In the United States, we often analyze distant armed conflicts and counterterrorism efforts as if watching from a remote observation tower. We keep an eye on expeditionary initiatives abroad, dissecting and examining our myriad campaigns and operations, but lose sight of domestic weaknesses that leave us open to exploitation by competitors. Not only is the United States vulnerable to foreign interference, but our adversaries are already actively conducting irregular attacks against us today, at home. To see the full picture—and put ourselves in a position to anticipate the actions of our adversaries rather than react to them—we must turn our gaze inward and examine our domestic affairs in the same manner and with the same objectives as conflicts abroad.
On the surface, analyzing the US homeland within the construct of “warfare” is not the most palatable thing to do. The intent is not to regard America as a war zone, but garner insight on national security vulnerabilities by viewing our domestic affairs through an alternate lens. By applying the tenets of the military’s irregular warfare doctrine to our adversaries’ perception of US domestic affairs, we can better assess security risks hidden in plain sight. And as the realm of irregular warfare exists within “contests for influence and legitimacy over relevant populations,” if we ask ourselves whether competitors such as Russia and China are successful in waging, or at least laying the groundwork for, irregular warfare on American soil—the answer is a very clear yes.
Characterizing the Threat at Home
Recent threat assessments from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation warn that the United States faces growing irregular threats from both domestic and foreign actors. While the United States confronts political polarization and increasing domestic extremist activity, we are simultaneously in the midst of a renewed age of great power competition in which we face coordinated threats from Russia, China, and their partners. These threats are not necessarily overt, in the form of violent conflict, but rather they come by way of information operations, cyberattacks and espionage, and other criminal activities meant to destabilize and capitalize on existing domestic discord. As viewed through the lens of irregular warfare, the US social, economic, and political landscape is a key strategic battleground in this competition—and whoever commands it can both wield and direct global power and influence.
As the 2018 National Defense Strategy warns, “The homeland is no longer a sanctuary. America is a target, whether from terrorists seeking to attack our citizens; malicious cyber activity against personal, commercial, or government infrastructure; or political and information subversion.” From both ends of the political spectrum, the United States is experiencing rapidly evolving dissent against our political bodies, economic institutions, and even fellow Americans. We increasingly hear violent, ideologically charged rhetoric and even calls for civil war. We’ve watched the occupation and destruction of local, state, and federal government offices in open attempts to overthrow governmental processes, carried out by those who hold the government bodies they attack as traitorous and tyrannical. We’ve seen the burning, damaging, and looting of businesses and infrastructure as nonhuman casualties in what some have described as a war to define American values and determine the cultural trajectory of the country. And we’ve borne witness to violent, at times deadly, attacks and plots against politicians, law enforcement, and individuals who are deemed to be the political and ideological enemies of their assailants. If the United States is a target, our current level of domestic unrest and our social and political divisions present a key vulnerability for our adversaries to exploit—and that is exactly what they are doing.
Opportunities for Russia and China
Over the last few years, Russia has worked to amplify US social and political divisions and undermine faith in our democratic institutions and economic system—primarily by proliferating disinformation campaigns—and has even probed our election infrastructure. In the fall of 2020, the US intelligence community identified Russia as the perpetrator of the SolarWinds cyberattack against critical federal agencies and scores of commercial companies. Most recently, in mid-February, intelligence officials briefed lawmakers that Russia, as well as other foreign actors such as Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and Lebanese Hizballah, had deliberately targeted the 2020 presidential election with disinformation campaigns intended to sway American political opinion. Although China has not directly attempted to interfere with US elections, it also poses an ongoing threat via cyberattacks, piracy and intellectual property theft, moves to dominate the high-tech development arena, attempts to influence US lawmakers and public opinion, and other efforts to increase its own global economic influence and shift the balance of power.
