U.S. War Games Reveal Faults with Current Nuclear Recovery Strategy in North Korea

A recent war games scenario conducted by the U.S. Army War College has brought to light concerning shortcomings with the U.S.'s ability to recover nuclear weapons in a failed state. CNN's Jake Tapper recently reported on this startling development. The objective of the recent war game simulation was to neutralize or secure the nuclear arsenal of a country dubbed 'North Brownland' - a nick-name for North Korea. The characteristics North Brownland shared with North Korea are quite similar; a familial dictatorial authoritarian regime, proven WMD capability, bellicose and aggressive rhetoric, and the high potential to further deteriorate into an unstable failed state. However, it should be noted that other states share the traits and would also qualify as the intended target of this war game scenario, like the cases of Syria or Pakistan. [Click Here for the current list of Foreign Policy's Failed States]

The failures experienced by the U.S. in the war games scenario were not due to a lack of strategy, technological capability, or troop levels, but rather the inability to implement the current strategy for WMD recovery and wage a conventional war. To achieve mission success, the scenario yielded a conservative estimate of 90,000 troops over a period of 56 days. Paul McLeary, of Defense News, attended the analytic review of the war game. He summarized the issues discussed by Pentagon officials,

"They're very concerned about being able to get troops who can deal with nuclear and chemical weapons where they need them quickly. And the fact [is] that over the past ten or twelve years, they haven't really invested in that capability so much. They've invested in counterinsurgency, ground vehicles, IED threats, but they haven't really spent a lot of time and money modernizing their nuclear and chemical troops."

This realization is something that I have covered, in part, with the rise of USSOCOM. The switch from conventional warfare to counterinsurgency (COIN) operations was precipitated by two driving factors present in the conflicts that the U.S. has been involved in during the post-9/11 era. The first was a change in the nature of the opposition forces the U.S. faced. In 2007 during a speech at the Council on Foreign relations, General Michael Hayden stated that,

"The Soviet Union's most deadly forces - ICBMs, tank armies - they were actually relatively easy to find, but they were very hard to kill. Intelligence was important, don't get me wrong, but intelligence was overshadowed by the need for raw, shear fire power. Today the situation is reversed. We're now in an age in which our primary adversary is easy to kill, he's just very hard to find."

The Details are in the Design

F1 Race Car and a 4 Door Sedan
Both with a Rear Spoiler

Everyone draws on comparisons between guns and cars when talking about gun control, especially when discussing so called 'Assault Weapons.' The common mantra is 'it's the driver at fault in a car crash, so why ban the vehicle?' The logic is that the user of either the gun or the car should be punished or held responsible, so restricting access to the tool used to do the harm is arbitrary and wrong.

Well, although many people in the U.S. drive compact cars with small 4-cylinder engines, they buy 'Sport' packages for their cars, attach wings or spoilers to their cars, or modify their engines with performance parts. This is done to emulate REAL race cars used by trained professionals on a closed course. Although the core of the car is the same, they are used with two separate and distinct mentalities and thus alter the intent with which their car will be used - switching from Sunday driver to the Fast and the Furious. Nobody needs to go 0-60 in 5 seconds when the speed limit is 25 to 40 mph and the drive to work is not a trial run in the Indy 500.

So why is this comparison overlooked in the analogy? The cosmetic additions to a rifle emulate the modifications used by trained soldiers for the purpose of a battlefield in a theater of war. The shooter is not going into battle, so why use a weapon that looks like it belongs in a battlefield? It is the mentality of the weapon that shifts. This is because of the gun culture and the pornographization of war. So while the addition of an adjustable stock, a barrel shroud, muzzle brake, or a pistol grip does not fundamentally alter a rifle in a physical or mechanical sense, the aura and mentality attached to the weapon are.

