27
27
0
Continuous conflict and crisis may well be the central characteristic of the 21st century.
From the outset of this century, there has been ongoing, structural shocks to the system suggestive of this conflict and crisis phenomenon at a macro level – from 9/11 to the financial and housing crises, from COVID-19 to the more recent conflicts across the globe. This 21st century paradigm of conflict and crisis is not only evident across time. It is also being revealed
in this very moment.
Indeed, a simple walk across the globe is demonstrative of this modern paradigm: war in Ukraine, war in Gaza, ongoing conflict in the greater Middle East region, preparations for war and potential conflict in the South China Sea over Taiwan, rogue regimes represented by North Korea and Iran seeking to build and expand their nuclear capabilities, destabilizing terrorism – the list goes on. In fact, the 2023 National Intelligence Estimate spoke to these complexities and global challenges:
“During the coming year, the United States and its allies will confront a complex and pivotal international security environment…great powers, rising regional powers, as well as an evolving array of non-state actors, will vie for dominance in the global order, as well as compete to set the emerging conditions and the rules that will shape that order for decades to come.”
Active conflict and the potential for new wars are likely to accelerate in the coming years – all geared towards competition for the geopolitical and values-based regime that will dominate the international security order for the remainder the 21st and into the 22nd century.
So, the question becomes: what approach should the United States adopt in this new paradigm of continuous conflict and crisis – particularly given the stakes?
To date, we in the United States – and the West more broadly – have treated each of these crises, wars, and potential conflicts as phenomena onto themselves. We act as if they are not part of a wider, interconnected international challenge. We approach each of these challenges idiosyncratically – both in terms of what we do and how we do it.
For example, the United States tries to lead the deterrence paradigm in regions such as the South China Sea vis-à-vis China, but we look to others to lead the deterrence regime on the continent of Europe. This inconsistency in leadership and approach enables our adversaries to split the United States and its partners and allies – exploiting differing objectives, considerations, and vulnerabilities. Accordingly, we look more like Swiss cheese rather than a Swiss Army Knife.
And yet, that’s not even the most concerning part. What might be most concerning is the fact that our adversaries and enemies are approaching crisis and conflict with the United States and the West completely differently and via a much more unified front.
We fail to understand that China and Russia – and their cronies in Tehran and Pyongyang – see the situation completely differently. China and Russia created a “no limits” strategic partnership in February 2022 just days before Russia fully invaded Ukraine – furthering the bloodiest land war on the European continent since World War II. Russia and China have also deepened their ties and strategic relationship with North Korea and Iran, bringing a more expanded, global dimension to their joined strategic ambitions to diminish and perhaps even displace United States and Western primacy on the global stage. The defense minister of one of NATO’s newest members, Finland, made this stark warning: "While these issues are not public, what Russia does at the moment together with China, Iran, North Korea, and its other allies, also from the global south, constitutes a very serious prospect in the long term"
China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran – not to mention state and non-state terrorist groups – see a United States that is reluctant to confront its enemies and defend its interests. They assume a war-weary American public still reeling not only from 20 years of war but also the societal impact of COVID and inflation. They see a fractured NATO and Western-oriented
coalition having trouble governing at home and maintaining a common consensus abroad. And they observe a developing world that feels abandoned by the West – open to new forms of economic and political support due to the deteriorating global economic conditions.
Even just a slightly deeper look shows the vulnerabilities the United States and the West face:
Deteriorating Global Economy. The World Bank’s Global Economic Prospects Report found “…a sharp downturn in growth is expected to be widespread, with forecasts in 2023 revised down for 95% of advanced economies and nearly 70% of emerging market and developing economies.” Further, the report asserts “…per-capita income growth in emerging market and developing economies is projected to average 2.8-percent – a full percentage lower than the 2010-2019 average.” The same World Bank report further suggested that if the global economy slips into recession, “this would mark the first time in more than 80 years that two global recessions have occurred within the same decade.”
Doubts about the Western-Dominated System. According to Pew Research, in a 2023 survey, “at least three-quarters of adults in Argentina, France, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, South Korea, and the United Kingdom assess their country’s economy negatively.”
Dis-Unified Western Allies. According to an Associated Press report, French President Emmanuel Macron stated that sending Western troops into Ukraine is “not ruled out.” But the very next day, both Germany and Poland said they would not send troops to Ukraine to fight Russia. And the NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg stated the alliance has “no plans” to send NATO troops to Ukraine.