Russia and China’s efforts may not be a root cause of the United States’ social and political turmoil, but they have both demonstrated an impressive ability to capitalize on existing sociopolitical divisions. Their disinformation campaigns are sophisticated, and their state-sanctioned cyberattacks have garnered vital information toward technological, military, and political advantage and intelligence to support further disinformation activities. Such attacks can also degrade the American public’s trust in corporate and government institutions—and this loss of faith in governmental and economic bodies further lures malign actors who seek to subvert the United States from the inside. Consider the current state of affairs in terms of what we would do in our adversaries’ position if great power competition ever escalates into conflict: the stage is set for external actors to take advantage of the distrust and disenfranchisement of US citizens.
Of further concern is the extent to which Russia and China have strengthened their economic and military cooperation in recent years. The Center for a New American Security’s 2021 report on the burgeoning Russia-China partnership states that the “recent acceleration of Russia-China relations stems from the countries’ increasingly shared vision of a less democratic world more hospitable to the continued rule of each country’s authoritarian regime and its expanding global interests.” Monumental developments in both nations’ military and consumer technology as well as other enterprises, combined with ever-expanding military power structures, propel Russia and China toward greater global economic and political influence, coercive ability, and potentially dominance. Increased coordination between Russia and China would present an amplified threat to the United States economically, militarily, and politically—not just to US global power and influence, but to the preservation of economic stability, safeguarding of human rights, and proliferation of democracy. Russia and China have already demonstrated interest in exploiting US domestic fault lines for individual gain, and with a closer partnership they could specialize and coordinate their efforts for maximum effect.
Anticipating Exploitation while Preparing for Competition
Under the tenets of irregular warfare, our great power adversaries are already benefiting strategically from the United States’ internal discord. In the Russia-China paradigm, they are out-maneuvering us on the battlefield of the US homeland—cultivating America’s social and political turbulence as fertile ground for current and future exploitation. In the near term, these adversaries will likely prolong and exacerbate domestic ideological divisions and distrust, making it more difficult for the United States to enact policies, counter domestic threats, and allocate resources between competing priorities. In a worst-case scenario—were the United States ever to descend into the dark chasm of a second civil war—our adversaries could attempt to “enable a resistance movement or insurgency to coerce, disrupt, or overthrow [the United States] by operating through or with an underground, auxiliary, and guerrilla force.” In other words, they could conceivably empower and assist American citizens against their own government and institutions, right here on US soil. It is not impossible that our adversaries could carry out such operations with some degree of success and influence outcomes to their advantage. Those who refuse to believe in such a possibility have failed to heed some of the most glaring lessons in history.
In a “whole of government” approach to national security, there is room for military leadership to play an important role—not in terms of on-the-ground operations, but through expert guidance to inform the policies and strategies of domestic security bodies. The US defense enterprise has been carrying out irregular warfare operations overseas and countering such operations by our adversaries for over two decades, drawing on institutional knowledge gained during Vietnam and the Cold War. Although our strategic and operational successes are paralleled with clear-cut failures, there is no shortage of vital lessons learned. The US intelligence community, state and federal law enforcement, and key policymakers in Washington should take every opportunity to garner those lessons learned to better recognize and confront domestic security problem sets from the greatest position of advantage, approaching them through two separate but interrelated lines of effort: bridging the domestic divisions that make us vulnerable, and defending against adversaries’ attempts to exploit these vulnerabilities.
In examining how we can better protect our nation, its interests, and the American people, the United States must make a deliberate shift inward to assess domestic vulnerabilities from the perspective of those who can, and will, exploit them. Perhaps it is even more fitting, in this context, to borrow wisdom from the rich cultural and military history of one of those very adversaries, for as Sun Tzu reminds us: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.”