A Classic Hunting Rifle [top] and the FN SCAR Mk 17 [bottom]

The two rifles above are designed for two different and specific purposes. The top gun is a classic hunting rifle and the bottom gun is the FN SCAR (Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle) designed for USSOCOM. They are both chambered for the same round, the 7.62 NATO [military] or the .308 Winchester [civilian]. The hunting rifle is a no frills weapons, while the SCAR has design components that are specifically purposed for a battlefield in a war zone. Civilians can purchase the SCAR Rifle as as the 'SCAR 17S,' a semi-automatic only version of the SCAR Mk 17. [Link Here]

So here is where the comparison of the driver and shooter come into play. If someone were to engage in an illegal activity with an otherwise legal item, i.e. drive like they are in a race on a city street or robbing a bank or going on a shooting rampage, they would more than likely select a sport type car or an assault weapon type rifle. The performance sought in a car when they are purposed for operating in fast, agile, and quick environment are never realistically needed when lawfully operating a vehicle on a city street. Likewise when a person goes hunting, they are not taking down an armed deer in body armor - and even in home defense, the attack wont be a drawn out siege.

I feel like this aspect of the design difference has been overlooked in the discussion and debate - mostly because the Gun Lobby has stifled the discourse. I'm not saying that these should be banned outright per se, but rather what's the justification? This is not an attack on hobbyists or gun collectors, but rather negligence or abdication of responsibility on the side of gun manufacturers. Could it be because that they are shielded from legal culpability thanks to a 2005 law? [Link Here] If they have a contract with the Military and Department of Defense, why should they use similar products and marketing when selling to private consumers? Capitalism is dictated by the wants of the consumer, but should products be made available without limit? I'm sure that there would be endless lines for people wanting to collect fighter jets and air-to-ground missiles - but that does not justify the ability to sell those to private citizens.

This is not intended to be a critique of car manufacturers or an attack on the Second Amendment. Nor am I attempting to argue that the guns of today pail in comparison to the 'firearms' imagined by the Founding Fathers, and should therefore not fall under the rights of ownership of the Second Amendment. Rather this is just a step towards having the discourse that this country so desperately needs to have.

USSOCOM: Firefights & Finances Amidst Fiscal Austerity

     The U.S.’s tier one fighting force is known as United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). The purpose of USSOCOM is to “Provide fully capable Special Operations Forces to defend the United States and its interests [and to] Synchronize planning of global operations against terrorist networks.” [1] USSOCOM is the Special Forces equivalent to the United States Central Command (USCENTCOM), which is the central unified command for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. Whereas CENTCOM oversees the command for the general enlisted military forces, USSOCOM was specifically created for Special Forces components of the four aforementioned branches of the military. As all of these unified commands are military entities, they fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense.

     USSOCOM is as unique as it is integral. The President utilizes the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) as an advisory position when it comes to making military policy. Per the synthesis and interactions with the JCS and the intelligence community, the President can then issue a directive for a military operation or covert action. In terms of Special Operations, this is where the connection between policy and engagement proceeds. USSOCOM takes the tier one Special Forces operators from all branches of the military, commanding “all active and reserve Special Operations Forces of all armed forces stationed in the United States.” [2]  USSOCOM is located at the MacDill Air Force Base in Florida. Specifically, USSOCOM is comprised of U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC), Naval Special Warfare Command (NAVSPECWARCOM), Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) and Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC). [3]  With such a breadth of command control, USSOCOM has roughly “57,000 active duty, Reserve and National Guard Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Department of Defense civilians” at its disposal. [4]  Given the weight of the responsibility that USSOCOM has been charged with, their importance in U.S. defense cannot be overstated.

Operational History

     The Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and the subsequent Nunn-Cohen Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 1987 laid the groundwork for the development of USSOCOM. The call for an upgrade to U.S. Special Forces and their capabilities arose from the strategic failures during the Iran Hostage Crisis. In early April of 1980, U.S. President Jimmy Carter authorized Operation Eagle Claw in an attempt to rescue the hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. [5]  The mission was an utter failure and arguably the death knell of the Carter administration. However, the U.S. military would learn from the operation’s failures and implement policy to prevent a recurrence of such failure. USSOCOM operates on two levels, one passive and one active. USSOCOM constantly pursues the best and emerging technologies to meet their equipment and arms requirements. In doing so, USSOCOM can be ready at a moment’s notice when called to the battlefield. The mission of USSOCOM is to not only have Special Forces at the ready, but to also make sure they have the necessary tools to get the job done. The caliber of the missions assigned to USSOCOM is unparalleled. For instance, their killing of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan during Operation Neptune Spear required cutting edge technology, highly advanced weaponry, and unrivaled training. It is specifically for this reason that adequate financing needs to be available for USSOCOM.

