the desire of the body politic to secure American borders by operating abroad. In 2025, the DOD budget represents just over 2.3 percent of gross domestic product.
Figure 3-4. DOD Budget (Constant FY95 $B) in Gulliver's Travails
The 2025 DOD budget is approximately $270 billion in 1995 dollars. Though this amount is essentially the same as in 1995, increased overseas commitments and high personnel costs strain the defense budget. Host nation support is unable to significantly defray DOD overseas expenditures because the US's driving motivation is to reduce the level of conflict around the world and thereby reduce the export of terrorism to America. Other nations realize this and are able to play on these fears to bargain for US financial concessions, such as aid packages, debt rescheduling, and other economic incentives.
Despite limited DOD budgets the military must be able to detect incipient crises and respond quickly once a situation is judged vital to US interests, acting before the crisis escalates unacceptably. The military must develop the equipment and skills to operate along the spectrum from peace operations to terrorist abatement to nuclear deterrence. Furthermore, maintaining a high operations tempo is a by-product of worldwide political instability that is exacerbated by the proliferation of nations.
The onset and monitoring of crises are primarily achieved through a combination of worldwide satellite coverage (both military and commercial networks) and human intelligence (HUMINT). Though DTeK is generally Constrained, significant US commercial and government investments in space allow the DOD to exploit the extant communications and sensor infrastructure. The large bandwidth, global coverage, and redundancy of the orbital systems effectively provide the military with worldwide intelligence coverage, on demand, all the time.
HUMINT often provides more warning time than satellite coverage, and also provides a human element regarding the motivations of the actors involved in precipitating a crisis. Furthermore, HUMINT may pinpoint the key actors responsible for the onset of a crisis, or provide details of planned actions. The combination of HUMINT and satellite-based intelligence provides the US government with the information leverage to forestall actions unfavorable to American interests. The US can generally secure cooperation from other countries for combined operations or gain acquiescence for unilateral US operations. The satellite systems then ensure that any necessary forces are kept cognizant of threats in the area of responsibility.
Once a crisis action area has been identified, assets must be transferred rapidly to the scene. In the majority of responses, light mobile ground forces are used to resolve the situation. In this alternate future, C-17 Globemasters and commercial air provide that rapid response.33 Rapid intervention sometimes allows forces to be withdrawn in days or weeks; thus long-term logistics support is usually not required, sparing the US considerable expense. In situations requiring operations enduring longer than three weeks, roll-on/roll-off (RO/ROs), container ships, and afloat prepositioned supplies are available to meet cargo requirements.34
Minimizing US forces' footprint is crucial so that personnel and equipment do not provide easy targets for groups using either conventional weapons or weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Whether intervening in a border dispute, supporting the legitimacy of a government through civil-military operations, or conducting counterterrorist actions, the military must remain prepared to operate in biological and chemical environments. That includes the detection and defusion of these WMD. American forces also deter and counter threats to cross the nuclear threshold, to include fielding a theater ballistic missile defense system where intelligence assets indicate a threat.35 To minimize threats to personnel, the military relies on survivable platforms with a rapid-response, precision strike capability, and on advanced unmanned aerial vehicles to perform missions from reconnaissance to air refueling.36
The variety of conflicts and missions presents a potential overcommitment dilemma for US forces. Overcommitment is particularly critical for the Marine Corps, the most frequently deployed service. The combination of good intelligence sources, a rapid deployment and redeployment capability, and precision strike capability address the equipment side of the equation. Personnel programs, such as weekly satellite video teleconferences, partially redress human issues such as extended family separations.
The proliferation of nations has yielded a Dispersed World Power Grid, a world wherein the US must rapidly detect, and react to, incipient crises before events deteriorate into a situation with negative consequences for America. As a result, DOD vitality depends on conducting coalition operations, adjusting to the operations tempo, and exploiting dual-use technologies.
Coalition operations dominate the military working environment. Consequently, professional military education emphasizes international affairs, diplomacy, and peacekeeping to the exclusion of nearly all else. Such skills are critical because most nations deny America basing rights. In fact, diplomatic passage of forces may threaten the success of some operational plans. Accordingly, combined task force commanders (CTFC) are sometimes dual-hatted as special envoys to provide them with the tools necessary to accomplish their missions. The actual mechanisms of military-to-military interactions also merit significant CTFC attention. The issue of intelligence crossflow is particularly volatile due to the fluid nature of coalitions; states may cooperate one day and compete the next.37 Interoperability issues are generally resolved through commercial communications systems, particularly space-based systems.38 To minimize conflicts between coalition partners, bilingualism is encouraged among US service members, and those service members are tracked using special identifiers; some are placed on a special leadership track.39
DOD has made adjustments to force structures and doctrine in order to sustain the high operations tempo with a limited budget. The tempo has adversely impacted training and readiness. In fact, adjustment factors to the "C" rating were developed that allow units to appear more ready than they really are, if the units have been deployed for more than 230 days in the past year.40 Meanwhile, the Marine Corps has increased in size because of the emphasis on light, rapid-reaction forces, while the Navy is about the same size as it was in 2010.41 Finally, the breadth of missions ensures reliance on reserves and civilian contractors, so CINCs were delegated greater authority to selectively call up Reserve and Guard forces.
Dual-use technologies are key to the success of the American military. Several policy decisions have contributed to the current ability of the DOD to maintain an adequate industrial base. First, military standards and specifications were eliminated. Second, multiyear procurements were adopted. Third, military science and technology relies on spin-offs of civilian R&D.42
In Gulliver's Travails the US attempts to act as a global policeman, but finds its power dissipated by the sheer number of actors. State- and nonstate-sponsored terrorists present one challenge, border conflicts another, and refugees a third. Limited defense budgets and the high operations tempo threaten the military's ability to continue successfully performing a variety of missions that deter activities counter to American interests. To date, evolutionary developments in dual-use technologies and adjustments in the concept of operations have provided a continued military edge, but this edge could evaporate quickly. In many ways, Gulliver's Travails is similar to the world of 1996.
Notes
Back to 2025 Home Page
Back to Table of Contents
Back to Chapter 2
Forward to Chapter 4