2015 Crossroads is a bridge designed to serve as a decision point from which the other alternate futures might be reached. Created at the request of the chief of staff of the Air Force (CSAF), this world bridges the gap to the more challenging futures of 2025. The chief tasked the Alternate Futures team to develop a future in 2015 that conformed to several criteria. First, it should contain a major conflict since the world has seldom gone more than 20 years without a war.1 Second, the 2015 force structure would consist of current inventory items (as current political realities suggest), augmented by those planned for in the current program objective memorandum (POM), such as the F-22.2 Third, the international power structure in 2015 might have begun to solidify into new political or economic blocs. Finally, the world should exist as a waypoint, requiring a strategic decision that potentially would lead to one of the five 2025 worlds. No decision can dictate the exact nature of the 2025 world that descends from 2015 Crossroads, but the strategic decision may provide an impetus.
Given the CSAF's criteria, the team began to plot the world's position in the strategic planning space (fig. 8-1). Plotting this position required the team to derive the general nature of the three drivers from the CSAF's description of the future environment. First, the Alternate Futures team resolved DTeK's nature. If the military forces available in this world were those already planned for, then it was reasonable to assume that DTeK was Constrained. The next driver analyzed by the team was the American world view. Since one of the criteria was that a war should occur around 2015, and involve US forces, it seemed reasonable that the predominant American world view was Global. However, the requirement to model a strategic decision point left open the interpretation that America might choose to turn inward. It was decided that such a change of focus could occur if war caused internal dislocations in an economy subject to achieving growth with evolutionary technology. Accordingly, it was decided that the American world view was Global, but with pressures to turn inward. Finally, a World Power Grid similar to that of 1996 is characterized as Concentrated, but trending towards Dispersed.
Figure 8-1. Strategic Planning Space for 2015 Crossroads
The success, failure, or direction of national policies in the 10 years following 2015 may lead towards any corner of the strategic planning space. For instance, if the US is able to successfully solve near-term problems without mortgaging the future, while restraining the nascent ambitions of near-peer competitors, this world could converge to Pax Americana. Conversely, an increase in US war casualties might lead towards Khan if the American reaction was to shun external involvements. Given only a decade between 2015 and 2025, with DTeK Constrained, it is unlikely that Star Trek, Zaibatsu, Digital Cacophony, or Byte! are fully achievable from 2015 Crossroads. Nonetheless, movement in those directions is possible. The next section presents the plausible history used to get from 1996 to 2015.
By 2001, relations between the European Union (EU) and Eastern Europe improved, and EU membership was offered to Ukraine, Poland, and the Czech Republic (fig. 8-2).3 These countries quickly accepted the offer, despite some grumbling on the part of Russia. Meanwhile, Congress passed a balanced budget amendment in 2002, restricting US budgetary options and thereby turning the American focus somewhat inward, lest the cost of overseas adventures demand domestic budget cuts.
In the same year, on the other side of the globe, Saddam Hussein's unlamented death led to the formation of a Kurdish state in former Iraqi territory, an event which encouraged Turkish and Iranian Kurds to agitate for the formation of "Greater Kurdistan."4 These movements became so violent and widespread that in 2006 Turkey and Iran threatened to crush Kurdistan.5 This credible threat led most factions to curb their activities, but tensions still simmered. Turkey and Iran continued to exert economic and diplomatic pressure against the Kurdish government, demanding that it police the extremist factions.6 This action was difficult because Kurdish forces could not cross borders freely, and the majority of Kurds have remained in their ancestral homes rather than relocating to the fledgling Kurdish state.7
Figure 8-2. Plausible History for 2015 Crossroads
Great power relations dominate the political and economic scene. In 2008 Russia and the US conducted combined humanitarian operations in Africa, establishing a precedent for governmental cooperation and combined military operations in areas where interests have not traditionally overlapped.8 Meanwhile, China and the US sought better mutual understanding and relations. They increased military-to-military exchanges, and discussed the possibility of combined exercises. By 2009, these two successful partnerships led to the formation of the "Group of 3," or G-3, as a coordinating body for the international security concerns of Russia, China, and the US.
