Referring to Washington, D.C. as its own area of responsibility, Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn, cited several figures from the recently released proposed U.S. Defense Department budget that illustrate the new administration’s changing focus. “From now on, irregular warfare is a regular part of our plan,” he said.

Speaking first about force structure, Lynn pointed out that plans to change the number of forces in the armed services have shifted. At the same time, the proposed budget increases financial support to the needs of military personnel by 9 percent; the amount proposed to help wounded warriors also has been increased by $3 billion.

To support President Obama’s dedication to fiscal responsibility, the deputy secretary reiterated the administration’s commitment to put the entire cost of current operations within the department’s budget, eliminating the supplementals that had become common place during the past administration. This move also maintains the president’s goal for transparency in government spending, he added. The budget also allows for a new type of defense that breaks all the conventional thinking that has not been effective in fighting an unconventional threat, he added. This includes funding to support the Capstone Concept for Joint Operations.

Admitting that reforming the Defense Department’s funding and focus has been promised but has not succeeded in the past, Lynn stated that in his more than 30 years of government service, he believes this, the biggest reform he has seen, will truly occur. He pointed to several examples, including a dedication to pursue proven instead of promised solutions. In addition, when given the choice between a service-centric and a multiservice-centric solution, the department will choose the latter.

Lynn acknowledged that the military forces as well as the general public have lost confidence in the department’s ability to deliver products on time and on budget. As a result, a number of initiatives have been announced to address is issue. First, the acquisition work force will be increased by 9,000 new hires, and shifts in working with contractors will add another 11,000 personnel to the acquisition force. Second, the department plans to bring discipline to the requirements process. Third, military procurement professionals and contractors will be required to improve their cost estimations. Fourth, the acquisition phase itself will be strengthened. And fifth, poorly performing programs will be cancelled, Lynn said.

These changes will not be easy, he admitted, but he believes that the department will succeed because of what he called “the perfect storm:” a president who is dedicated to change, a congress that is willing to act and a Defense Department that is willing to work hard and is dedicated to reform.

Views about how to improve government acquisition varied greatly during the final panel session of the Joint Warfighting Conference. While some panel members expressed confidence in the current system, admitting it needs some improvements, others stated that much more drastic changes are needed to get solutions into the field. Moderator Dr. Dov Zakheim, vice president, global defense, Booz Allen Hamilton, began the discussion by describing the U.S. government’s acquisition system as one that is based on end-running the system. “How do we make the exception the rule?” Zakheim asked.

Even the topic of the number of acquisition professionals in government organizations was a topic of debate. While all of the panelists agreed that a severe shortage of contracting officers exists, others pointed out that that is only the tip of the iceberg. At the core is a need for professional development of the current acquisition force. The system that is in place to train and promote the acquisition personnel today is inadequate, Zakheim emphasized.

Panelist Mark J. Lumer, former contracting executive, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, offered some advice to both business and the government. A small business owner in the audience asked the panel for advice about how to get his foot in the door with a government agency. Lumer emphasized that company representatives should go directly to the technical people in an organization rather than the procurement officers. After all, he said, acquisition personnel are the business—not the solution-seeking—side of the government.

Lumer also suggested—with a mixture of humor and sincerity—a three-year moratorium on changes to acquisition laws. Although some reform has been beneficial, Lumer pointed out that other laws some have teetered on the absurd. For example, after the Gulf Coast was pulverized by hurricanes, procurement officers were directed to purchase support and rebuilding supplies only from local vendors. Obviously, being restricted to buying water only from a bottled-water plant that is underwater does not make a lot of sense, he shared.

Recent news about piracy near the Horn of Africa is only one example of the disruptions to the global supply chain that will have expansive and far-reaching effects, according to Stephen Carmel, senior vice president, Maritime Services, Maersk Line Limited. At the opening presentation on the final day of the Joint Warfighting Conference, Carmel said that because the global supply chain depends heavily on information technology today, cyberattacks are increasing as a vulnerability to the transport of goods. He explained that unlike in the past when these disruptions could be linked to an individual incident or adversary, today it is increasingly difficult to isolate the cause of the disruption.

While many of the conference sessions focused on asymmetric threats, Carmel stated that he prefers to think of asymmetric opportunities. For example, Russia will only be able to transport its oil through pipelines to a Chinese refinery. As a result, China’s future oil supply is guaranteed. However, the globalization of trade and the interaction it involves is a growing reason for instability in nations around the world. The failure to prepare for increasing instability is dangerous, he added.

