For those of you who follow RTJ, you’ve probably noticed that things have been a bit slow around here lately. They’ll pick up again soon. We have two very interesting papers pending, for example.
While we’re preparing those, I’d like to raise a question.
First some backstory … When Red Team Journal started in 1997, the world was very different. (At least most observers’ perceptions of the world were very different.) The United States was smitten with a bad case of overconfidence. The concept of a revolution in military affairs (RMA) held sway at the Pentagon, and, if you accepted the prevailing mindset, no one would emerge to challenge U.S. dominance for at least a decade, probably longer. If we were to simplify the world into a board game of global dominance, most players in 1997 would have preferred to “play” the United States.
So, here’s my question: assuming the same board game of global dominance, who would you choose to play today?
Red teaming and alternative analysis for national security and business advantage.
{ 9 comments }
Chaz Perin 11.04.09 at 10:51 am
The U.S., of course! Yes, we’d have to relocate our manufacturing base within our continent, bring back conscription, push for the full federalization of Europe and Russia’s full participation with NATO, but with a little economic magic, we’ve got the technological edge, the military experience, and a population on the rise. Major weaknesses are the network security of our public utilities network and our deficit, but those can be overcome
China is the only other logical choice, but would need to postpone for as long as possible a full-blown conflict with the US as they caught up technologically.
Jack Daly 11.05.09 at 10:47 am
IRAN – cause I want a nuke and I’m going to get one because no one is capable of stopping me; I’m holding the current world’s powers at bay with my continued deceitful games at the negotiation table; if anyone (specifically Israel) try’s to stop me I will unleash my terrorism via my surrogates in every major city in the world ( I will retain the element of surprise throughout and be able to calim “plausible deniability”); I will close the Persian Gulf and stem the flow of oil driving up prices across the globe; I can claim an uprovoked attack and my allies (China, Syria, Russia, and Venezula) will come to my aid, even the UN will condem such an act; US troops are already taxed do they really want to have to take on my forces as well? Hmmmm….
Andy Schleicher 11.07.09 at 1:27 am
I play People’s Republic of China – in a game of world dominance, its clear they’re the only choice. The combination of hard power, soft power and smart power is superior to any other actor besides the U.S. With an economic strategy, China can force the dollar to collapse – paving the way for China to use its numerical advantage in just about everything to move towards domination.[Muahahaha!]
However, I reject the game as false – world dominance isn’t a game any nation-state will [or should] be playing; a more interesting question would be: If you’re looking to fundamentally destabilize the status-quo, who do you play? This question opens up non-state actors and an interesting long-term strategic component, playing the spoiler while sustaining long term survivability.
Adam Elkus 11.10.09 at 3:45 am
How about Russia? Just purely for the challenge, given their immense difficulties.
Ifeanyi 11.13.09 at 8:30 pm
Africa. Arguably the most under-productive continent on the planet. Translation: Highest potential for growth on the globe today.
Amongst all possibilities, this has to be the most challenging. Imagining a solution in idea space that unites Africa’s oodles of dissenting ethnic groups into a cohesive continental unit, educates its peoples and accelerates industry/services and defense to a point where a united Africa can project unrivaled economic and military might as the predominant world hegemon has to be the most engaging thought experiment.
Viva Africa!
Raven 11.17.09 at 1:50 am
Well I have to say Ifeanyi certainly has a good idea, and of course China is an obvious choice. But I’ll be a jerk and throw two hats in the ring:
1) Conventional choice-India. Sure you’re a messy multi-ethnic democracy with a rowdy neighbor who is always distracting you, but eventually you guys will stop fighting over who owns the sweater. Yet those things are all advantages. Having a rowdy neighbor has helped you keep your military in good shape, and yes multiethnic democracy’s are messy, but they’re also flexible. Not to mention the legacy of colonialism-you have a lot more English speakers, plus a lot of expats in some helpful places. And as the final part of an incomplete list, your far more likely to get support from the [still powerful] former great powers then your competitor (China).
Or if we’re going the black horse route:
Al-Qaeda: Sure they are on the run now, but they (and others like them) are using globalization to tap into young Muslim men. Sure their odds are long, but that was true of a bunch of horse herders in Mongolia, desert tribes in Arabia and some poor half wild colonies on the edge of the Americas at one point too. They give an authentic, modern ideology that taps into their targets past. All they need to do is learn community organizing.
James Montgomery 11.17.09 at 6:22 pm
France: I think this isn’t the easiest of choices but I definitely have my reasons. France definitely has its share of unrest and cultural problems in it’s city centers. Social reforms and religious acceptance would make this country a hard one to deal with. I can however say that France has a few luxuries that make it a really good choice. France is a nuclear power. France has power bases (either physically or economically) spread from eastern Asia to northen Africa. France has a robust weapons program and freely sells to countries that the United States wouldn’t think of selling to. France has the EU to rely upon to prop it up if its economy ever falls into distress. France is internationally respected (or feared) but most attractive of all? The United States leaves France largely alone. France might not be able to act with impugnity but the U.S. (looking to improve international ties) will be loathe to publicly condemn France’s actions for anything other than the most egregious of acts.
Compugeek 12.11.09 at 6:34 pm
I’d play Russia but not for the challenge as Adam states. Russia has problems right now but they have internal energy resources and distribution infrastructure, access to more sources, academic resources, etc. Russia has a politico-social climate that enables its leadership to act with near impugnity (heck, the local populace LIKES having a strong decisive leadership). Don’t overlook the fact that Russia has a strong IT background, perhaps second only to the U.S.
Shorn of the self-defeating economic theories of Marx and Lenin and going into a future where energy becomes ever more important, Russia looks to me to be in a much stronger position than ever before.
Richard B 12.18.09 at 5:20 pm
Why is everyone selecting nations? Are we still living Westphalia? Is technological change now irrelevent? Who could argue that the determinant technologies of this century are now controlled by states?
Anonymous (or misunderstood as to goals) multi-national groups offer the winning roles. Examples include (a few dozen?) criminals with trans-national network contacts, a multinational corporation with strong connections in several capitals or even a self-interested small group within a government or MNC hierarchy.
An example (of all three?) might be Goldman Sachs alums in government agencies, banks and hedge funds, with or without Goldman Sachs leadership. Now there’s a (Red) Team with a winning record. Recall the true meaning of political power from Pol Sci 101.
(Pakistani) ISI Alumni also offer an interesting option. Now there’s a team with a rolodex for (controlled?) mayhem. Not for the faint of heart.
Playing states is so twentieth century.
Comments on this entry are closed.