Critical to the future effectiveness of the Army, and thus its trust with the American people, is whether the Army will retain the essential characteristics of a military profession—each of the six carefully explicated in this monograph—as it transits this era of Department of Defense reductions. Unfortunately, that future effectiveness is often not really known until the “first battle of the next war,” as the Army learned so painfully in the past, e.g., Task Force Smith in Korea.

The Army’s campaign of learning about the Army profession has been ongoing for a year, a campaign led by a broad community of practice (CoP) drawn from many of the proponent Centers (Army schools or agencies for each Army branch or functional specialty) in dialogue with cohorts throughout the Army. For purposes of analytical capabilities, the CoP is organized by cohort within the profession, e.g., officers, noncommissioned officers, warrant officers, enlisted Soldiers, Army civilians, etc. Throughout calendar year 2011, that CoP conducted multiple surveys, assessments, dialogues, forums, and exercises across the Army. This monograph highlights some of the outcomes to date, particularly those relating to the central research question—what does it mean now, after a decade of war, for the Army to be a military profession.

This question is addressed by presenting four initial outcomes of the campaign:

1. The Background Realities of the Army as a Profession;
2. Including Army Civilians: A New Typology for the Army Profession;
3. The Process of Professionalization and the Criteria for Individual Certifications; and,
4. The Essential Characteristics of the Army as a Profession.

 
the Army is making good strides in its most recent effort to prepare for transition in a period of Defense reductions. The Army is doing so by keeping professional capabilities intact and ready for the first battle of the next conflict. But it must be understood that the really hard work is yet to be done.

The hard work is to conform the daily behavior of the institution to that of a profession when almost every tendency during the period of reductions will be to behave like a government occupation: centralizing authority; bureaucratizing processes; micro-managing within hierarchy, while the force “does more with less”; and, taking autonomy away from the very folks in whom the future of the institution lies—its junior professionals, both uniformed and civilian. To avoid such an outcome is now a central challenge facing the “stewards” of the Army profession.

Perhaps the most important difference between the two nations is that Saudi Arabia is a conservative Sunni Muslim Arab state, while Iran is a Shi’ite state whose senior politicians often view their country as the defender and natural leader of Shi’ites throughout the region. The rivalry between Riyadh and Tehran has been reflected in the politics of a number of regional states where these two powers exercise influence including Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Bahrain and others.

The 2011 wave of pro-democracy and anti-regime protests known as the “Arab Spring” introduced new concerns for both Saudi Arabia and Iran to consider within the framework of their regional priorities. The Saudi-Iranian rivalry is therefore likely to intensify as a central feature in the Middle Eastern security landscape that reaches into both the Gulf region and the Arab-Israeli theater.

This is a reality that will touch upon the interests of the United States in a number of situations. In many instances, Saudi opposition to Iran will serve U.S. interests, but this will not occur under all circumstances. Saudi Arabia remains a deeply anti-revolutionary state with values and priorities which sometimes overlap with those of Washington on matters of strategic interest and often conflict over matters of reform and democracy for other Middle Eastern states. Additionally, in seeking to support Middle Eastern stability, the United States must be prepared to mediate between Riyadh and Baghdad, and thereby help to limit Iranian efforts to insert itself into Iraqi politics.

Title:	The Saudi-Iranian Rivalry and the Future of Middle East Security
Date:	2012-01-23
File Type:	cfm?q=1094
File Size:	3.3 MB
Hits:	76
Category:	Defense Papers/Reports
Download Link:	The Saudi-Iranian Rivalry and the Future of Middle East Security

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of DefenceTalk.com!

More than ever, solid, evidence-based evaluation of what the PLA has learned from the use of force and conflict elsewhere in the world is needed to shed light on the prospects for its cooperation, or rivalry, with the international community. This volume provides unique, valuable insights on how the PLA has applied the lessons learned from others’ military actions to its own strategic planning.

Mexico’s armed forces are in the midst of a transformation to better perform in an ongoing war against organized crime. Their role and visibility have escalated considerably since President Felipe Calderon assumed office in December of 2006.

Although the fight against organized crime is clearly a law enforcement matter, the absence of effective and accountable police forces has meant that the Army, Navy, and Air Force have been used as supplementary forces to defend the civilian population and enforce the rule of law. While the federal government has striven to stand up a capable police force in order to relieve and eventually replace the military, that possibility is still distant. Five years into the Calderon administration, the armed forces continue to be the main implementers of the National Security policy, aimed at employing the use of force to disrupt the operational capacity of organized crime.

Their strong institutional tradition, professionalism, submission to political control, and history of interaction with the population mainly through disaster relief efforts have made them the most trusted institution in Mexican society.

