Student Type
Graduate
University
Old Dominion University
Country
United States
Document Type
Conference Paper
Description/Abstract
The United States Army claims they are a “force out of position” and must transform for large-scale combat operations (LSCO). The current narrative toward LSCO warfighting comes at the expense of lessons hard-won over decades of small wars and stability operations. The focus on LSCO is an oversimplification of the complexity and ambiguity of the future operating environment. The Army is trading clarity of narrative at the expense of a force balanced for both LSCO and non-LSCO operations. LSCO perspective assumes a worst-case scenario of war over more likely scenarios of continuous disruptions across a spectrum of conflict, which may include proxies, hybrid warfare, and gray-zone aggression. These ambiguous forms of non-LSCO conflict are most likely to be prevalent amongst the nuclear armed-great powers that current security documents highlight as the most dangerous to western liberal interests. To get ahead of this eventuality while there is still time to program and develop, the Army must consider how to conduct multinational stability operations with its allies and partners, including the employment of stability police. By examining policy, strategic, operational, and tactical considerations, this paper examines four discrete options for stability policing, including a civilian standby police force, cross-training combat forces in stability policing, a Security Force Assistance Brigade-like stability police force, and a National Guard gendarmerie-type construct. After a review of the background, analysis, and synthesis of relevant information, a new understanding is developed that can guide campaigns of learning amongst subject matter experts around the world. Through the evaluation of seven weighted criteria, the National Guard “State Stability Forces” are recommended to replace several National Guard Brigade Combat Teams. In doing so, states gain a capability more aligned with their Title 32 missions. The U.S. Army gains a competition capability, a crisis-response shaper, and a conflict enabler.
Disciplines
International Relations | Military and Veterans Studies | Other International and Area Studies | Peace and Conflict Studies
DOI
10.25776/8shp-3d21
Session Title
Security in a World of Uncertainty
Location
Webb Center, Isle of Wight Room
Start Date
2-10-2023 1:30 PM
End Date
2-10-2023 2:30 PM
Upload File
wf_yes
Included in
International Relations Commons, Military and Veterans Studies Commons, Other International and Area Studies Commons, Peace and Conflict Studies Commons
Choices for U.S. Contributions to NATO: Stability Policing in the Age of Multi-Domain Operations
Webb Center, Isle of Wight Room
The United States Army claims they are a “force out of position” and must transform for large-scale combat operations (LSCO). The current narrative toward LSCO warfighting comes at the expense of lessons hard-won over decades of small wars and stability operations. The focus on LSCO is an oversimplification of the complexity and ambiguity of the future operating environment. The Army is trading clarity of narrative at the expense of a force balanced for both LSCO and non-LSCO operations. LSCO perspective assumes a worst-case scenario of war over more likely scenarios of continuous disruptions across a spectrum of conflict, which may include proxies, hybrid warfare, and gray-zone aggression. These ambiguous forms of non-LSCO conflict are most likely to be prevalent amongst the nuclear armed-great powers that current security documents highlight as the most dangerous to western liberal interests. To get ahead of this eventuality while there is still time to program and develop, the Army must consider how to conduct multinational stability operations with its allies and partners, including the employment of stability police. By examining policy, strategic, operational, and tactical considerations, this paper examines four discrete options for stability policing, including a civilian standby police force, cross-training combat forces in stability policing, a Security Force Assistance Brigade-like stability police force, and a National Guard gendarmerie-type construct. After a review of the background, analysis, and synthesis of relevant information, a new understanding is developed that can guide campaigns of learning amongst subject matter experts around the world. Through the evaluation of seven weighted criteria, the National Guard “State Stability Forces” are recommended to replace several National Guard Brigade Combat Teams. In doing so, states gain a capability more aligned with their Title 32 missions. The U.S. Army gains a competition capability, a crisis-response shaper, and a conflict enabler.