Furture Shock

7 Deadly Scenarios

The world has always been a dangerous place, but the threats that national security strategist Andrew Krepinevich describes in his new book 7 Deadly Scenarios are truly daunting. Part of the problem is the asymmetrical nature of the threats—non-state actors, cyber war, terrorism—and another part is our own reluctance to address them seriously.

The future is a moving target—as the author acknowledges—but that's no excuse not to plan ahead. The goal is not to avoid future surprises like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 but to be prepared to "respond quickly and effectively" when surprised.

It was one thing that the military in the 1930s dismissed any possibility of an attack on Pearl Harbor. It was quite another that they failed to prepare for any potential Japanese aggression in the Pacific. As a result we very nearly lost the war before we got started.

In Europe, the French hunkered down behind their Maginot Line and prepared to re-fight World War I. The German high command, however, had moved beyond the static model of the previous war and embraced a strategy of blitzkrieg—or lightning war. The Maginot Line, built at great cost, proved irrelevant. France, of course, was woefully unprepared and fell within a matter of weeks in 1940. Unlike the U.S. after Pearl Harbor, there was no second chance for the French.

Let's hope that the Obama Administration, in its eagerness to rein in defense spending to pay for other initiatives, doesn't shortchange future security. The Maginot Line turned out to be a boondoggle. That doesn't mean the French overspent on defense. It means they bought the wrong things. More tanks might have helped forestall the German blitzkrieg.

And, it's not like there was no warning. The Germans staged elaborate exercises in which they honed their blitzkrieg strategy. Wishful thinking is not a useful tactic.

[Defense Secretary Robert Gates appears to be moving in the right direction. By all accounts, he's thinking about the nature of future threats and trying to align the military—personnel and weapons systems—to meet them. For more, see here: www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/03/17/gates_readies_big_cuts_in_weapons/ ]

A retired Army officer, defense consultant, and president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Krepinevich is worried that the nation isn't doing enough to "identify future threats to national security."

To remedy this situation, he proposes that the national security establishment engage in scenario-based planning in order to identify "credible new military challenges." Only then can we begin to develop the strategy to counter emerging threats.

Following his own advice, Krepinevich offers seven potential scenarios that would seriously threaten U.S. security. Some are unsurprising: e.g., the collapse of Pakistan or coordinated terrorist attacks on global economic infrastructure. Some are almost too frightening to ponder: e.g., terrorists detonating nuclear weapons in American cities or nuclear Armageddon in the Middle East.

Krepinevich only proposes and outlines these potential scenarios. He does not draw any conclusions about how we should prepare for them. His goal is to sound a warning that we are not doing enough to identify future threats. I think readers will agree that he succeeds. I know that I won't be sleeping as soundly.