Emphasizing the ubiquitous link of the global supply chain, Carmel stated, “A stoppage anywhere is a stoppage everywhere. Everyone is on the grid.” A point that is often not addressed is the military’s dependence on this supply chain, and this is an issue that must receive more attention.

On the other hand, too much attention is paid to determining how to respond to individual attacks rather than finding solutions to the root cause of the attacks, he added. For example, piracy based out of Somalia is the result of economic and political instability. “Until this changes, piracy will continue.”

The U.S. as well as its allies must determine how to help the Somalia as well as other countries solve these problems to decrease piracy. “Instability occurs over time and not just in a single environment,” he stated. As an example of this, pointed to issues developing in Nigeria.

Members from each of the four services offered their insights into how to build a balanced joint force at Wednesday’s final panel session at the Joint Warfighting Conference. They may be coming at it from different angles, but all agreed that the need for agility requires the definition of the problems and the adoption of new concepts, platforms and technologies.

Moderator Lt. Gen. Paul K. Van Riper, USMC (Ret.), former commanding general, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, emphasized that a balanced joint force needs not only to be able to fight but to be able to operate. The Capstone Concept for Joint Operations (CCJO), referred to several times during the conference, challenges the ability for the military to attain a balanced force, but it is not the only document that must be considered as the services move forward. Although a “foreseeable future” does not exist, Gen. Van Riper said, the Joint Operating Environment document is helpful in understanding challenges to the future force, and the services should also take into consideration the National Security Strategy and eventually the Quadrennial Defense Review, due out early next year, as they concentrate on balancing their forces.

From the U.S. Army standpoint, Lt. Gen. David P. Valcourt, USA, deputy commanding general/chief of staff, U.S. Army TRADOC, said that his service must first define the problem, which includes ever-changing fighting environments, the need for versatility and the requirement to continue to conduct intelligence-gathering while fighting combat operations on the ground. “We have redrawn the sweet spot too many times. We need to be able to operate along the full spectrum [of operations] and then anticipate the enemies changes,” Gen. Valcourt said.

Vice Adm. Peter H. Daly, USN, deputy commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command, pointed out that the services are always told that they must fight with the force they have. Well, in the case of the Navy these forces include ships like the USS Enterprise, which is more than 50 years old. “This is the Navy that we’ve built, and you can plan to change it today, but it will take a long time,” Adm. Daly pointed out. As a result, the Navy will have to bend the force to the situations it needs to address, whether that means high-tempo missions or low-end operations, he added. One way to address the issue is the development of the littoral combat ships, which will provide the Navy with more versatility in how it operates.

The Air Force perspective on balancing the force was presented by Maj. Gen. R. Mike Worden, USAF, vice commander, Air Combat Command, who said that while the CCJO provides a framework, the Air Force must narrow it down to define its role in the joint environment. “Once we understand the balance as a joint force, we can figure out how to fight today’s wars and stop future conflicts,” Gen. Worden stated.

Future force balance will rely on three areas, Gen. Worden said. First, the military does not win with technology but rather it equips the troops with technology, so the focus must be on developing and training the troops for the future. Second, the services must build in-depth relationships with each other and other nations to increase the trust among them. Third, the services must exploit technology and push it to the lowest echelons. Gen. Worden called for collaborative technologies to help make this occur.

Kicking off Wednesday’s Joint Warfighting Conference’s early afternoon panel on “The Human Dimension: How Do We Develop Our People?”, moderator Vice Admiral Albert H. Konetzni, Jr., USN (Ret.), wondered aloud Lincoln would have done with a computer and a Blackberry before moving on to his view of how to develop people: that to engage fledgling leaders, they must feel empowered and have a sense of ownership, no matter their rank.

After all, as pointed out by Lt. Gen. David P. Valcourt, USA, deputy commanding general and chief of staff, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, “Our most precise weapon is the soldier on the ground.” He explained that training had to have three dimensions: the cognitive dimension, in which simulations and immersive experiences are used to develop decision-making skills; the physical dimension, in which comprehensive strength development creates an army of balanced, self-confident soldiers, families and civilians; and the social dimension, in which warfighters are instilled with character and a warrior ethos, developing their ability to have interpersonal relationships, become culturally aware, and build a sense of cohesion.

