class: center, middle, inverse, title-slide # Dirty Wars ## Interdependent Warfare ### Jack McDonald --- # Outline for Term 2 .pull-left[ How can studying dirty wars help us to understand key issues in contemporary warfare and national security? Three overarching ideas: - Control - Coalitions - Communication Five types of interaction: - Cooperation - Competition - Coercion - Conflict - Carnage Two ways of analysing war and national security in the information age -> ] .pull-right[ - Interdependence - War Powers - Conflict and competition above and below the threshold of armed conflict - Remote/proxy/surrogate warfare - Observability of Contemporary Conflict - War crimes - Context-collapse - Digital rights - Information warfare and disinformation - Armed conflict and technology platforms - Censorship and repression - Surveillance technologies ] ??? In this lecture we will examine two aspects of warfare that have been re-shaped by digital technologies: interoperability between security institutions, and interdependence in warfare. Many of the legal, political, and moral quandaries of contemporary conflict arise from the fact that domestic and foreign institutions can collaborate in ways that, to some, enable them to circumvent political or legal limitations on action. For example, remote piloted vehicles can be turned over to the control of pilots from another state while flying, and data streams that enable such operations pass through allied countries, giving rise to questions of responsibility when mistakes are made. Over the next four lectures we will be examining these issues, and related ones such as proxy warfare, through the lens of interdependence. The new interdependence approach, a theory advanced by political scientists, provides a good way of thinking through many of the issues discussed in the first term of the course. In this lecture, we’ll look at how we can apply these ideas to the conduct of war. --- class: inverse # Lecture Outline .pull-left[ What is interdependence and why does it matter for this course? Implications of interdependence for war powers debates ] .pull-right[ - Interdependence in International Politics - Interdependent Warfare - Interoperability - Interdependence and War Powers - Conclusions and Connections ] ## Main Points Thinking about war and national security beyond "methodological nationalism" Interdependence is one way of understanding the importance of globalisation and transnational spaces in war and national security Interdependence also helps explain the importance of international relationships and transnational spaces to war powers debates ??? --- class: inverse # Part 1: Interdependence in International Politics ??? --- # Order and Interdependence .left-66[ ![Cold War Alliance map, 1980, public domain, source: wikipedia](img/2020/coldwar.png) ![Freedom House freedom map, 2017, creative commons, source: wikipedia By User:Sinus46 - Freedom in the world 2017 map by MaGioZal, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=91582945](img/2020/freedommap.png) ] .right-66[ World order and political order Types of political units Relationships between political units Internal and external bargains Institutions (norms/IOs) Infrastructure Regulatory regimes ] ??? --- # The New Interdependence Approach .pull-left[ Bargains and institutions in international politics Are international linkages a shock to domestic systems, or an expression of aggregated domestic preferences? "methodological nationalism" Difficulty of making domestic decisions without international consequences Power dynamics, institutional change, shifting boundaries of contestation How are collective actors able to access/shape institutions across borders? Sound familiar? ] .pull-right[ ![Transnational strategy diagram, Domestic Institutions beyond the Nation-State: Charting the New Interdependence Approach, Henry Farrell and Abraham L. Newman](img/2020/farrellnewman.png) > As Cerny and Slaughter have argued, globalization creates political opportunity structures for collective actors such as domestic regulatory agencies, trade associations, or NGOs. Henry Farrell and Abraham L. Newman, _Domestic Institutions beyond the Nation-State: Charting the New Interdependence Approach_ ] ??? --- # National Security and Interdependence .pull-left[ ![INTERPOL map from interpol](img/2020/interpol.jpg) Global International arrangements (INTERPOL) Regional Organisations (FRONTEX) Information and intelligence sharing (FIVE EYES) Global Financial Architecture ] .pull-right[ > SWIFT is neutral... In exceptional circumstances, and where the interest of the stability and integrity of the wider global financial system are at risk, SWIFT may also need to restrict customers’ access to the network. In an isolated event in November 2018 SWIFT thus suspended certain Iranian banks’ access to the messaging system. This step, while regrettable, was taken in the interest of the stability and integrity of the wider global financial system, and based on an assessment of the economic situation. SWIFT, _SWIFT and Sanctions_ ] ??? Will look at farrell and newmans stuff on intelligence in detail next week --- # War and Interdependence .pull-left[ Stuff we've talked about: - Shared norms of conduct - Regulation of warfare - International organisations and power - Strategic partnerships - War powers - Irregular warfare - Relations between governments and irregular partners ] .pull-right[ Empire implies interdependence Independent (nation) states are the theoretical building block of analysis of strategy/war War has always involved interdependence to some degree Examples of interdependence: - Formal alliances (NATO) - Peacekeeping/Peace Enforcement - Defence industry/arms trade - Civil wars, internationalised civil wars - PMSCs/proxies/surrogates ] ??? --- class: inverse # Reflection Question .large[Reflecting on this course, what do you think is the best basic unit of analysis