Mexico’s armed forces have long been used as an instrument of the state to implement all kinds of public policies at the national level, from emergency vaccinations, to post-earthquake rescue, to reforestation campaigns. They have been at the forefront of disaster relief operations in reaction to the calamities of nature, within and beyond their borders, with humanitarian assistance deployments to Indonesia, the United States, Haiti, and Central America among the most recent.

The Mexican armed forces are quite unique, as they are divided into two separate cabinet-level ministries: the Secretaría de la Defensa Nacional (the Secretary of National Defense or SEDENA), which encompasses the Army and Air Force, and the Secretaría de Marina (the Secretary of the Navy or SEMAR), which comprises the Navy. The level of engagement with society and the results obtained from this division in military power confirms the utility of their independence.

Their use as the state’s last line of defense has led to severe criticism from opinion leaders, opposition forces, international analysts, and human rights organizations. Their level of commitment remains unaltered and they have undertaken a number of significant transformations to better address their continued roles as the guardians of the State and protectors of the population.

The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the DefenceTalk.com.

A key country that must be considered in formulating Yemen policy is Saudi Arabia. Riyadh is Yemen’s chief aid donor and often considers itself to have a special relationship with Yemen that affords it an elevated and privileged role in providing external guidance to Sana’a. Some observers suggest that Saudi Arabia views this role as so important that challenging Saudi interests in Yemen is sometimes viewed as equally offensive as interfering in Saudi domestic politics. Riyadh has become especially sensitive about Yemen issues in recent years and even intervened militarily on the side of the Yemeni government in the most recent phase of the Houthi war in Sa’ada province. The Saudis are also deeply involved with Yemen in the struggle against al-Qaeda due in part to a 2009 merger of the Saudi and Yemeni branches of this organization. The merger occurred following the decision of Saudi al-Qaeda members to flee to Yemen to rebuild their battered organization. Saudi Arabia’s special relationship with Yemen can both help and hinder U.S. objectives for that country.

Additionally, Yemen’s government has waged a struggle against al-Qaeda with vacillating levels of intensity since at least 2001 when its leadership chose to cooperate with the United States on counterterrorism concerns in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, strikes. More recently, Yemen has emerged as one of the most important theaters for the struggle against alQaeda, as many members of this organization attempt to regroup and reorganize themselves in Yemen after suffering crippling setbacks in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. The loss of Yemen to al-Qaeda would be particularly damaging to Western interests due to its strategic location and a population which is expected to exceed half of that of the entire Arabian Peninsula within the next 20 years. Moreover, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), headquartered in Yemen, appears to be strengthening and showing signs of transitioning from a terrorist group with limited capabilities to an emerging insurgent movement.

Yemen is also an especially distrustful and wary nation in its relationship with Western nations, and particularly the United States. Most Yemenis are fiercely protective of their country’s independence from outside influence, especially from countries that they believe do not always have the best interests of the Arab World in mind. While Yemen’s government is coming to understand the dangers it faces from al-Qaeda, the struggle against this organization is not always popular among the Yemeni public, and any large-scale U.S. military presence in the country could easily ignite these passions and destabilize the regime. Under such circumstances, it is important to help Yemen, but to do so in ways that are not viewed as intrusive or dominating by a population that does not always identify with U.S. concerns about international terrorism. In recent years, U.S. policymakers have managed to maintain this balance, but the complexities of Yemeni domestic politics will continue to require subtlety and nimbleness in U.S.-Yemeni security relations.

Introduction
The United States is currently deeply concerned with the need to contain and defeat al-Qaeda forces in Yemen. Nevertheless, it seems impossible to formulate a meaningful strategy to meet this objective without carefully considering a variety of other important factors which have come to dominate Yemeni politics. These factors include a crippled and declining economy, as well as recurring problems with national unity. Currently, Yemen faces simmering unrest in the north that sometimes leads to revolt among Houthi tribesmen and a strong but mostly nonviolent secessionist movement in the south. Under these conditions, U.S. policy must be informed by a deep understanding of both Yemen’s domestic politics and current Yemeni government capacity to enforce its laws and maintain internal security. U.S. policy formulations must also be based on a solid understanding of the constraints that influence Yemen’s leadership, especially the nuances of Yemen’s relations with its most influential neighbor, Saudi Arabia, and the views of the Yemeni public on both al-Qaeda and U.S. objectives in the region.

The tasks associated with developing and implementing effective policy for Yemen are challenging. Yemen is remote from the United States and has traditionally generated little interest in Washington. Until recently, it has seldom been linked to important U.S. national interests. Moreover, Yemeni values and attitudes have been formed within a very different type of society than those of the West. The potential for distrust, misunderstanding, and miscommunication is therefore strong, although the importance of the U.SYemeni relationship has seldom been greater, due to a variety of factors including the rise of al-Qaeda in that country. Fortunately, while Yemeni society and politics are complex, they are also comprehensible. Moreover, well-informed U.S. planning efforts to help Yemen and ensure stability in the Arabian Peninsula are clearly possible.