The cognitive dimension was particularly significant for Maj. Gen. William J. Rew, USAF, director of operational planning, policy and strategy and deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements at U.S. Air Force headquarters. He noted that air forces do an excellent job with tactical flexibility and adaptibility, in which men and machines do things they weren’t trained or designed to do. “But I think we need to develop operational flexibility, especially in command and control, across the range of operations,” Gen. Rew said. “Warfare is not clean and neat, and we need operational systems that can adapt to different kinds of fighting.”

Gen. Rew also discussed the cultural barriers to true jointness, explaining that too many people think that “cultural awareness” means language training at the academy. There is a need for recognition of the cultural differences across services; for him, he didn’t fully understand this until he spent a year as the only airman among a group of army men. “We need to understand the culture of our fellow service members,” he said, and continued that we have to do the same thing with our coalition partners, as well. “Some of our command structures we do don’t foster than interaction. We like to do things from a distance. We shouldn’t forget the importance of the human dimension. Warfare in the end is a people endeavor.”

Capt. L. David Marquet, USN (Ret.), a strategist for Navy’s QDR Integration Group and
former CO of the USS Santa Fe (SSN-763), agreed, wryly noting that while “the network is good, it’s going to go down.” America’s best strength is its people. “A coherent personnel development strategy… will be more powerful for our country than anything I can imagine,” Capt Marquet stated.

Another topic that came up during the panel was the question of whether there was sufficient room for intellectual dissent. Gen. Valcourt seemed to think so, saying that dissent could actually help in complex situations where the goal is not clear. “We are changing fundamentally relationships between who was leading and who was following, and that’s important to collaboration and growth,” he said. “With that growth comes confidence, and they become more and more able to assume the command and control of the warfighting apparatus.”

Gen. Rew noted that disagreement can’t really be functional from a bottom-up perspective. “Everyone agrees that we have to be able to dissent, but it has to be fostered from the top to get past from the obstacles,” he said.

But Capt. Marquet pointed out the painful reality. “We have a tough time with dissent. Consensus and team player—these are values we like. ‘Maverick,’ we’re not sure we like that guy,” he said. Dissenting opinions may lead to fruitful conversations at the “one-star level,” he added, but they often don’t make it to the top even when they need to be heard. “We should embrace diversity of opinion, but we have a long way to go,” he concluded.

War doesn’t mean it what it used to, and as we struggle to find the right words to describe “our new normal,” terms like “asymmetrical,” “hybrid” and “irregular” warfare only paint part of the picture, according to Adm. Eric T. Olson, USN, commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, who gave the lunch address today at the Joint Warfighting Conference. “The threats we are facing are not new,” he said. “But the specific nature of this threat is a new challenge.” His statements echoed the sentiment’s of yesterday’s panel, but then Adm. Olson went on to describe how he sees it.

Adm. Olson advocated a balanced warfare approach, stating that we need the agility to transcend the spectrum of conflict effectively. Operations structure should shape our force structure, not the other way around. And even though, he continued, the direct approach might seem like the most decisive approach, the indirect approach, which involves nonkinetic engagement, allows us to do important relationship building that will bring successful outcomes.

A balance between the indirect and direct approach has already generated successful outcomes in places like Colombia, where several hostages were released due to successful work with the Colombian special forces, and in the southern Philippines, where stability has been increasing after nearly 40 years of insurgency. In Afghanistan, the admiral explained, nearly half of the more than 5,000 missions executed have been indirect in nature. “The key to balanced warfare is persistence,” he said. “The emphasis is on engaging the underlying environment rather than the threats that emerge from that environment.”

In other words, while 3,000 of these missions were kinetic in nature, where the intent is to make contact with an adversary force. But 2,500 of those missions were never intended to have that kinetic outcome. These missions include providing health care; delivering aid and supplies; helping create a media environment by providing microphones to potential broadcasters and radios to local people so they can hear those broadcasts; construction of roads, schools, irrigation systems and more in conjunction with USAID, to name a few. “Very important relationship building and trust building occur during these events,” Adm. Olson said. “Local forces do the work and everybody wins.”

And there is no way to make a one-size-fits-all-solution to the problem, he added, saying, “Counterinsurgency doctrine is an oxymoron … knowledge trumps doctrine.”