to use to analyse war? Does it differ from the unit you'd use to study national security?] ??? --- class: inverse # Part 2: Interdependent Warfare ??? --- # Strategic Interdependence .pull-left[ Overlapping forms of interdependence: - Political - Economic - Strategic - Security - Technical ] .pull-right[ > I concur with this committee's belief that the S-400 and the F-35 are not compatible, and if Turkey proceeds down a path to procure and operate the S-400, they should not get the F-35. I would contend that we all understand that Turkey is an important ally in the region, but it's absolutely unsustainable to support co-location of an F-35 and S-400. Lt. Gen. Tod Wolters, _Testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee_ ] ??? https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/04/02/general-tapped-head-nato-cancel-f-35-sales-turkey.html --- # Interdependence in War .pic70[![ISAF RC and PRT locations 2009](img/2020/afghanistan2009prt.jpg)] .pull-left[ ![ISAF Command structure 2011](img/2020/isaf.jpg) ] .pull-right[ Relations between political units International institutions Levels (strategic/operational/tactical) Weapon systems ] ??? --- # What, If Anything, Has Changed? .pull-left[ ![World military expenditure, World in Data](img/2020/militaryexpenditure.png) ![Land Warrior system, 2007, Photo by Gerry J. Gilmore, public domain](img/2020/landwarrior.jpg) ] .pull-right[ Context (globalisation, digital communications) New military capabilities Technical interoperability Expectations of conduct ] ??? --- # Alliances and Coalitions as Transnational Spaces .pull-left[ ![NATO structure, copyright NATO, okay to use as per NATO statements](img/2020/nato-org.png) ] .pull-right[ ![CENTCOM CAOC](img/2020/centcomcaoc.JPG) ] > Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar, provides command and control of air power throughout Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and other nations in the U.S. Air Forces Central Command region. The CAOC comprises joint and Coalition teams that execute day-to-day combined air and space operations and provide rapid reaction, positive control, coordination, and deconfliction of weapon systems. ??? --- # Strategic Interdependence and Civilian Casualties (Mosul) > The question of who, if anyone, is accurately tracking civilian deaths is difficult to answer. Both the Pentagon and U.S. embassy in Baghdad directed questions about civilian deaths to the counter-ISIS coalition, the body that represents the countries supporting government forces in Iraq’s fight against ISIS. However, the coalition has only investigated strikes it has identified as its own and found reason to review. This means that only U.S. and French artillery strikes in Mosul, and U.S., British, French, and Australian airstrikes on the city are subject to review—a process which thus far has yielded civilian death estimates far lower than our own, which are based on local reports and the coalition’s own strike data. But the coalition’s tally represents only a small fraction of the overall death toll in Mosul. Samuel Oakford, _Counting the dead in Mosul_ .pull-left[ .pic80[![Mosul satellite photo](img/2020/mosuldestruction.jpg)] ] .pull-right[ .pic80[![Mosul skyline](img/2020/mosulvista.png)] ] ??? --- class: inverse # Reflection Question .large[ Do you think that members of the US-led Coalition bear any responsibility for war crimes committed by Iraqi forces during and after the Battle for Mosul? ] ??? --- class: inverse # Part 3: Interoperability ??? --- # Military Capabilities .pull-left[ Warfare is standardised patterns of expected organised interaction between polities Wayne E. Lee: Capacity, calculation, and culture What defines the dominant patterns of warfare between polity types? War and technology Martin Van Creveld's periodisation: - Age of Tools (-1500) - Age of Machines (1500-1830) - Age of Systems (1830-1945) - Age of Automation (1945-) Military revolutions? ] .pull-right[ Military power Military innovation Military adaptation Military transformation Military capability: 1. Military capability as an instrument of foreign policy 2. Capability as an effect or a function to execute tasks 3. Capability as systems 4. Capability as weapon system or a platform 5. Capability as fighting power through military units Jukka Anteroinen, _Integration of existing military capability models into the Comprehensive Capability Meta-model_ ] ??? --- # NATO Standardisation/Interoperable Miltary Forces .left-40[ .pic70[![NATO 7.62x51mm and 5.56x45mm rounds, public domain pic from Wikipedia](img/2020/natorounds.jpg)] > NATO standardization agreement (STANAG) > A NATO standardization document that specifies the agreement of member nations to implement a standard, in whole or in part, with or without reservation, in order to meet an interoperability requirement. ] .right-40[ NATO is a political alliance built around collective defence Soviet threat required joint military forces able to fight together and communicate Required NATO command structure into which units could integrate Required common planning for future defence Required common standards for huge variety of military kit NATO standard rifle calibers: 7.62x51mm (1953), 5.56x45mm (1980) NB: The Wikipedia page for the NATO 5.56 round is 11894 words long, excluding references. ] ??? --- # Military Infrastructure .pull-left[ Warfare requires infrastructure, integrated militaries need integrated infrastructures These can be highly controversial (bases involved in nuclear defence) Use/role has changed over time (Ramstein Air Base) Critical information infrastructure is hugely important, and requires integration ] .pull-right[ ![Layers of secret networks](img/2020/secretnetworks.jpg) ![SIPRNet](img/2020/siprnet.jpg) ] ??? SIPRNet ITSDN Integrated Tactical Strategic Data Network --- # Interoperability and Responsibility > The Australian pilot was embedded with a US F-15 Eagle