The US focus oscillated as priorities changed over time, first addressing internal difficulties, then shifting to address external issues. In 2012, the retirement of the "baby boomers" began to place further strains on the federal budget, turning the American focus inward.9 Certain hostile governments saw an opportunity in this renewed diversion of American attention from world affairs.
The most aggressive moves were initiated by the Iranian government, which chose to foster Kurdish unrest in Turkey in an attempt to topple the secular government.10 Iran chose to influence the character of Turkey's government for a combination of two reasons, first to eliminate a secular government whose nature was anathema to Islamic fundamentalism11 and second to reduce the level of competition for economic cooperation with other countries in the region.12
The Iranian government miscalculated America's willingness to support commitments to a long-standing NATO ally.13 This miscalculation resulted from Iran's assuming that their close economic ties to both Russia and China would lead those states to use their influence in the G-3 to preclude US intervention.14 Instead, Russia and China acquiesced to American involvement.
Initially the US deployed air power and special operations assets to southern and eastern Turkey, in bases such as Incirlik. American missions were limited to reconnaissance, civil affairs assistance, foreign internal defense (FID), and psychological operations (PSYOPS). This assistance enabled Turkey to rapidly gain the upper hand in the Iranian-backed Kurdish insurrection.
Angered by American intervention, Iran closed the Straits of Hormuz to all military shipping and demanded that all Western maritime assets abandon operations in the Gulf within 30 days. Intelligence sources revealed that Iran had deployed its modernized naval and submarine fleet throughout the Persian Gulf and fortified the straits with land-based Silkworm III missiles.15 The Iranian threat was deemed very credible.
Maintaining open sea-lanes through the Persian Gulf remained a matter of vital interest to American national security.16 Therefore, the US deployed additional air assets to Turkey, and naval assets to the Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean, and the Black Sea, where a carrier battle group was placed. Tensions continued to escalate with numerous border incidents. The lid came off when Iranian forces apparently launched a chemical attack against a Turkish army base.17
Iran's use of weapons of mass destruction--chemical and possibly biological--led the US coalition to emphasize the responsiveness and deep strike capability of aerospace power rather than relying on vulnerable ground forces. Decisive force was employed to minimize the threat of long-term disruptions to the flow of oil. Though Iranian forces fought to the best of their abilities, their military machine and political will were unable to compete with a massive parallel air attack. The US marriage of precision weapons and stealthy air and space forces kept the Iranian forces off balance, paralyzed by attacks across the breadth and depth of their infrastructure.18 Hostilities ceased 54 days after the initial attack, with over 30,000 American and Turkish casualties including approximately 13,000 dead. No formal peace agreement was signed, and Tehran continues to call for reparations for war damage to their "peaceful" chemical production facilities and nuclear power plants. Iran did agree to open shipping through the Gulf, and its support of the Kurdish uprising in Turkey ceased.
In 2014, Ukraine began to experience an explosion in immigration from Russia, whose economy remained relatively stagnant while the Ukraine's boomed.19 Russia had financed growth by running up a massive international debt with its major trading partners, including Ukraine. Then, on 19 April 2015, with their economy under siege from both these factors, Ukraine responded by sealing its borders and canceling all credit to Russia. If Russia reacts militarily, the US is not necessarily concerned with defending the Ukraine per se, but does seek to restrain Russian expansionism.20 The world awaits the Russian, and G-3, reaction.
This world is dominated by the US, Russia, and China. To a large degree it is a tripolar world, with each member of the G-3 dominating its respective sphere of influence. To minimize friction within the G-3, the members support military-to-military exchanges, conduct joint peacekeeping operations, and communicate frequently to discuss differences.