This work hopes to provide an overview of many of the most important issues that must be considered when addressing Yemen policy, as well as suggesting possible approaches to obtaining important U.S. and Yemeni goals in the region. It is hoped that the reader will find this work useful in understanding and untangling many of the complexities of the Yemeni political, economic, and international situations that touch upon key U.S. and Western interests.

Conclusion and Recommendations
The problems in Yemen defy easy answers and are often viewed as so overwhelming that they can be approached only in a tentative, trial-and-error manner. The United States must therefore remain aware of the potential for the situation to get worse in Yemen before it gets better. Moreover, Yemen’s security difficulties are so interrelated that it is difficult to solve the al-Qaeda problem in any fundamental way without some progress in managing the other difficulties in Yemen. President Obama’s statement that he has “no intention” of sending troops to Yemen is reassuring to most Yemenis and indicates reasonable concern over the danger of falling into a significant military intervention. Such an intervention would consume U.S. lives and resources and could only make the security situation in the region increasingly unstable. This set of problems does not require the United States to remain aloof from Yemen’s problems. Rather, it suggests that Washington’s involvement in Yemen must be structured in ways that the political culture will accept. Unfortunately, for the time being the United States may have to focus on helping Yemen contain or manage problems rather than solve them.

The difficulties associated with managing Yemen policy should nevertheless not be allowed to obfuscate the high stakes of the current situation in Yemen. There are important reasons for defeating al-Qaeda in Yemen, even if this does not destroy the organization and instead leads it to move operations to more hospitable sanctuaries in remote parts of the world. Yemen is central in the struggle against al-Qaeda due to its key strategic location, including a 700-mile border with Saudi Arabia. It also dominates one of the region’s key waterways, the Bab al-Mandeb strait, which controls access to the southern Red Sea. Furthermore, the problem of Yemen-based terrorism remains an important international threat which cannot be ignored. The U.S. leadership may have narrowly escaped unmanageable domestic pressure for an additional war in the Middle East when the Christmas bomber plot was thwarted in late 2009. If this incompetent enemy had actually been able to detonate his explosives, the call for a hard-line military response would have been difficult to resist. Yet, an actual invasion of Yemen would have produced a vicious indigenous response that would have been difficult to contain. Moreover, any effort to rebuild, modernize, and democratize Yemen in the aftermath of such an intervention would make the problems of Afghanistan and Iraq look simple by comparison. While paying special attention to Yemeni sensitivities about foreign influence, the United States must do what it can to prevent Yemen from falling into a cauldron of radicalism before the subject of intervention even arises.

The Yemeni political system is likely to remain unstable, and the economic system is likely to remain impoverished, for the foreseeable future. Central governmental authority in the hinterland can be expected to remain limited for the foreseeable future. It is also possible that the country could collapse into anarchy over the next decade or so as the current problems continue to intensify. Helping Yemen manage these problems will be difficult since a constant distrust of U.S. actions is always present in Yemeni politics. Within this especially difficult milieu, this report makes the following recommendations.

Title:	The Conflicts in Yemen and US National Security
Date:	2011-02-15
File Type:	cfm?q=1040
File Size:
Hits:	148
Category:	Defense Papers/Reports
Download Link:	The Conflicts in Yemen and US National Security

Summary
Although organized crime has been the neglected dimension of the conflict in Iraq, both criminal enter prises and criminal activities have had a profoundly debilitating impact. Organized crime inhibited reconstruction and development and became a major obstacle to state-building; the insurgency was strengthened and sustained by criminal activities; sectarian conflict was funded by criminal activities and motivated by the desire to control criminal markets; and more traditional criminal enterprises created pervasive insecurity through kidnapping and extortion. Organized crime also acted as an economic and political spoiler in an oil industry expected to be the dynamo for growth and reconstruction in post Ba’athist Iraq.

The rise of organized crime in Iraq was a strategic surprise for decisionmakers and military planners. Although organized crime developed in particularly concentrated and corrosive ways in Iraq, it had parallels elsewhere—including the Balkans (especially Albania), as well as Russia, Mexico, and Nigeria. Warnings about the rise of organized crime came from several sources, including the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

Organized crime in Iraq, as elsewhere, can be understood in two distinct forms: (1) as entities or criminal enterprises which treat crime in Clausewitzian terms as a continuation of business by other means; and (2) as a set of illicit activities appropriated and utilized by various entities for specific purposes. Terrorist organizations, insurgents, ethnic factions, sectarian groups, and militias all use organized crime activities as a funding mechanism. Not surprisingly,therefore, organized crime in Iraq challenges existing concepts and categorizations, casts doubt on strategies that focused narrowly on the military dimension of a complex problem, and demands new measures of effectiveness. If the conflict in Iraq is a hybrid or mosaic form of warfare, organized crime in Iraq has an analogous form, adding another dimension to the anti-coalition violence.