Financial Protocols

     USSOCOM is comprised of a combination of military branches, yet it is not reliant on any of them in regards to finances, appropriations, budgeting, and acquisitions. Representing about 1.5% of the Department of Defense’s annual Budget, "USSOCOM has its own budgetary authorities and responsibilities through a specific Major Force Program (MFP-11) in DOD’s budget." [6] [7] Within USSOCOM there is the Special Operations Research, Development, and Acquisition Center's (SORDAC). SORDAC is the link in the chain between the administration of USSOCOM and the holder of the purse, the U.S. Congress.

     Running USSOCOM is an expensive endeavor for the U.S. In 2011 that actual USSOCOM budget was $10.35 billion, in 2012 $10.47 billion was appropriated, and a slightly reduced $10.40 billion requested for fiscal year 2013. [8] USSOCOM handles mission specific equipment procurement on numerous levels. From small business contracts for small arms ammunition to emerging stealth technologies, USSOCOM is responsible for satisfying their own specific equipment requirements. [9]

     The needs of USSOCOM are constantly evolving as new technology becomes available, as well as in conjunction with an expansion of USSOCOM’s role in the U.S. military’s repertoire. As evidence of this, while the annual budget of USSOCOM has maintained at around $10 billion over the last three years, the allotment for overseas contingency operations (OCO’s) has shrunk by an average of 20% per fiscal year. [10] The routinization of OCO’s has led to the practice of the core budget incorporating what was previously accounted for in the OCO’s. So effectively the budget has maintained, but the line item breakdown demonstrates the U.S. reliance upon USSOCOM. Furthermore, USSOCOM’s 2013 budget justification describes “a new normal that requires Special Operations Forces (SOF) forces to be persistently forward-deployed.” [11]  Interestingly, while the line item budget accounts for every dollar USSOCOM spends, the specificity of what is entailed by “operational support” or “intelligence” is quite vague, even in the instances that a description is not obscured by being “classified.” [12]

     The specialized and adaptive platform that USSOCOM is modeled on includes fiscal considerations. Irrespective of the current state of the economy, the foreign strategic threats against the U.S. will still remain. Thus USSOCOM was designed to accomplish its goals on the bare minimum of budgetary funding. As a demonstration of this notion, USSOCOM was awarded the Department of Defense’s Better Buying Power Efficiency Award in November 2012 for “closing a capability gap with effective, timely, and affordable technologies.” [13]  This highly successful result was a product of SORDAC’s aim to “execute approved program profiles within 10% deviation of cost, schedule, and performance.” [14]

One Year Later: Retrospection & Analyzing the Recent Dialogue

The DEVGRU Weapon of Choice: A SOPMOD M4A1

Today marks the one year anniversary of Osama Bin Laden's terminus at the hands of DEVGRU. The world's most wanted man was finally brought to justice in his Abottabad compound. Delivering this justice was two 5.56 NATO rounds fired from a SOPMOD M4A1 rifle courtesy of a SEAL Team 6 operator. He conveyed this accomplishment by declaring "For God and country - Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo!" These powerful words, a combination of a Latin phrase and the operational codename for their primary target, were the first uttered in a post-Bin Laden world.

In the 365 days since this successful mission was executed with surgical precision, a partisan dialogue has emerged in regards to Operation Neptune Spear. Here are two critiques of how President Barack Obama has utilized this success in the context of an election year, followed by my response:

1. Obama really didn't do anything of major operational significance, he just gave authorization for an obvious decision.

