ASCF REPORT 2.1.20
BY ALAN W. DOWD
News reports that U.S. soldiers are stealing cars in Lithuania. Unmarked Russian
troops flooding into Ukraine. Iran sending aid and weaponry to proxies
in Iraq. Russia jamming GPS signals of NATO units in the field. China
turning atolls in international waters into armed redoubts. Russian
hackers penetrating U.S. political parties to steal and leak
compromising information. Chinese fishing trawlers and coast guard
vessels swarming the East and South China Seas. Instagram messages warning deployed U.S. troops that their families are in danger. Hamas setting fire to Israeli croplands. Russia deploying anti-aircraft missiles in Kaliningrad. China deploying anti-ship missiles in the Spratly Islands.
These are examples of what’s known as “gray zone conflict”—a form of
asymmetric warfare that has left America and its allies scrambling for
ways to respond.
“Gray zone actions exist, and thrive, at the margins of ‘acceptable’
state behavior with thresholds bound between day-to-day statecraft and
acts of war, intended to delay or paralyze competitors’
decision-making,” explains John Schaus of CSIS. Our enemies operate in
the gray because they know that trying to compete with the U.S. on the
battlefield is a losing proposition.
Some of the tools of gray zone warfare are new, but this form of warfare is not. Schaus notes,
“The United States developed decades of experience in countering these
types of activities during the Cold War.” Indeed, to address today’s
gray zone actions the American people need to apply what worked
yesterday.
Perspective
In today’s fake-news and misinformation campaigns, we hear echoes of
yesterday’s wartime propaganda peddlers: Nazi Germany dropped leaflets claiming King George had fled, warning that the U.S. economy was
collapsing, and arguing that the war was a lost cause. Imperial Japan
put Tokyo Rose on the airwaves to demoralize American servicemen, whom she labeled
“orphans of the Pacific” and mockingly asked, “How will you get home now
that your ships are sunk?” Throughout the Cold War, Moscow fed and
funded a global propaganda machine that waged political warfare against
the U.S. and its allies, attempted to sow confusion and division, and
aimed to sap the will of the West. Hanoi Hannah, for instance, urged American personnel to “defect…You know you cannot win this war.”
Americans saw through the lies, half-truths and propaganda—and knew
their system of government and vision for the future were superior to
what the fascists and communists offered. Nothing has changed since the
end of the Cold War in this regard. Liberal democracy—enfolding the rule
of law, majority rule and minority rights, free markets and free
enterprise, religious liberty—is still superior to what Beijing, Moscow
and their partners have to offer. But we have to answer their lies with
truth.
Messaging
That brings us to one of America’s greatest weapons in these gray zone battles. As FDR did during World War II, as Truman and Kennedy and Reagan did during the Cold War, America’s political leaders must highlight the difference between free government and its enemies.
In relation to Russia, that means drawing a bright line between
Europe’s thriving democracies and Czar Vladimir’s kleptocracy; pointing
out that 44 percent of Russia’s young adults want to flee; and offering a platform to the victims of Putinism—civil society groups, human-rights activists, evangelical Christians, political dissidents, free-speech advocates.
As Reagan counseled, “a little less détente…and more encouragement to
the dissenters might be worth a lot of armored divisions.”
In relation to China, that means offering a platform to the regime’s
enemies—the underground Church, Tibetan independence advocates, Uighur
Muslims, laogai survivors, Charter 08 signatories, political dissidents, families victimized by the one-child
policy. Beijing is acutely sensitive to these issues and has no answer
to them—except systemic political reform, which would be in America’s
interest.
In relation to Iran, that means calling for an end to the
dictatorship of the mullahs and the beginning of an Iran that is free
and self-governing.
To make sure the message is heard, Congress should reopen the U.S. Information Agency, which was shut down in 1999.
Resolve
Of course, this is more than a battle of ideas. We also have to
summon the resolve and resources to thwart gray zone attacks. The U.S.
doing this in cyberspace. The Pentagon is committed to “persistent engagement” in cyberspace to “impose costs, neutralize
adversary efforts and change their decision calculus.” Recent examples
include the Olympic Games/Stuxnet operations that disrupted Iran’s nuclear program and the 2018 cyber-strike that crippled the Internet Research Agency—a front organization based
in St. Petersburg, Russia, that has conducted operations against the
U.S.
Israel has transferred the “persistent engagement” doctrine beyond
cyberspace. To answer the gray zone actions of Hamas, Hezbollah and
Iran, the IDF has embraced what it calls the “campaign between the wars”—ongoing low-level military actions
aimed at shaping the battlespace in a way that favors Israel; exposing
and degrading Iranian-Hezbollah-Hamas asymmetric assets; and preventing
Israel’s enemies from gaining momentum or getting comfortable.
Nerve
U.S. policymakers must also have the nerve to make China, Russia and
Iran pay for their lawlessness—and to remind these regimes that two can
play the proxy game.
After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Obama administration
increased funding earmarked for NATO’s defense. The Trump administration
expanded on that and sent antitank missiles to Ukraine. NATO units are
training Ukraine’s army. And NATO has deployed combat units in the
Baltics and Poland. These policies are raising the costs for Putin.
Doubtless, Putin privately realizes he triggered a response that made
NATO more engaged, more alert, and more prepared to detect and reverse
another gray zone operation.
Xi’s actions have triggered a similar response. Beijing’s illegal island-building project has awakened China’s neighbors to the threat
posed by China. Thus, Japan, Australia, Britain and France have joined
the U.S. in promoting freedom of navigation in the region. Japan has increased defense spending eight years in a row. Tokyo is constructing military runways on Mageshima Island.
The Japanese are converting their “helicopters carriers” into flattops
capable of deploying F-35Bs. South Korea is increasing defense spending
by 7.1 percent annually between 2020 and 2024. Australia’s defense budget will climb 81 percent by 2025.
Washington has other cards to play in the Indo-Pacific: Defensive
assets could be positioned at key points around the South China Sea to
counter China’s island-building project and checkmate its
anti-access/area-denial efforts (A2AD). RAND proposes “using ground-based anti-ship missiles as part of a U.S. A2AD
strategy,” in partnership with Indonesia, Malaysia, Japan, South Korea,
Taiwan and the Philippines.
In addition, the trickle of defensive weaponry flowing to Taiwan
could become a torrent. Even more dramatic, the U.S. Navy could begin
making routine port visits to Taiwan, and U.S. air assets could start landing in Taiwan due to “mechanical issues.” If that fails to persuade Beijing to adjust its behavior, Washington could publicly explore with Japan and South Korea deployment of U.S. deterrent-nuclear assets (officials in all three countries have raised the idea). Washington could even suggest that it may be
time for Japan and South Korea to deploy their own nuclear deterrent
(again, officials in South Korea and Japan have raised the idea).
These responses to the gray zone threats posed by our adversaries
serve as a reminder that America and its allies are not limited to
operating in the gray zone.