Objectives
Chapter 1 serves as the introduction to an analysis which seeks to explain the rise of organized crime, pervasive criminality, and widespread corruption in contemporary Iraq. It contends that organized crime did not suddenly arise from the chaos of invasion and occupation but had deep roots in an authoritarian and corrupt state subject to international sanctions. The analysis explores how criminal activities were used not only by traditional for-profit groups, but also by insurgents, militias, sectarian groups, political parties, and tribes seeking to enhance their resource bases and prosecute their campaigns of violence more effectively. The monograph identifies key actors exploiting the criminal opportunity space in Iraq and explores the intersections and overlap between criminal organizations and more political or sectarian actors. Finally, it identifies necessary responses to organized crime and corruption in Iraq. These include efforts to reduce criminal opportunities, change incentive structures, and more directly target criminal organizations and activities.

The Rise of Organized Crime in Iraq
Chapter 2 examines the rise of organized crime in Iraq, emphasizing that the actions of the international community in the 1990s unintentionally widened and intensified the scope of organized crime and the illicit economy. By 2003 all the conditions for an upsurge of organized crime were present; the toppling of the regime provided the catalyst. The upsurge itself had two distinct if overlapping waves. The first wave followed the collapse of the state and was accompanied by the breakdown of social control mechanisms and the emergence of social instability. The U.S. decision to react passively in the face of widespread looting was a major mistake, creating a climate of citizen insecurity and criminal impunity. The second wave of organized crime was driven more by the forces of anarchy, insecurity, political ambition, and the imperatives of resource generation for militias, insurgents, and other groups.

Major Criminal Activities
Chapter 3 focuses on the diversion, theft, and smuggling of oil, probably the most lucrative source of illicit income for tribes, insurgents, and militias, as well as many criminal groups and corrupt officials. The legacy of oil smuggling during the sanctions era combined with growing demand, limited supply, and the desire to exploit arbitrage opportunities, thus intensifying and perpetuating the criminalization of the oil industry. This process was facilitated by the lack of standardized measures, the absence of meters or gauges on pumps and tankers, and the inadequacy of oversight.

Three different kinds of illicit activity—the theft and smuggling of crude oil, some of which involved oil bunkering; the theft, fraudulent diversion, smuggling, and black market sales of imported refined fuels; and theft of locally produced gasoline from the Baiji refinery—became almost a national pastime in Iraq, while funding much of the violence.

Chapter 4 examines another major criminal activity in Iraq—kidnapping. This chapter distinguishes between economic or for-profit kidnapping and political kidnapping, while acknowledging that the distinction is sometimes blurred. Activities which initially appear to be politically inspired, for example, sometimes turn out to be primarily concerned with profit. The participants in the kidnapping business are identified, as are its changing patterns over time. An assessment is also made of the profits obtained through kidnapping—profits which were significantly enhanced by the willingness of France, Italy, Germany, and several other countries to pay large ransoms. Although the kidnapping of foreigners led to some spectacular ransom payments, it was found that the kidnapping of Iraqis, because of its sheer volume, might have been more lucrative.

In Chapter 5, the focus shifts to extortion and related criminal activities which also helped to fund much of the violence in Iraq. Extortion was highly profitable partly because of the scale of reconstruction and partly because of the loss of security on Iraqi roads. Other crimes include bank robberies, various forms of commodity smuggling across Iraq’s highly permeable borders, drug trafficking (which is a modest but growing problem), the theft and smuggling of antiquities, car theft and smuggling, and the trade in black market weapons, as well as human smuggling and trafficking in women.

In Chapter 6, attention is given to business and government corruption, which not only undermined efforts to reestablish effective governance, but also contributed to a general feeling of impunity on the part of would-be perpetrators. Activities heretofore under centralized authoritarian control suddenly became diffused and democratic. In addition, the U.S. presence brought with it a massive injection of cash for reconstruction, much of which was administered in an ad hoc manner with insufficient oversight, thereby providing opportunities for corporate malfeasance on the U.S. side, along with skimming and personal profiteering on the Iraqi side.

Corruption was not only a condition characterizing government and bureaucracies, but also an instrument used by criminal organizations to advance their illicit business interests and protect the illicit markets in which they operated. Corruption in Iraq was also buttressed by violence, which effectively neutralized the mechanisms and institutions put in place by the United States to fight it.

The Players
Chapter 7 looks more closely at the entities involved in organized crime, considering some of the ways in which they have interacted with one another. It identifies four major kinds of groups involved in organized crime in Iraq: traditional criminal enterprises; tribal-based criminal organizations; foreign jihadi groups; and militias which include splinter or rogue factions. The wide variety of criminal organizations active in Iraq make analysis more complex and generalizations risky.

