Rise of iWar

Identity, Information, and the Individualization of Modern Warfare

Glenn J. Voelz, Strategic Studies Institute

• Publisher: Skyhorse
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781510726055
• eBook ISBN: 9781510726178
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Military & Maritime History
• Index: History

During a decade of global counterterrorism operations and two extended counterinsurgency campaigns, the United States was confronted with a new kind of adversary. Without uniforms, flags, and formations, the task of identifying and targeting these combatants represented an unprecedented operational challenge. The existing, Cold War-era doctrinal methods were largely unsuited to the cyber-warfare and terrorism that have evolved today. Rise of iWar examines the doctrinal, technical, and bureaucratic innovations that evolved in response to these new operational challenges. It discusses the transition from a conventionally focused, Cold War-era military approach to one optimized for the internet age, focused on combating insurgency networks and conducting identity-based targeting. It also analyzes the policy decisions and strategic choices that caused these changes. This study concludes with an in-depth examination of emerging technologies that are likely to shape how this mode of warfare will be waged in the future, and provides recommendations for how the US military should continue to adapt to be combat its foes in the digital age.

THE RISE OF IWAR:
IDENTITY, INFORMATION, AND
THE INDIVIDUALIZATION
OF MODERN WARFARE

Whenever you want to attack an army, besiege a city, or kill a person, first you must know the identities of their defending generals, their associates, their visitors, their gatekeepers, and their chamberlains …

Sun Tzu, The Art of War1

INTRODUCTION

In late-2014, the United States reached the milestone of the 500th nonbattlefield targeted strike, operations that have killed some 3,600 people over the last decade.2 Beyond the numbers, this event is notable as one example of a new mode of state warfare based on military power being applied directly against individual combatants rather than formations. These so-called “targeted killings” are perhaps the most vivid example of the individualization of American warfare. The commander in chief now routinely reviews and approves strikes against named combatants, a phenomenon “without precedent in presidential history.”3 However, this trend is not limited only to high-level counterterrorism efforts. It reflects a new strategic calculus that has elevated the status of the individual combatant into a foremost concern of national security policy and made the targeting of these entities a major driver of doctrinal and technical innovation on the battlefield.

The attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11) and two extended counterinsurgency campaigns presented the United States with adversaries for which it was largely unprepared. These new opponents did not fight as conventional formations or within a clearly defined battle space. Rather, they were organized as distributed networks and small cells, composed of individuals often indistinguishable from the surrounding population. Without uniforms and flags, the task of identifying and targeting these entities presented an unprecedented operational challenge for which traditional warfighting approaches were largely unsuited. In response, the U.S. national security apparatus embarked upon a decade of doctrinal, technical, and organizational innovation premised on the central idea that individual combatants represented a salient national security concern and legitimate military target. Within this new operational paradigm, the identification, screening, and targeting of “high-value individuals” and their associated networks became the focus of a new mode of state warfare—iWar.

THE PILLARS OF IWAR

The rise of iWar is a case study of military innovation centered on the operational task of identifying, screening, and targeting individual combatants and their networks; iWar is characterized by three distinct elements: Individualization, Identity, and Information. These pillars provide a conceptual framework for analyzing the dramatic changes in doctrine, technology, and strategic focus that have redefined how the United States wages war abroad and protects its borders at home.

• Individualization: Over the last decade, the U.S. national security apparatus shifted from its traditional focus on conventional military adversaries to an emphasis on nonstate threats and opponents fighting as dispersed, highly adaptive networks. This reorientation led to the adoption of new analytical methods and operational approaches based on the systematic disaggregation of threats down to the lowest possible level—often the individual combatant. In this mode of warfare, the targeting of “high-value individuals” became a paramount national security concern and key driver of doctrinal and technical innovation on the battlefield.

• Identity: As networked adversaries and individual combatants moved to the focal point of warfighting and domestic security concerns, there was a pressing need to identify and discriminate among these entities. In the age of iWar, the opponents were no longer generic soldiers who could be differentiated on the basis of status or uniform. As the targeting process became personalized, new kinds of information and methods were required which included biographic, biometric, and forensics data, and the use of network analysis for linking these identities to places, activities, and other actors. Identity attributes became the new technical signature of battlefield targeting and the first line of defense in the “watch listing” approach to homeland security.

• Information: Waging iWar depended upon a revolution of information management built around technologies designed for differentiating individual actors on the battlefield and segregating friend from foe. These tasks were unlike the analytical challenges of industrial age warfare and required new tools and methods for collecting, processing, and communicating identity information across the entire national security apparatus. The need to identify, screen, and target these threats at home and abroad made information management and data analysis the most important weapons in the age of iWar.

