Here are some excerpts from the new US Army manual entitled
Known Unknowns: Unconventional "Strategic Shocks" in Defense Strategy Development
It looks like the Army is bracing itself for a "black swan" event that would precipitate "strategic state collapse" and massive social unrest followed by martial law, and wondering how to keep its oath to the Constitution when faced by domestic insurgencies. This actually also jives a bit with a conversation I've been having with a friend in government which I'm working on distilling. I meant to get that out this weekend but it's been longer in the making than I thought. Soon, soon.
So in the meantime, if you've been wondering if all this "imminent social collapse/martial law" hoo-ha is real, here it is from the Army. Time to wake up folks.
This is found as a free PDF at
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/download.cfm?q=890
"...strategic state collapse may arrive via “Black Swan” with little or no strategic warning.
"
"In the collapsed strategic state, elements of the armed forces and security services may remain under coherent command and control and actively resist intervention. Dedicated agents of the prior unstable status quo are prone to fight—often violently—to protect or restore vestiges of the old order. Criminals and “pop-up militias” are likely to carve out new, defensible spheres of influence from pieces of the fallen state. Adjacent powers will rush in physically, politically, and/or materially to decisively influence outcomes. Long-repressed political constituencies will be prone to seek out former oppressors and exact vengeance. Local nationalists will resist foreign imposed or inspired solutions. Some internal constituencies will fight to rebalance political authority. Others will fight against that rebalancing. Finally, supercharged indigenous and expatriate constituencies may sow instability beyond the borders of the victim state. All of this will occur in an environment where the surety of nuclear or biological weapons is in question, critical strategic resources are at risk, and/or the core interests of adjacent states are threatened by spillover. Further still, this will all occur in a sea of abject human insecurity.
One of the most dangerous prospective contingencies in this regard might be collapse of a large capa-
ble state that results in a nuclear civil war. Uncontrolled proliferation in the event of a nuclear state’s collapse is an ever-present threat. However, here also DoD would have to contend with stabilization in the aftermath of nuclear use. It might be the lead agent in reassertion of responsible control over substantial nuclear weapons capabilities. Finally, it would likely be responsible for the armed separation of nuclear-armed opponents and the deliberate disarmament of the various parties to the conflict. All of this would occur under the constant threat of continued nuclear use within or outside the confines of the victim state.
Violent, Strategic Dislocation Inside the United States.
As a community, the defense establishment swears to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. DoD’s role in combating “domestic enemies” has never been thoughtfully examined. Thus, there is perhaps no greater source
32 of strategic shock for DoD than operationalizing that component of the oath of service in a widespread domestic emergency that entails rapid dissolution of public order in all or significant parts of the United States.
While likely not an immediate prospect, this is clearly a “Black Swan” that merits some visibility inside DoD and the Department of Homeland Security. To the extent events like this involve organized violence against local, state, and national authorities and exceed the capacity of the former two to restore public order and protect vulnerable populations, DoD would be required to fill the gap. This is largely uncharted strategic territory.
Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security. Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabilities, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of function-
ing political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock."
...
"Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance."
...
"...civilian authorities, on advice of the defense establishment, would need to rapidly determine the parameters defining the legitimate use of military force inside the United States."
...
"The United States might also consider the prospect that hostile state and/or nonstate actors might individually or in concert combine hybrid methods effectively to resist U.S. influence in a nonmilitary manner.
65 This is clearly an emerging trend. Imagine, for example, a China-Russia axis that collectively employs substantial political power within international institutions and markets to hold key American interests at risk. At the international level, actors like this might employ extant and emerging political/economic arrangements as instruments for purposeful resistance and war.
66"
...
"At the national and subnational level, purposeful opponents could synchronize nonmilitary effort, agitating quasi-legitimate proxies into concerted social action and precision political violence..."
...
"Imagine “a new era of containment with the United States as the nation to be contained” where the principal tools and methods of war involve everything but those associated with traditional military conflict.
68 Imagine that the sources of this “new era of containment” are widespread; predicated on nonmilitary forms of political, economic, and violent action; in the main, sustainable over time; and finally, largely invulnerable to effective reversal through traditional U.S. advantages."
...
...U.S. military forces would be sidelined. Employment of U.S. military power would hold little promise for reversing adverse political and economic conditions. Further, the overt use of military force by the United States would largely be viewed as illegitimate for redress of competitor success in nonmilitary domains. Finally, should the competition involve major competitors like China or Russia, U.S. military action might hazard unacceptable costs or unwanted and uncontrolled escalation.
69