NATO remains a viable entity, though still troubled by requests for military assistance from Partnership for Peace (PFP) members. The EU and Japan have significant economic strength but exert relatively minor influence due to their focus on internal issues. Although multinational corporations have continued to grow in influence,21 the nation-state continues to be the dominant world actor.22
The Nature of International Politics
The G-3 hold formal semiannual meetings to discuss a variety of issues. These include the maintenance of their agreement to divide the arms export market so that each country shares in the proliferation of weapons, and economic competition between the three is managed. This agreement is similar to OPEC's oil production arrangements.
Over the past 15 years, the EU has focused primarily on internal divisions in an effort to finish the consolidation of the European alliance and governmental structures. NATO has seen an increase in its membership, adding several members of the Partnership for Peace: Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic.23 This brought an increased diversity of culture and opinion to the organization, which has made reaching consensus on policy more difficult. Further, tremendous resources have been expended in bringing the military forces of the new members up to NATO military standards.24 The resolution of the Russo-Ukrainian dispute will be a particularly challenging NATO issue because both Ukraine and Russia are members of the PFP.
The UN remains active in this world. Some operations conducted under its umbrella, like the Kurdish peacekeeping operations, have been effective. Others have met with less success.
The Nature of US National Security Strategy
In many ways, this is a world of tripolar détente. The strategic challenge for the US is to use technology to maintain a qualitative edge against potential competitors.25 America's national security strategy is twofold: to foster a coherent, nonimperialistic Russia with positive control of its nuclear weapons and to support the slow development of a prosperous, nonmilitaristic China.26 While pursuing those objectives, the US wants to preserve sufficient freedom to ensure America's prosperity by leading or manipulating the other members of the G-3. The US also considers the free flow of oil through the Persian Gulf a vital national interest and will respond with decisive force when those interests are threatened.
The aging of the baby boomers threatens to stratify economic classes in America along age lines.27 Many senior citizens still work and would prefer to continue working rather than subsist at a lower standard of living based on an inadequate retirement system.28 Because the huge number of retirees strains social programs to the breaking point, most of the younger generation have demanded more control over their retirement investments.29 As a result, Social Security is now voluntary for newly eligible individuals.
In the rest of the world, a continued disparity in standards of living sparks social unrest among the underprivileged. These strains are part of the Turkish-Kurdish-Iranian dispute and in the 2015 Ukrainian-Russian clash. Economic conflict appears to be the source of unrest in most of the world.30
Technology has been advancing at an evolutionary rate in all areas. No new breakthroughs have been discovered that were not predicted in 1996. Especially troubling is the lack of new advances in energy production. As a result, the world remains dependent on fossil fuels.
Though Constrained DTeK has not supported higher rates of economic growth, it has allowed the US to remain a qualitative edge against potential competitors. Programmed developments in military aerospace vehicles provide an unparalleled capacity to operate simultaneously across the entire frontier of an adversary's human, industrial, information, and military capacities. The US maintains a dominant position in the world by leveraging technology to develop and acquire those systems needed to remain a superpower. It uses long-range planning to identify the specific systems needed for development. See appendix A for a discussion of long-range planning in the Air Force.
Both global warming and depletion of the ozone layer are points of hot debate at G-3 meetings. Continued reliance on fossil fuels has accelerated the global warming problem,31 and China has contributed significantly to the greenhouse gas emissions that add to the problem.32 As a result, severe weather threatens many parts of the world, as hurricanes, droughts, and floods become more severe.33 Additionally, some predict that by 2025 flooding in the low countries, island states, and along coasts will displace up to 100 million people.34
Global warming is not the only problem. The use of chloroflourocarbons has proliferated in much of the world, particularly in China and other CFC black markets.35 The incidence of skin cancer and other skin diseases has climbed as CFCs weakened the ozone layer.36 China and the developing nations either will not or cannot fund the development of alternative sources of energy and CFC-like products. In fact, the developing nations insist they will continue to use CFCs unless other countries provide them with technical and financial assistance.37
The Nature of the Defense Budget
US defense budgets in this world have been marked by a steady decline to approximately $240 billion in 1995 dollars because of the pressure from the 2002 Balanced Budget Amendment (fig. 8-3) and growing social spending. The US economy has only grown at 3 percent annually, further constraining the funds available for defense. Today, in 2015, DOD budgets stand at approximately 2 percent of the total US GDP. As a result, the forces available today are primarily those programmed in 1996-2001. No new weapon systems have been fielded in the last seven years.