Traditional criminal enterprises vary in size and scope. Some are highly specialized while others have a broad portfolio of activities. An important component of organized crime in Iraq was traceable to prisoners released by Saddam Hussein. Many of these criminals were prone to violence, with their presence contributing significantly to the post-invasion lawlessness. In some cases, they were organized by former regime elements.

Many of Iraq’s tribes have a long tradition of smuggling, an activity that ballooned after 2003. Some of the tribes were heavily involved in oil smuggling in Basra, while those along the border with Syria smuggled livestock and various other commodities.

Foreign fighters and jihadis groups, especially al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), exploited various criminal activities to augment their financial base. Kidnapping, as we have seen, was very lucrative, surpassed only by the profits from the theft, diversion, smuggling, and black market sales of oil. Car theft was another important source of funding for AQI, having become particularly important in Mosul when AQI and its affiliates concentrated there after setbacks in Al-Anbar and Baghdad. Extortion and various kinds of fraud are also core funding activities.

Shiite militias, especially Jaish-Al-Mahdi (JAM), have been among the most powerful and important groups engaged in organized crime in Iraq—although how much has been carried out under the direct control of the organization and how much by rogue factions is uncertain. Four criminal activities provided Mahdi Army members with important revenue streams: extortion and protection; black market sales of petroleum; seizures of cars and houses inextricably linked with, if not done completely under the guise of,sectarian cleansing; and involvement in oil smuggling in Basra. The Iraqi army offensives (supported by U.S. forces) in Basra and Sadr City in the first half of 2008 had a major role in reducing the power of the organization, including its criminal reach and illicit activities.

Control over smuggling activities became a major factor in the defection of the Sunni tribes from AQI, which had sought to take over their traditional smuggling and black market activities. In Anbar Province, in particular, tensions over illicit activities and the attendant profits created opportunities for the United States. The U.S. military, as the “strongest tribe,” became adjudicator and enforcer in criminal disputes dressed up as political differences, siding with one set of violent armed groups engaged in criminal activities against other groups judged more dangerous. The tribes were losing the turf wars to AQI until the U.S. military came to the rescue. The result was the Anbar Awakening and the defeat of AQI in the province. Nevertheless, AQI’s criminal activities continue to finance its resistance in and around Mosul.

Conclusions and Recommendations
Chapter 8, Conclusions, has four purposes: (1) to offer reflections on the nature of organized crime in Iraq; (2) to assess the impact of organized crime on the efforts to reestablish security and stability; (3) to suggest initiatives that could be taken in Iraq to combat organized crime more effectively; and (4) to elucidate the broader considerations and lessons for future U.S. military intervention.

It suggests that organized crime in Iraq is a complex system exhibiting emergent behavior, characterized by high levels of adaptability and resilience, and driven by a mix of need, greed, and creed. Organized crime is also a means of “primitive capital accumulation” and is closely linked to alternative (that is, nonstate) forms of governance, whether these provide security when the state fails to do so or provides services when the state marginalizes or neglects certain populations. Indeed, organized crime is both a safety valve and safety net amid massive economic and social dislocation. Yet, it is also highly predatory, and in Iraq has both sustained and precipitated conflict. In the final analysis, criminal activities and corruption have had profoundly debilitating effects, not only on U.S. efforts to restore political and military stability in Iraq but also on economic reconstruction.

Unfortunately, the very conditions that allowed the blossoming of organized crime in post-Hussein Iraq make it difficult to counter. Nevertheless, it is possible to outline a broad program that seeks to reduce the criminalization of Iraqi political and economic life, in tandem with the rebuilding of the state, the recreation of infrastructure, the revitalization of the Iraqi economy, and the generation of legitimate employment opportunities. Unless combating organized crime is integrated into this broader program for Iraq, it stands little chance of success. Conversely, unless the attempt to rebuild Iraq incorporates an effective strategy to combat organized crime, the prospects for stability will remain poor.

The monograph highlights the need for a fusion of military and law enforcement intelligence as the basis for a three-pronged strategy seeking (1) to constrict the opportunity space for organized crime; (2) to change the incentive structure for criminal, corrupt, or violent behavior; and (3) to target the most dangerous organizations and networks linked to crime and corruption.

More broadly, Iraq, like the Balkans and Afghanistan, reveals the vulnerability of conflict and post-conflict areas to organized crime, and the need for a holistic strategy in which security, development, and the rule of law complement one another. Such an approach is not a guarantee of success, but the absence of a holistic strategy is a guarantee of failure.

Read Full Report in Adobe PDF format, 290 pages.