This is an argument from ignorance, plain and simple. The outcome had the potential to be the worst American military fiasco since Operation Eagle Claw during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis, or more recently in comparison to 'Black Hawk Down' in 1993. The location of this high-valued target was in the borders of the sovereign nation of Pakistan and only minutes away from the Pakistan Military Academy, their equivalent to West Point. Compounding the risk was the current anti-American political climate among Pakistanis. Not withstanding the fact this would be the first time a nuclear state would have their sovereignty directly challenged in such a manner - adding the unprecedented, and albeit unlikely, potential of two nuclear powers going directly to war with each other.

A Glimpse inside the Situation Room

Furthermore, as Commander in Chief, Barack Obama is the supreme commander of the United States Armed Forces. This integral role should not be overlooked. SEAL Team 6 launching a ground operation was never set in stone. Obama was presented with three potential courses of action. The first was a joint US/Pakistani ground operation; easily the most diplomatic. Second was having the site renovated from a compound to a crater, courtesy of a B2 Spirit Stealth Bomber. Third was the option of the Seal Team 6 raid. The decision to go with the latter of the three options was not the easiest choice to come to. The joint operation had numerous potentials for error: intel leaks, logistical time delays, and a lack of prior precedent for how to conduct a US/PAK operation. The sortie would have guaranteed target annihilation, but would have had catastrophic levels of collateral damage - and no bodies to account for the mission's justification. So while the third option looked the most tantalizing, it put 79 American Soldiers on the ground. This meant boots on foreign soil, in pursuit of an unconfirmed target.

Regardless of what the President may or may not be doing in regards to referencing the success of this operation, credit must be given where credit is due. Diminishing Obama's role in Bin Laden's take down is more petty, ignorant, and deleterious than what any superimposed political narrative is accusing the President of doing.

2. Obama is employing divisive and unethical rhetoric when using Bin Laden's death as a part of his 2012 campaign platform.

There are so many elements wrong with this assertion. Most prominently is the fact that the majority of these attacks are coming from the right. While there may be legitimate critiques, Republicans are being hypocritical in their claims. The outline for what the Obama 2012 campaign is doing in terms of using national security, foreign policy, and successes in a war are no different than the Bush 2004 campaign [As Slate Magazine Demonstrates].

Should President Obama be able to laud the success of killing Bin Laden as part of his campaign? Without question. Especially because of his visit to Afghanistan and Bagram Airbase yesterday. To question Obama's visit to an active war zone, to visit American troops, and on the anniversary of Bin Laden's death, simply proved the foolishness and ignorance of those accusing him of grabbing cheap political gains.

Personally, I cannot think of a stronger message to send to the world than to return to the homeland of al-Qaeda on the one year anniversary of their founder's demise at our hands, and outlining a way to responsibly draw down a decade long conflict. 

History has shown that hasty military withdrawals that are irrespective and inconsiderate of real world implications have extremely negative consequences. And before anybody scoffs at President Obama's announcement to commit US and NATO forces to Afghanistan for the next decade, remember how all of this was started in the first place. Like it or not, al-Qaeda grew from the seeds of the American-backed Afghan Mujahadeen that fought against the Soviets forces during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

The gravitas of this salute to America's determination and accomplishments easily exceeds Bush's landing on an aircraft carrier to proclaim 'Mission Accomplished.' And if the question were asked "Would Mitt Romney visit American troops at Bagram Airbase, in an active war zone, on the one year anniversary of Bin Laden's demise?" The answer would be 'No.' Mitt Romney decided to just mail it in.

Personally, I took time to reflect on the events surrounding Bin Laden's death. I found that certain sentiments that haven't changed, and I ultimately came to the same conclusion. To convey my current thoughts on the matter, I will quote from an oped I wrote for the University of Oklahoma's student news paper a year ago:

"Regardless, this is a time for celebration; if not solely for the death of a fellow human being, but for putting and end to what he [Osama Bin Laden] did and stood for. Hopefully a step in the direction of closure for those affected by the events of 9/11; and ultimately making it a little easier to breath for the Human Race as a whole."

[See my original op-ed in full at the OU Daily, Here]