Figure 8-3. DOD Budget (Constant FY95 $B) for 2015 Crossroads
Depending on the situation, forces must shift rapidly from one theater to another.38 Unique capabilities are often provided by a limited number of platforms, and the units containing those forces may spend up to nine months a year deployed.
Organic and decentralized logistics become a must to support rapid response efforts that shift from theater to theater. Prepositioning of supplies is generally the option of choice. Information on equipment withdrawals or additions to prepositioned stocks is maintained with a bar code system, linked in a redundant network to a central computer.39 This same network provides detailed information to logisticians seeking to support and sustain forces operating at the tactical or operational level.
To limit the footprint of American military forces in theater--thereby reducing the number of personnel exposed to risk40--greater reliance is placed on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) for reconnaissance, surveillance, signals collection, and limited attack capabilities.41 Space systems provide a force-multiplier effect by enhancing the precision capabilities of other platforms and providing in-time communications and intelligence updates, often through links to UAVs and other intelligence sources.
The military can expect very little modernization for the next 10-20 years, particularly after 2010 as retiring baby boomers indirectly pressure the defense budget. As a result, upgrades may have to take 2015 weapons systems to 2025 and beyond.42 Because the US maintains worldwide commitments, the emphasis is on sustaining a high operations tempo without sacrificing readiness. To achieve this result, administrative staffs have been downsized to the minimum and many functions have been "out-sourced."43 An increased reliance on the larger Guard and Reserve forces helps reduce some of the impact of personnel cuts. The military in 2015 must use every technique available to maintain capability at the lowest expense possible.
There are many possible outcomes in the decade after 2015 Crossroads. Below are some of these possibilities, along with strategies for moving towards a particular 2025 future.
The path to Pax Americana is difficult. During the war with Iran the US sustained thousands of casualties and the loss of some force structure. If the reaction of the American people is outrage and a pledge "to control world events so this never happens again," then this route becomes feasible.
The US is faced by a world of realist politics that make such a transition difficult.44 In this world, military and economic power beget influence. To compete with the peer powers, the US must simultaneously replace force structure destroyed in the recent conflict, modernize all the services, and compete economically. If America successfully answers these challenges, then a Pax Americana-type future is possible.
If the American reaction to casualty rates in the Iranian conflict is dismay and a turning inward, then the road to King Khan becomes an expressway. With a 2015 GDP already greater than America's and no US diplomatic influences restraining militarization, China's military could quickly surpass both the size and sophistication of an American military relying on twentieth century technologies.45
The road to Gulliver parallels the road to 2015 Crossroads. If the American people view the outcome of recent events as business as usual, then the US military will continue to be overburdened and asked to play the role of the world's policeman. The primary difference is that America has peers in 2015 Crossroads. Unless China disintegrates and Russia founders, the key strategic issues in 2025 Crossroads differ significantly from Gulliver's Travails, although both futures have some degree of Dispersed power.
The other worlds are less likely outcomes following strategic decision(s) in 2015 Crossroads. Remarkable breakthroughs, perhaps spawned by global cooperation, would be required to spawn an Exponentialn increase in DTeK sufficient to nudge 2015 into any of the four highest technology worlds: Star Trek, Zaibatsu, Byte!, or Digital Cacophony. The American world view, which historically has oscillated, could move towards either dimension. Finally, G-3 competition, particularly if boosted by new technologies, could evolve into a Concentrated World Power Grid, or into a Dispersed state of empowerment for many actors.
While none of these scenarios are entirely within the control of the DOD, it is possible that actions taken over the next 30 years may, in tangential and sometimes unknowable ways, shape the possibilities. This is the challenge of 2015 Crossroads; it is the fundamental challenge of 1996.
Notes
Back to 2025 Home Page
Back to Table of Contents
Back to Chapter 7
Forward to Chapter 9