These pillars of iWar reflect a new operational paradigm that emerged in response to an unexpected adversary that fought as networks rather than formations. These combatants were not easily identifiable on the battlefield and used anonymity for operational advantage. Their activities were not limited to clearly defined battlefields or military targets. These characteristics enabled them to resist an overwhelming American advantage in conventional maneuver warfare, airpower, and logistics. This dilemma became the catalyst for a major reorientation of national security strategy based on the need to identify, screen, and target these individual combatants and their networks.

Within this new paradigm, operational progress could not be measured by the destruction of an adversary’s physical infrastructure or control of key terrain. This paradox led the United States toward a strategy of tactics, one based on the systematic disaggregation of threats down to the lowest possible level. This approach evolved into warfighting methods that turned “the fusion of operations and intelligence for the purpose of hunting high-value targets into a high art.”4 In the waging of iWar, operational success has been defined by identifying these individual threats around the globe, segregating them on the battlefields, screening them at the borders, and targeting them across the spaces in between.

The tools and methods of iWar did not evolve as a result of grand overarching design. Rather, the pathway of innovation was defined by operational contingency, tactical adaptation, and new strategic priorities that emerged in response to an unexpected adversary. This led to a decade of significant doctrinal and technical innovation centered on the task of identifying and targeting threats from nonstate actors and individual combatants. This spurred an unprecedented revolution of information management and data sharing across the entire national security apparatus. It also fed major bureaucratic transformations that gradually eroded many of the traditional lines separating military operations, foreign intelligence activities, and domestic security functions. Together, these changes reflect a new strategic calculus that has placed threats from nonstate actors and individual combatants on equal footing with adversarial states as a driver of U.S. national security policy and military innovation.

RESEARCH FOCUS

This monograph is structured in two parts. The first section examines iWar as a case study of military innovation. It traces the course of doctrinal, technological, and organizational change within the U.S. national security apparatus in response to a new kind of adversary. It analyzes the dynamics of the post-9/11 security environment, identifying specific policy decisions and strategic choices that became the catalysts of change and drivers of innovation. It examines how these changes evolved from the very specific operational challenge of identifying, screening, and targeting individual combatants on the battlefield and at the borders. Finally, it demonstrates how these changes challenged many of the underlying presumptions that have guided the conduct of state warfare in the modern age.

The second part is more technically focused and speculative. It continues on the theme of military innovation by considering where current technical trends may lead as the United States continues to face threats from nonstate adversaries and individual actors. The monograph concludes with a scenario-based discussion that examines several emerging technology areas that may define how iWar is waged in the next generation.

THE CATALYSTS OF IWAR

The attacks of 9/11 largely debunked two enduring presumptions concerning the U.S. national security strategy of the post-Cold War era. The first was the traditional view that a combination of domestic social-cultural cohesion, stability among neighbors, and maritime separation could isolate the American homeland from the worst dangers emanating from failed states and transnational terrorism. A second presumption was that overwhelming strength in traditional war-fighting approaches based on maneuver warfare and firepower could deter the main threats to U.S. national security. However, the rise of al-Qaeda, two extended counterinsurgency campaigns, and persistent domestic security threats posed by nonstate actors served to challenge both of these presumptions.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the intelligence community, military, and homeland security entities faced a new kind of adversary that did not answer to a sovereign state, wear uniforms, or seek clearly defined geopolitical objectives. The nature of such threats had been articulated in various writings during the post-Cold War transition period, perhaps most prophetically in John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt’s Networks and Netwars. In this work, the authors described nonstate actors organized as decentralized hybrid structures, engaging in low-intensity conflicts by leveraging doctrines and technologies based on network design.5 Under the guise of “fourth generation warfare,” William Lind, T. X. Hammes, and others foresaw these networks and individual actors potentially supplanting the state as drivers of a new global order, an idea later sensationalized by Thomas Friedman’s thesis on “super empowered individuals.”6

All of these writers highlighted the fact that combating such adversaries would require that states rethink doctrines and technologies that were ill-suited for operations in a nonlinear battle space dominated by networks and information campaigns rather than formations and conventional maneuver. They described an emerging security environment defined by conflicts between state and nonstate actors, or states using nonstate actors as proxies.7 The common link among these predictions was the fact that these new adversaries would be structured as distributed networks rather than hierarchies. Conflicts would be sub-national or transnational in scope, and operations would tend to merge the strategic and tactical levels of war. Most importantly, these adversaries would be inherently difficult to identify and challenging to target. Defeating them would require new analytical approaches, organizational structures, technologies, and warfighting strategies.

Many of the Netwar predictions have since been validated by U.S. experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, the ongoing campaign against global terrorism, and, more recently, in so-called “hybrid conflicts” characterized by decentralized and irregular warfighting waged by militias rather than professional armies. In all of these endeavors, the United States has struggled to contain and defeat adversaries operating under an organizational logic far different from the highly formalized and doctrinally based thr...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Foreword
• About the Author
• Summary
• The Rise of Iwar: Identity, Information, and the Individualization of Modern Warfare