An economically vulnerable, self-doubting, inward-facing United States and West is dangerous. A dis-unified United States and West (and its partners and allies in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region) – on top of it all – is provocative.
We must see the challenge from China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran not as disparate actors working towards their own narrow interests or at best in parallel with one-another. On the contrary, we must see these actors as working together in common cause towards diminishing and eventually displacing the West with the objective of dominating the global order, rules, and norms.
If we do not change the paradigm and re-establish a unified front among our adversaries and enemies, then the age of conflict and crisis may well culminate with insecurity and conflict right here at home.
We have just years – not decades – to get it right.
Sources
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/15/economic-ratings-are-poor-and-
getting-worse-in-most-countries-surveyed/
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2023/01/10/global-economic-prospects
https://apnews.com/article/paris-conference-support-ukraine-zelenskyy-
c458a1df3f9a7626128cdeb84050d469
https://apnews.com/article/nato-stoltenberg-ukraine-troops-france-slovakia-
5d4ed747861a3c0edb8f922fa36427c2
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-links-with-china-iran-north-korea-threat-
warns-finland-2023-12-12/
Alex Gallo is the author of “Vetspective,” a RallyPoint series that discusses national security, foreign policy, politics, and society. He is a fellow with George Mason University’s National Security Institute. Alex is also an adjunct professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University and a US Army Veteran. Follow him on Twitter at @AlexGalloUSA.
From the outset of this century, there has been ongoing, structural shocks to the system suggestive of this conflict and crisis phenomenon at a macro level – from 9/11 to the financial and housing crises, from COVID-19 to the more recent conflicts across the globe. This 21st century paradigm of conflict and crisis is not only evident across time. It is also being revealed
in this very moment.
Indeed, a simple walk across the globe is demonstrative of this modern paradigm: war in Ukraine, war in Gaza, ongoing conflict in the greater Middle East region, preparations for war and potential conflict in the South China Sea over Taiwan, rogue regimes represented by North Korea and Iran seeking to build and expand their nuclear capabilities, destabilizing terrorism – the list goes on. In fact, the 2023 National Intelligence Estimate spoke to these complexities and global challenges:
“During the coming year, the United States and its allies will confront a complex and pivotal international security environment…great powers, rising regional powers, as well as an evolving array of non-state actors, will vie for dominance in the global order, as well as compete to set the emerging conditions and the rules that will shape that order for decades to come.”
Active conflict and the potential for new wars are likely to accelerate in the coming years – all geared towards competition for the geopolitical and values-based regime that will dominate the international security order for the remainder the 21st and into the 22nd century.
So, the question becomes: what approach should the United States adopt in this new paradigm of continuous conflict and crisis – particularly given the stakes?
To date, we in the United States – and the West more broadly – have treated each of these crises, wars, and potential conflicts as phenomena onto themselves. We act as if they are not part of a wider, interconnected international challenge. We approach each of these challenges idiosyncratically – both in terms of what we do and how we do it.
For example, the United States tries to lead the deterrence paradigm in regions such as the South China Sea vis-à-vis China, but we look to others to lead the deterrence regime on the continent of Europe. This inconsistency in leadership and approach enables our adversaries to split the United States and its partners and allies – exploiting differing objectives, considerations, and vulnerabilities. Accordingly, we look more like Swiss cheese rather than a Swiss Army Knife.
And yet, that’s not even the most concerning part. What might be most concerning is the fact that our adversaries and enemies are approaching crisis and conflict with the United States and the West completely differently and via a much more unified front.
We fail to understand that China and Russia – and their cronies in Tehran and Pyongyang – see the situation completely differently. China and Russia created a “no limits” strategic partnership in February 2022 just days before Russia fully invaded Ukraine – furthering the bloodiest land war on the European continent since World War II. Russia and China have also deepened their ties and strategic relationship with North Korea and Iran, bringing a more expanded, global dimension to their joined strategic ambitions to diminish and perhaps even displace United States and Western primacy on the global stage. The defense minister of one of NATO’s newest members, Finland, made this stark warning: "While these issues are not public, what Russia does at the moment together with China, Iran, North Korea, and its other allies, also from the global south, constitutes a very serious prospect in the long term"
China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran – not to mention state and non-state terrorist groups – see a United States that is reluctant to confront its enemies and defend its interests. They assume a war-weary American public still reeling not only from 20 years of war but also the societal impact of COVID and inflation. They see a fractured NATO and Western-oriented
coalition having trouble governing at home and maintaining a common consensus abroad. And they observe a developing world that feels abandoned by the West – open to new forms of economic and political support due to the deteriorating global economic conditions.