Wes J. Bryant is a retired master sergeant and former special operations joint terminal attack controller in the elite special warfare branch of the Air Force. He is coauthor of the book Hunting the Caliphate: America’s War on ISIS and the Dawn of the Strike Cell, a first-person account of the war on ISIS cowritten with Army Major General Dana J.H. Pittard. He holds a bachelor’s in Asian studies from the University of Maryland and is pursuing a dual master’s in business and professional studies through George Washington University. Wes is now an author and speaker with a focus on foreign policy, counterterrorism, extremism, and veterans’ issues, and is a business development professional in the defense and aerospace sector. He has held interviews on major news affiliates and podcasts and been published in Military Times, Task & Purpose, Politico, Insider, and Real Clear Defense. You can connect with him on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram at @wesjbryant or visit his site: wesjbryant.com.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.
Image credit: Elvert Barnes
The way in which great power competition would seem to be playing out today, this would seem to be much the same as the way that great power competition played out during the Old Cold War; this being with:
a. One side (the Soviets/the communists back then; the U.S./the West today) trying to transform the states and societies more along radically "modern" political, economic, social and value lines; herein, looking to use the more-liberal/the more-pro-change elements of the world's populations to achieve this goal. And
b. The other side (the U.S./the West back then; the Russians and the Chinese today) trying to "contain" this such activity; herein, trying to use the more-conservative/the more-no-change" elements of the world's populations to achieve this goal.
Note that — from the perspective that I provide above — such things as:
a. "Domestic vulnerabilities" (in the case of the Soviets/the communists back-in-the-day; in the case of the U.S./the West today), these become manifest (and thus become amazingly useful to one's opponents)
b. Only when one's own political, economic, social and value "change" agenda tends to anger, and/or to disenfranchise, the more-ensconced, and the more-conservative, elements of one's own — and the world's — populations.
In the case of the U.S./the West's such radical "change" agenda of late, consider the following observations:
"Liberal democratic societies have, in the past few decades, undergone a series of revolutionary changes in their social and political life, which are not to the taste of all their citizens. For many of those, who might be called social conservatives, Russia has become a more agreeable society, at least in principle, than those they live in. Communist Westerners used to speak of the Soviet Union as the pioneer society of a brighter future for all. Now, the rightwing nationalists of Europe and North America admire Russia and its leader for cleaving to the past."
(See "The American Interest" article "The Reality of Russian Soft Power" by John Lloyd and Daria Litinova.)
“Compounding it all, Russia’s dictator has achieved all of this while creating sympathy in elements of the Right that mirrors the sympathy the Soviet Union achieved in elements of the Left. In other words, Putin is expanding Russian power and influence while mounting a cultural critique that resonates with some American audiences, casting himself as a defender of Christian civilization against Islam and the godless, decadent West.”
(See the “National Review” item entitled: “How Russia Wins” by David French.)
You wrote: Over the last few years, Russia has worked to amplify US social and political divisions and undermine faith in our democratic institutions and economic system—primarily by proliferating disinformation campaigns.
ANSWER: Please explain what specifically Russia has done to undermine faith in our democratic institutions and economic system? And if a nation with a GDP smaller than Texas can say things that make Americans lose faith in their institutions then we have two alternatives: First, American democratic institutions and its economic system are on shaky ground and the termites have eaten away the frame work of those institutions or second, the American people don't have the ability to understand disinformation when they hear it. I personally have lost faith in an economic system where China has all of the industry and disciplined work force and creates 80% of all rare earth metals that go in warheads and medicines we need in America. Don't think Russia had anything to do with my loss of faith. Rather I read history.
You wrote: In the fall of 2020, the US intelligence community identified Russia as the perpetrator of the SolarWinds cyberattack against critical federal agencies and scores of commercial companies.
ANSWER: Although the Biden Administration wants to portray Russia as a threat who has the means and capability to hack Solar Winds, the truth is that China is probably the culprit. According to Reuters, 2 Feb, 21: WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Suspected Chinese hackers exploited a flaw in software made by SolarWinds Corp to help break into U.S. government computers last year, five people familiar with the matter told Reuters. There is absolutely no way to figure out who's electrons are responsible for this breach. In fact, the Chinese have many, many times the assets that Russia has with which to carry out such a hack. Since China has already perfected quantum communications and is working hard trying to perfect its quantum computing capabilities, I really don't understand how an informed citizenry or government could discount China as the culprit. What this hack really does is shed light on America's inability to properly secure its critical information.