Adm. Olson concluded by saying he was coming to understand that it is not so much the outcome of military actions—tactically or operationally—that is important, so much as what is believed about those outcomes. And while direct action will always be necessary, it is the indirect approach of building relationships that will ultimately allow us to prevail. “Winning the wars of today and tomorrow requires the engagement of the resources of all our nations,”he said. “Only then can—and will—we prevail and achieve the success for which we strive.”

Experts representing a wide variety of groups took on the topic of military, agency and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) cooperation in future security efforts, pointing out that national security involves not only warfare but also the creation of good relationships among nations. At the Wednesday morning Joint Warfighting Conference panel, participants agreed that the military services have taken on many responsibilities that are not part of their traditional mission. However, the steps that need to be taken to address this issue are many and complicated, they concurred.

Providing more specific examples, panel moderator Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, USMC (Ret.), former commander of U.S. Central Command, said that his observations in Afghanistan and Iraq were that the military was involved in everything from agriculture to zoos. The reason was simple: the jobs needed to be done. However, after some time, the concern became who would continue to conduct this work once the military leaves, the general related. Increasing cooperation among the military, government agencies and NGOs will both relieve the armed services of some of these responsibilities and hand them over to organizations well-equipped to handle them.

Dr. Heather Hanson, director, public affairs, Mercy Corps, proposed that the goals of the military and NGOs sometimes differ. However, they share one common goal: to secure peace and prevent future conflict. Although it is important for the NGOs to work closely with the military, it is just as important that NGO members are not viewed as force multipliers as this can be counterproductive, Hanson said.

Len Hawley, former deputy assistant secretary of state, revealed that cooperative security planning is the subject of a document titled the “Military Contribution to Cooperative Security Joint Operating Concept.” Input for the concept recognized that standard operating procedures in the military, government and NGO communities differ so greatly that they get in the way of collaborative efforts. While it is easy to say that organizations must cooperate, it is not easy to do, he stated.

U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) was once again lauded as one innovative way to address new and different security threats. Panel member Ambassador Mary C. Yates, deputy to the commander, civil-military activities, AFRICOM, explained that the command was build on the idea of developing different ways to address asymmetric threats. “From the beginning, the command was designed to be integrated, merging some of activities from other combatant commands,” prevent conflict and grow the capacity of our partners, Yates said. The command also is reaching out to NGOs, she added.

In an extremely provocative speech, Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett, author of The Pentagon’s New Map, opened Wednesday’s Joint Warfighting Conference by sharing his vision of the effect of globalization on nations and coalitions. He applauded the establishment of the U.S. Africa Command as a solid step toward moving globalization in a positive direction.

Barnett described the gap between well-connected as well as economically stable nations and those countries that lag behind or are just beginning their journey onto the globalization road. He predicted that this gap, where 90 percent of world violence now occurs, will shrink during the next 30 to 40 years based on activities conducted by Asia and Europe rather than U.S. activities. In addition, Barnett pointed out that globalization is coming to these areas very quickly, but he warned that many of these nations do not have the leadership or other resources to handle it.

To help in this transition, Barnett suggested that the U.S. must improve how it prepares politically and economically challenged nations to handle the shock of globalization. To accomplish some of the tasks during this evolutionary era, the U.S. military must beef up its ability to support stability and reconstruction skills. But, Barnett added, an increase in support from other U.S. government agencies as well as coalition partners will be needed. Even in light of these changes, however, it is likely that it will be the public sector that will have the biggest impact on continued globalization because a strong economy is every nation’s goal, he said.

In Barnett’s view, the focus of the U.S. military has shifted greatly during the past several decades. During the Cold War, the Defense Department worked toward defeating a single enemy during a large conflict. Now and in the future, military leaders must turn this strategy on its head and strive to fight and win small asymmetric conflicts, and the military leadership will move forward based on these successes.

While the term “hybrid warfare” was a hot topic of conversation during the first day of the conference, Barnett proposed a discussion about “hybrid peace.” Regarding operation Iraqi Freedom, he said he believes the number of troops sent into military operations at the beginning of the conflict was adequate; however, the much higher estimate of military troop requirements prior to war was more on point for stabilization, counterinsurgency and peace operations.

Referring to his assertion that economic rather than military activity will lead to peace, he advised that creating jobs is the only exit strategy. Because commerce between U.S. states, cities and counties occurs daily and seamlessly in this nation, Barnett proposed that the goal of the U.S. should be to help other nations resemble the United States not politically but economically.