Summary

On June 30, 2008, President George W. Bush signed into law the Merida Initiative, a 3-year, $1.4 billion counterdrug assistance program for Mexico and Central America. The bulk of this money is destined for Mexico, where it will help fund counternarcotics operations against the powerful cartels that have recently turned much of that country into a war zone. Since 2006, Mexico has suffered thousands of drug-related killings, a dramatic deterioration of public security, and severe psychological and social trauma; the Merida Initiative aims to rectify this situation by giving the Mexican government the tools to take the offensive in its fight against the drug traffickers. The program is likely to be extended in some form when its original mandate expires, and thus presages a long­term U.S. commitment to counternarcotics in Mexico.

The Merida Initiative is representative of the supply-side approach to the narcotics trade that has long characterized U.S. drug control policy. It emphasizes interdiction, enforcement, and security measures, with domestic treatment and prevention programs, source-country economic development projects, and other alternative strategies assuming considerably less importance. This strategy is broadly similar to the approach used in Plan Colombia, the multi-billion dollar U.S. counternarcotics and counterinsurgency commitment to that country, and was recently reaffirmed in the 2008 U.S. National Drug Control Strategy.

Unfortunately, this approach to the drug trade is unlikely to achieve the desired results in Mexico. In focusing largely on security, enforcement, and interdiction, the Merida Initiative pays comparatively little attention to the deeper structural problems that fuel the drug trade and drug-related violence. These problems, ranging from official corruption in Mexico to large-scale drug consumption in the United States, have so far frustrated Mexican attempts to rein in the cartels, and will likely hinder the effectiveness of the Merida Initiative as well.

For the Merida Initiative to be fully successful, the United States must therefore forge a more holistic, better-integrated approach to the drug trade. This strategy should aim not simply at strengthening the forces of order in Mexico, but also at addressing the root issues that the Merida Initiative comparatively slights. It should partner enforcement and interdiction programs with a wide range of measures: anti­corruption initiatives, social and economic develop­ment, institution-building, and efforts to restrict U.S. domestic demand and illicit arms trafficking into Mexico. Implementing such a strategy will not be easy, but it will be central to improving U.S. counternarcotics policy and ensuring that the Merida Initiative is more than a mere palliative for the problems associated with the Mexican drug trade.

Introduction

In April 2006, individuals linked to one of Mexico's powerful drug cartels left the severed heads of two police officers in front of the municipal building in the southern port city of Acapulco. The two officials were apparently abducted and killed in retaliation for their participation in a shootout with drug traffickers several days earlier. Their bloodied heads were accompanied by a hand-written note reading, "So that you learn some respect," a message meant to make clear that the cartel would brook no interference from the authorities.

Such occurrences have become alarmingly common in Mexico. A remarkably similar episode played out 2 months later in front of the same municipal building, while drug-related murders have become so common in Acapulco that the city is now colloquially known as Narcopulco.2Such events in Acapulco are merely part of a broader trend sweeping the country, where the past several years, especially the period since 2006, have seen the emergence of a multi-sided war over the drug trade. Heavily armed cartels and their enforcers struggle viciously for control of the drug-trafficking routes running north into the United States, and have recently turned their fire against a government desperate to restrain this bloodshed. For now, the cartels seem to be winning this battle; despite the best efforts of Presidents Vicente Fox (2000-06) and Felipe Calderon (2006-present), the drug trade has continued apace and drug-related violence has reached ever-higher levels of intensity. As a result, Mexico has been beset by thousands of drug-related deaths over the past 2 years, growth of narcotics-fueled corruption, drastic deterioration of public security, and marked erosion of government authority in various parts of the country. The effects of this violence are not limited to Mexico; cartel killings have already spilled over into the United States, and the potential destabilization of Mexico's economy and political system presents a host of dangers to U.S. interests.

On June 30, 2008, George W. Bush signed into law the U.S. response to this deteriorating situation. The Merida Initiative (colloquially referred to as "Plan Merida" or "Plan Mexico") is a 3-year, $1.4 billion counternarcotics package destined for Mexico and Central America, with Mexico to receive the vast majority of these funds. The central aim of the Merida Initiative is to use U.S. money, training, and equipment to strengthen Mexico's military and law enforcement agencies, thereby giving them the capacity to take and hold the initiative in the fight against the cartels. The initiative likely presages a long-lasting U.S. commitment to counternarcotics programs in Mexico; U.S. and Mexican officials have referred to the program as constituting a "new paradigm" in bilateral security relations.