Even just a slightly deeper look shows the vulnerabilities the United States and the West face:
Deteriorating Global Economy. The World Bank’s Global Economic Prospects Report found “…a sharp downturn in growth is expected to be widespread, with forecasts in 2023 revised down for 95% of advanced economies and nearly 70% of emerging market and developing economies.” Further, the report asserts “…per-capita income growth in emerging market and developing economies is projected to average 2.8-percent – a full percentage lower than the 2010-2019 average.” The same World Bank report further suggested that if the global economy slips into recession, “this would mark the first time in more than 80 years that two global recessions have occurred within the same decade.”
Doubts about the Western-Dominated System. According to Pew Research, in a 2023 survey, “at least three-quarters of adults in Argentina, France, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, South Korea, and the United Kingdom assess their country’s economy negatively.”
Dis-Unified Western Allies. According to an Associated Press report, French President Emmanuel Macron stated that sending Western troops into Ukraine is “not ruled out.” But the very next day, both Germany and Poland said they would not send troops to Ukraine to fight Russia. And the NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg stated the alliance has “no plans” to send NATO troops to Ukraine.
An economically vulnerable, self-doubting, inward-facing United States and West is dangerous. A dis-unified United States and West (and its partners and allies in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region) – on top of it all – is provocative.
We must see the challenge from China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran not as disparate actors working towards their own narrow interests or at best in parallel with one-another. On the contrary, we must see these actors as working together in common cause towards diminishing and eventually displacing the West with the objective of dominating the global order, rules, and norms.
If we do not change the paradigm and re-establish a unified front among our adversaries and enemies, then the age of conflict and crisis may well culminate with insecurity and conflict right here at home.
We have just years – not decades – to get it right.
Sources
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/15/economic-ratings-are-poor-and-
getting-worse-in-most-countries-surveyed/
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2023/01/10/global-economic-prospects
https://apnews.com/article/paris-conference-support-ukraine-zelenskyy-
c458a1df3f9a7626128cdeb84050d469
https://apnews.com/article/nato-stoltenberg-ukraine-troops-france-slovakia-
5d4ed747861a3c0edb8f922fa36427c2
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-links-with-china-iran-north-korea-threat-
warns-finland-2023-12-12/
Alex Gallo is the author of “Vetspective,” a RallyPoint series that discusses national security, foreign policy, politics, and society. He is a fellow with George Mason University’s National Security Institute. Alex is also an adjunct professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University and a US Army Veteran. Follow him on Twitter at @AlexGalloUSA.
VetSpective
International Relations
International Affairs
Conflict
Edited 2 y ago
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 14
29
29
0
12
12
0
A valid and important opinion. However, I must ask just how we go about once again forming unity abroad when we cannot do so at home?
And the world knows this.
And the world knows this.
(12)
(0)
8
8
0
4
4
0
4
4
0
For MAJ Dale E. Wilson, who has me blocked, what you describe is a nation without freedom of speech, no choice in elections, no equality. In other words, a dictatorship. More importantly, the end of the USA.
(4)
(0)
CSM Thomas Ray
A ‘liberal paradise’ would be a place where everybody has guaranteed employment, free comprehensive health care, free education, free food, free housing, free clothing, free utilities and only law enforcement personnel have guns. And, believe it or not, such a liberal utopia does indeed exist. ... It’s called prison.
(0)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
CSM Thomas Ray - And let me thank you for providing just the type of post that this thread opposes, hyperbole.
(0)
(0)
CSM Thomas Ray
This is the only hyperbole I see: If Trump gained the White House, you would be living in a dictatorship without we Democrats.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
CPT Alex Gallo - great disciussion. I'm confident that graduates from our senior service colleges, as well as SAMS, JAWS, MAWS, and SAASS, deeply immerse themselves in this subject matter. The warnings you cite are a necessary discussion, and frankly, have been a discussion among policymakers and military analysts since this century began. Yes ... some may find that hard to believe.