Tuesday’s early afternoon panelists agreed that the term “hybrid” may go away, but conflicts with multiple types of combatants are likely to go on long into the future. After a stimulating speech from Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, USA, the TRADOC commanding general, at the Joint Warfighting Conference luncheon today, experts with a variety of backgrounds discussed hybrid warfare and the implications for future joint force commanders.

Panel moderator Lt. Col. Frank G. Hoffman, USMCR (Ret.), Foreign Policy Research Institute research fellow, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, led off the discussion by stating that the focus for warfare in the 21st century must be broader spectrum as well as a convergence of different types of war. These must be dealt with simultaneously, he stated. Although this is not a novel concept, it is “one we have not been prepared for institutionally or militarily,” the colonel said. Col. Hoffmann agreed with Gen. Dempsey that versatility is key; however, mental agility and a warrior ethos also are needed.

Vice Adm. Robert S. Harward Jr., USN, deputy commander, JFCOM, pointed out that the hybrid war we are fighting today had a long lead time. Recent examples include terrorists hijacking commercial airplanes and forcing them to fly to specific destinations in the 1970s. Since that time, hybrid warfare has evolved to include not only state-nonstate entities but also individuals, criminals and the disenfranchised, all of whom must be considered in operations.

The small, highly skilled military units Gen. Mattis spoke about during his speech this morning will be one way to address this multifaceted adversary, Adm. Harward said. In addition, the admiral stressed that the U.S. and its allies must get inside the adversaries’ networks at a much faster pace than the speed of war.

From his 2007 and 2008 experience in Afghanistan, panelist Maj. Gen Herman van der Til, Royal Netherlands Marine Corps, shared eight observations about hybrid warfare and coalitions. Among the top requirements for success are a unity of command, a unity of effort and the proper balance between force protection and increased vulnerability, which is the result of a need to interact with local citizens. In this list, Gen. van der Til also included winning the hearts and minds of both the citizens in the battlespace as well as those at home and accepting that the media is a powerful tool—and will always win—when fighting wars today and in the future.

Panelists agreed that the new mission command concept must more closely resemble that of the enemy’s—decentralized units working toward a common end. To ensure that this can occur, joint force commanders will have to focus on purely defined goals; these goals, however, may require reassessment, mission change and agility.

The revolution this brings to industry is in the form of new requirements. Communications technologies will have to enable decentralized communications rather than feed information only to the joint force commander.

At Tuesday’s luncheon address to the Joint Warfighting Conference in Virginia Beach, Va., Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, USA, Commanding General, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command discussed the challenges for future operations with a balanced joint force. “We can’t expect to predict what the future holds,” Gen. Dempsey said. He alluded to comedian Steven Wright’s one-liner about being a “peripheral visionary”: someone who can “see the future, but only off to the side.” In many respects, he continued, that is what is hampering our ability to prepare the future joint force.

And while uncertainty, complexity, rapid change and persistent conflicts remain as challenges in the operations landscape, strengths such as versatility, campaign quality, improvisation and the right instincts are the best tools for dealing with those challenges.

Gen. Dempsey reiterated some lessons learned from Iraq, not the least of which being “we could have done a better job of preparing our leaders for complexity in combat, engagement, and leadership,” he said. Specialized forces require predictability from the enemy, but you won’t find that kind of predictability from a decentralized enemy. “If you attack a decentralized operation in a conventional way, it becomes more decentralized,” Gen. Dempsey said. To illustrate this point, the general went on to describe what happened when the recording industry butted heads with Napster, and successfully took it down only to find other file-sharing services posing even more complicated challenges for the recording industry. The same thing applies to the warfighting environment.

Perhaps the most important element of future operations is developing leaders who are comfortable with complexity, Gen. Dempsey said. Gone are the days when attrition-based simulations against predictable enemies are enough to train the leaders of future operations. Training models need to incorporate religious, tribal, economic and political scenarios and need to be extended to run in longer time frames. “If conventional wisdom is that necessity is the mother of invention, then complexity is the mother of innovation,” Gen. Dempsey said. “We have to make the scrimmage harder than the game, and not the other way around.”

It’s also important that all collaborators in joint forces understand the challenges of complexity and decentralization. Coalition partners, for instance, who answer to different authorities and aren’t decentralized can hamper our efforts and put our fighting men and women at a disadvantage, the general said. “It’s our responsibility to make sure they are prepared before we send them into harm’s way.”