The Merida Initiative may represent a new paradigm in U.S.-Mexican affairs, but it also symbolizes an old paradigm in U.S. counternarcotics policy. In its emphasis on interdiction and enforcement initiatives, the Merida Initiative is the latest incarnation of a longstanding, supply-side approach to the drug trade. This paradigm focuses mainly on strengthening international interdiction capacities and indigenous security forces in order to increase the pressure on major foreign traffickers, with domestic treatment and prevention initiatives, source-country economic development programs, and other alternative strategies assuming considerably less importance. This strategy has been manifest most recently in Plan Colombia, the multi-billion dollar U.S. counternarcotics and counterinsurgency commitment to that country, and was reaffirmed in the Bush administration's 2008 National Drug Control Strategy.

This approach is politically popular, as shown by the bipartisan support that the Merida Initiative has thus far received. But is it an effective method of dealing with the inter-American drug trade, and will it work in Mexico? Given the present design and characteristics of the Merida Initiative, the outlook is not auspicious.

This monograph argues that the Merida Initiative -- and, by extension, U.S. counternarcotics strategy as a whole -- suffers from a basic lack of balance. The Merida Initiative's emphasis on internal security, enforcement, and interdiction is understandable given the current level of chaos and crime in Mexico, and may indeed help redress certain of the operational deficiencies that have hampered Mexican police and military responses to these problems. Yet the initiative pays comparatively little attention to the deeper-rooted factors underlying these devastating phenomena: official corruption, widespread poverty and inequality, weak governance, high demand for illegal narcotics in the United States, and the flow of illicit arms across the U.S. border into Mexico. So far, President Calderon's failure to resolve these issues has hindered his aggressive efforts to rein in the narcotics trade, and in view of the current thrust of the Merida Initiative, there is little reason to think that this program is better suited for such a task. Accordingly, while the initiative will probably produce increases in arrests, seizures, and other traditional markers of success in the fight against illegal narcotics, it seems unlikely that, over the long term, it will serve as anything more than a palliative for the problems associated with the Mexican drug trade.

The evident shortcomings of the Merida Initiative point to the need for an overhaul of U.S. counterdrug strategy. The United States must seize the opportunity presented by the current crisis in Mexico to forge a more holistic approach to counternarcotics. This strategy should aim not simply at strengthening the forces of order in Mexico, but also at addressing the root issues that the Merida Initiative comparatively slights. This means partnering enforcement and interdiction programs with a wide range of measures, carried out in a sustained and intensive manner and designed to attack the drug trade from all angles. These measures should include anti-corruption initiatives, economic and social development, institution building, and efforts to restrict U.S. domestic demand and lessen illicit arms trafficking into Mexico. Implementing such a strategy will be expensive and politically difficult, no doubt, but it will also be essential to making U.S. counternarcotics policy more effective and ensuring that the Merida Initiative and its successors do not evince the same shortcomings that have long plagued America's "war on drugs."

Conclusion

As the apparent intractability of the gun issue demonstrates, crafting a comprehensive counter-narcotics strategy will be no easy undertaking. Doing so will require going past the politically popular aspects of counternarcotics, such as interdiction, and zeroing in on more contested issues like guns and demand. In financial terms, funding at the necessary levels all of the programs discussed above will involve expenditures considerably beyond those already approved for Plan Merida. Moreover, creating such a program will entail a determined effort by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy to ensure that counternarcotics receives sustained executive-level attention and that the myriad agencies involved -- ranging from the ATF to USAID -- achieve the coordination necessary to preclude one aspect of this strategy from countering the efforts of the others. Finally, it bears repeating that the inter-hemispheric drug trade is so entrenched that even a "perfect" counternarcotics strategy will produce meaningful progress only over the long term.

The costs of action are therefore high, but the price of inaction would be exponentially greater. The effects of drug use in the United States and the potential for the economic and political destabilization of Mexico make counternarcotics an immensely significant national security issue. Addressing this problem effectively will require substantial economic resources and political capital, but, given the stakes, the investment is a necessary one. American policymakers must seize on the current crisis to achieve a balanced counternarcotics policy, one that not only strengthens Mexico's forces of order but also addresses the underlying issues that have long nourished the drug trade and made it so violent. If they do so, the United States may finally begin to make sustainable progress in curbing narcotics smuggling and its devastating effects. It they do not, the Merida Initiative will simply go down as one more failed offensive in the long campaign against drugs.

Download Full Report in PDF - Mexico's Narco-Insurgency and U.S. Counterdrug Policy

Summary

The Department of Defense (DoD) cannot long ignore the inadequacy of much of the current force for nontraditional challenges lurking on the strategic horizon. In the face of the next large-scale unconventional challenge when the President turns to the Secretary of Defense (SecDef) for options, the SecDef must have the right force available to respond effectively.

Senior landpower leaders in particular should reorient on a new unconventional balance point for force optimization. They should anticipate that there will be changes in the U.S. approach to defense-relevant and defense-specific challenges around the world. As a consequence, they should act proactively to help the SecDef identify and build capabilities for the new balance point during the upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review. Doing so will enable DoD to better account for contemporary strategic conditions with minimum future institutional disruption. This monograph arrives at the following conclusions.