squadron and flying the American plane... But he was also operating under quite specific rules of engagement (RoEs): While he was formally following the US RoEs, the Australian government had set some limitations, mostly to avoid a potential political backlash by the press or the opposition should it find out that an Australian pilot served in the exact same combat conditions as an American. Hall summarized this experience: “There was one type of weapon I couldn’t deploy and the Americans could, and there was one offensive form of attack that I wasn’t allowed to do that the Americans could.” Thus, he was then following neither the US RoEs nor the Australians’ as he had his own RoEs during the offensive. Olivier Schmitt, _Allies That Count: Junior Partners in Coalition Warfare_ ??? Red card systems enable states to fight together as interoperable whole Issue of responsibility in coalitions Red Card Systems are an example of close-couple militaries, as part of a wider spectrum of forms of military interaction and engagement Links to wider issues: PMSCs, Proxies/Surrogates --- class: inverse # Reflection Question .large[ Do you think Germany bears any responsibility for permitting the US to use Ramstein as a component of its drone operations? ] ??? --- class: inverse # Part 4: Interdependence and War Powers ??? --- # War Power Debates .pull-left[ ![Obama situation room picture, White House](img/2020/obamasituation.jpg) ![David Cameron announces the killing of Reyaad Khan in Parliament](img/2020/cameron.jpg) ] .pull-right[ War powers debates are fundamentally rooted in constitutional law and national politics Does a two-stage game fully explain war powers under strategic interdependence? How does interdependence expand or contract the ability of executives to use force relative to domestic constraints? How do domestic opponents engage international/transnational spaces to attempt to constrain governments? ] ??? --- # Strategic Interdependence & War Powers .left-60[ .pic80[![Tony Blair (left) and George W. Bush at Camp David in March 2003, during the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, White House, public domain](img/2020/campdavid.jpg)] > Tony Blair made much of, at various points and still does I think, of the need to exert influence on American policy making. To do that he said in terms at one point, 'I have to accept their strategic objective, regime change, in order to exert influence.' For what purpose? To get them to alter their policy? Of course not. So in effect it was a passive strategy. Just go along. Sir John Chilcott, _Iraq Inquiry: Full transcript of Sir John Chilcot's BBC interview_ ] .right-60[ Actors - Executive - Legislature - Courts - Public - Military - Government Agencies - NGOs - Think Tanks Venues - Parliament - Courts (Domestic and international) - Alliances/partnerships - International Organisations (UNSC) ] ??? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40510539 --- # Operational Interdependence and War Powers .left-33[ Coalition Warfare Red card systems Embedded troops Proxies and surrogates Third parties/PMSCs ] .right-33[ > Good morning. Last night, the United States carried out an air strike in Raqqa, Syria, targeting Mohammed Emwazi – the ISIL executioner known as Jihadi John. > We cannot yet be certain if the strike was successful. > But let me be clear. I have always said that we would do whatever was necessary, whatever it took, to track down Emwazi and stop him taking the lives of others. > We have been working, with the United States, literally around the clock to track him down. This was a combined effort. And the contribution of both our countries was essential. David Cameron, _PM statement: United States air strike in Syria_ ] ??? https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-statement-united-states-air-strike-in-syria Parliament voted against intervention in Syria in 2013, approved Iraq strikes in 2014 British pilots embedded with US/Canadians involved in syria strikes prior to december 2017, UK ISR, Reyaad Khan strike, Emwazi in November 2017 --- # Interdependence and Infrastructure ![Ramstein air base, public domain pic, from wikipedia](img/2020/ramstein.jpg) ??? --- # War Powers Under Interdependence > The initial phase of U.S. military involvement in Libya was conducted under the command of the United States Africa Command. By April 4, however, the United States had transferred responsibility for the military operations in Libya to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the U.S. involvement has assumed a supporting role in the coalition's efforts. Since April 4, U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts. _President Obama’s Letter About Efforts in Libya_, May 20, 2011 ??? May 20 letter on 60 days under War Powers Resolution --- class: inverse # Reflection Question .large[ How do the international partnerships of your home country influence the structure of your government's war powers and associated decisions to use force or enable the use of force by allied countries? ] ??? --- class: inverse # Part 5: Conclusions and Connections ??? --- # Key Issues Extremely difficult to analyse war/national security using "methodological nationalism" without missing key dimensions of international relationships Some fields centre international relationships (foreign policy, alliance politics), others externalise them (war powers) Interdependence and interoperability highlight key areas for contemporary research and concern regarding military operations Cross-national layering might need work to translate to security studies ??? --- # Key Questions If interdependence can explain shared normative concerns between allies, how do we theorise relations between those that don't share those norms? How can we study these issues in a rigorous manner? What parts of the new interdependence approach make little sense with respect to war and national security? ???