The 1950 NSS stated that the issues the USG faces "are momentous, involving the fulfillment or destruction not only of this Republic but of civilization itself. ...[T]his Government and the people it represents must now take new and fateful decisions." Having read the essay, is there a rationale for us to hold a distinctly different sentiment today compared to what we held in 1950? No. I doubt that we could change a "paradigm" without an understanding that conflicts in the 21st century have parallels with conflicts of the past.
Some of the underlying dynamics and characteristics of conflict in this century share similarities with historical eras including great power struggles, resource competition, ideological conflicts, and security ambitions. However, humans (human nature) are still the basis of conflict across any era. Frankly, the unique dynamics of the contemporary era necessitate a nuanced understanding of how historical patterns intersect with present-day realities. Yet we haven't been great at understanding when opportunities arise, anticipating consequences, recognizing patterns, and avoiding pitfalls. So perhaps that's the first paradigm we need to change.
The 1950 NSS stated that the issues the USG faces "are momentous, involving the fulfillment or destruction not only of this Republic but of civilization itself. ...[T]his Government and the people it represents must now take new and fateful decisions." Having read the essay, is there a rationale for us to hold a distinctly different sentiment today compared to what we held in 1950? No. I doubt that we could change a "paradigm" without an understanding that conflicts in the 21st century have parallels with conflicts of the past.
Some of the underlying dynamics and characteristics of conflict in this century share similarities with historical eras including great power struggles, resource competition, ideological conflicts, and security ambitions. However, humans (human nature) are still the basis of conflict across any era. Frankly, the unique dynamics of the contemporary era necessitate a nuanced understanding of how historical patterns intersect with present-day realities. Yet we haven't been great at understanding when opportunities arise, anticipating consequences, recognizing patterns, and avoiding pitfalls. So perhaps that's the first paradigm we need to change.
1SG (Join to see)
Heck, your last few sentences reflect how our own government has come up short within our own borders. As such what credibility does our government have on the global stage absent our checkbook and military infrastructure…
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Maybe the politicians should grow a spine and lead the world community rather than being complacent and subservient. Maybe we need Military leaders that aren't politicians and are more like General Patton or General Chesty Puller.
(2)
(0)
TSgt James Herslebs
Not at all. But spineless politicians that speak out both sides of their mouth are not acceptable. Generals and Admirals that are politicians rather than Military Leaders is also unacceptable. There is a time when they retire to become politicians but not while they are performing their duties leading their troops. A strong decisive leader doesn't equate to a dictatorship.
(2)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
TSgt James Herslebs - Even though we sometimes get it wrong, I still support our system. Democracy in the form of a Constitutional Republic, where candidates are selected by the vote of the people. Our Constitution sets the qualifications for office. Let the people decide.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
1
1
0
Cpt. Gallo makes valued points about the potential of conflicts across the globe. But our adversaries seek different goals. Russia and China are not true communist countries, they are oligarchies seeking dwindling world resources to enrich themselves. The rich elites rule by fear over the poor Russian population who have given their sons and daughters to Putin’s meat grinder in Ukraine. The oligarchs are no different than the Romanov royalty 100 years ago. As for China, it is run by insider politics, nepotism and a civil service class. They both need raw materials to consume just like the USA seeks more resources from African and South American countries. Iran is different in that they use religion to subjugate their citizens. Before the mullahs, Iran was secular but now the people pretend to be pious to survive. The mad fat boy dictator of North Korea totally runs on fear only they have nukes. This is the country that is most dangerous not China. China needs resources to continue as the world’s leader of manufactured goods and will only tolerate Korea to a certain point. The American Empire needs to choose a different race among the world’s nation. It must lead in the fight of global warming and clean energy creation. Where can we find limitless raw materials? You see it every night. The Moon.It has all the minerals, compounds, and elements we need to build shelters, convert Moon ice to water, use infinite supply of solar power to convert Moon soils to create rocket fuels, construction materials, and hydroponics for farming food. Next the goal is the Asteroid Belt between Mars and Jupiter that contains unlimited quantities of rare metals and compounds needed for computers, energy storage, and hardware. The tactics used in wars of the 20th century are obsolete and so are today’s weaponry buildup expecting some sort of MAD= mutually assured destruction as a peacekeeper is going backwards. I see wars as expensive and unnecessary. Change the rules and objectives by heading to space while cleaning up the Earth.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google