• The contemporary strategic environment is marked by a new unconventional status quo. Four characteristics define this new normal. First, unconventional threats of "purpose" and "context" dominate the defense operating space. Second, internal and external threats to foreign interests will commingle in future land-centric contingencies. Third, hybrid combinations of purposeful and contextual threats will be commonplace. And, finally, fourth, traditional military power--employed in isolation--will be increasingly less useful. Combined, these indicate that "fighting and winning America's wars" will mean something quite different to senior land force leaders in the future.
• U.S. landpower fulfils two roles in this new unconventional operating space. It delivers decisive lethal and nonlethal military effects and enables effective employment of important nonmilitary capabilities and resources like aid, development assistance, consequence management, and preliminary reconstruction.
• Armed stabilization may be the next most common and most important major combat operation (MCO) for DoD land forces. More broadly among the many targets available for land force optimization in the coming years, the most prudent course is one that pursues an unconventional revolution in mission and capabilities. Shifting land force policy in this direction acknowledges that armed stabilization of nations and/or regions in crisis and the defeat of violent threats to a foreign internal order are likely more important organizing principles for future force planning than is preparation for future traditional MCOs.
• Here, U.S. land forces optimize for circumstances where: (1) vital interests are challenged by violent unconventional threats; (2) the degree of violence itself is quite high and the environment is nonpermissive; (3) physical threats demonstrate some organization and relative sophistication at various levels (but not that commonly associated with high-end MCO); and finally, (4) foreign partners suffer from substantial loss or complete failure of sovereign control over political and security outcomes.
• Four principles should govern future landpower employment in this new environment. These reflect the strategic experience and choices of the post-September 11, 2001 (9/11) era, and are sensitive to contemporary risk and cost tolerance. They are: (1) core interests first; (2) limited objectives; (3) risk management; and, finally, (4) early integration of joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational contributions. All four blend at critical points.
• Shaped by these four principles, unconventional land force optimization calls for the adoption of eight new or revised missions. This new mission set is not a threat to the warfighting culture of either the U.S. Army or Marine Corps. Instead, it represents a recalibration of landpower's focus consistent with history, the likeliest strategic futures, and, finally, the desire by senior defense leaders to shift DoD's weight decisively in the direction of unconventional threats.
• The new mission set includes: (1) active management of purposeful unconventional threats; (2) armed stabilization; (3) preemptive/ punitive campaigns; (4) security sector reform and assistance; (5) conventional deterrence and limited traditional war; (6) facilitation of whole of-government stabilization and reconstruction; (7) generation and sustainment of adequate land force capabilities; and finally, (8) homeland defense and security. All of these missions andtheir associated force pools are interdependent. When combined, they amount to a new 21st century land power force planning construct.

Pursuit of an unconventional land force revolution that accounts for these eight missions resets landpower for decisive intervention in future complex contingencies. General purpose land forces, in particular, must optimize for armed stabilization missions that demand rapid containment and defeat of nontraditional foreign hazards under conditions of general civil disorder in order to create secure operating space for the effective employment of essential nonmilitary agents (e.g., interagency, intergovernmental, international, and nongovernmental). This course recognizes that U.S. land forces are warfighting institutions first. However, it forces landpower leaders to build for a different kind of warfighting future.

Conclusion: Pursuing a New Balance

An unconventional revolution in land forces redefines the balance point for force optimization. As a hedge against lingering traditional uncertainty, full-spectrum balance remains a legitimate goal for parts of DoD. Nonetheless, the author concludes that uncompromising pursuit of full-spectrum balance in land forces is fraught with unwarranted strategic risk. Indeed, pursuit of full-spectrum balance is likely to result in renewed imbalance in favor of the missions landpower leaders are culturally most comfortable with as against those they are likeliest to undertake. In this regard, excessive investment in full-spectrum balance in land forces is an expensive strategic detour that can result in sub-optimizing for an unconventional future.

Pursuit of a wider unconventional revolution resets the balance point for land forces in a way that best positions them for decisive intervention against compelling unconventional threats. Landpower remains the most versatile and broadly employable DoD capability. General purpose land forces, in particular, must optimize for armed stabilization. This envisions a land force capable of containing and defeating nontraditional hazards to U.S. core interests under conditions of general civil disorder in complex foreign contingencies. Their purpose in doing so is to create secure operating space for the essential work of important nonmilitary agents (i.e., interagency, intergovernmental, international, and nongovernmental). This course recognizes that American land forces are warfighting institutions first. However, it pushes landpower leaders to recognize that they must anticipate and build for a different kind of warfighting environment.

Download Full Report in PDF Format

Authored by Mr. Nathan P. Freier