One of the aspects which helped the Allies break the German codes during WWII, was the fact that German soldiers, sailors and airmen would not abide by the orders to only use a cipher once. Unfortunately, it seems that our ability to operate in a disciplined manner when it comes to safeguarding our information is extremely lacking.
You state: Most recently, in mid-February, intelligence officials briefed lawmakers that Russia, as well as other foreign actors such as Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and Lebanese Hizballah, had deliberately targeted the 2020 presidential election with disinformation campaigns intended to sway American political opinion.
ANSWER: I don't think that Russia or any other actor had as much to do with disinformation as did the MSM of the United States. Read the recent article and listen to the recording about a CNN director who was captured making statements to a "Project Veritas" member. Besides, didn't Obama try and sway Israeli elections? All nations have national security interests that make them favor one or the other candidate and each nation will engage in rhetoric, or what we might call disinformation, which they feel is going to be beneficial to their country. If our political leadership is unable to properly frame our situation and explain our situation to the American People and get Americans on board but Russia is somehow able to use words and ideas in a disinformation campaign, what does that tell you about our political leadership?
You State: In the Russia-China paradigm, they are out-maneuvering us on the battlefield of the US homeland.
ANSWER: Russia-China paradigm is a total construct of people who are not familiar with the history of Russia and China. Read about the Treaty of Peking. If China is so interested in getting what it calls its traditional territories back then there is going to be problems between Russia and China. One thing is for sure, Russians don't trust Chinese and Chinese don't trust Russians. A Putin, Xi alliance would be about on the order of the Hitler, Stalin alliance. They are both snakes and each is very aware of this fact. The big difference is China is a powerful snake and Russia a weak snake.
In my opinion, President Trump understood these facts and since he read Roman history he was very aware of the old Roman adage, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". He realized that working with a weak snake would be more beneficial than working with a strong snake as the strong snake has the ability to destroy you.
Rather than inflame the situation in the Ukraine, I believe it would be much more advantageous to understand that Crimea was taken as part of Russia before America existed and that virtually all peoples of the DonBass speak Russian and consider themselves Russian. I personally don't think the entire military might of the West could win a military conflict with China. If a US, China conflict were to arise, I believe the West would need India and Russia on their side as well. Russia and India, India in particular, are not happy about the manufactured virus that was released on the world, accidentally of course.
You state: In examining how we can better protect our nation, its interests, and the American people, the United States must make a deliberate shift inward to assess domestic vulnerabilities from the perspective of those who can, and will, exploit them.
ANSWER: I thoroughly agree with this statement. The biggest vulnerability that any sane military commander would have addressed in past decades is our open southern border. Read the book, "Germs" by Judith Miller, 2002, in which she explains, back then, how even non state actors have the ability to use recombinant technology to design bugs to do anything they want, and I mean anything. Just a few sleeper cells with recombinant anthrax for instance, because it isn't contagious, could really destroy America. Another vulnerability is the lack of an industrial base and disciplined work force to ensure economic prosperity without having to rely on ships or chips. We can't even build cars without the importation of semi conductor chips. Imagine if China decided to cut off medicine, plastic, metal and various other parts. GDP would cease to exist. We must remember that economic power is, in many regards, military power.
I will leave you with two of my favorite quotes; "Quantity has its own Quality" Joe Joe Stalin and “There is no greater danger than underestimating your opponent” Lao Tzu
You state: Most recently, in mid-February, intelligence officials briefed lawmakers that Russia, as well as other foreign actors such as Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and Lebanese Hizballah, had deliberately targeted the 2020 presidential election with disinformation campaigns intended to sway American political opinion.
ANSWER: Please watch this piece by Tucker Carlson, the only journalist in America not cowed by the collectivist left in America.
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6249025548001#sp=show-clips