The Only Thing Worse

The only thing worse than a nuclear terrorist attack on US soil may in fact be more likely.

Nuclear terrorism is one of the few issues that almost everyone can agree on – it really is a worst case scenario. A terrorist organization acquiring unsecure nuclear material from a nuclear state – or worse, purchasing nuclear technology off the nuclear black market – is the ultimate unthinkable tragedy and a very difficult enemy. Commensurate retaliation on the attackers would be impossible. The US might choose to retaliate against the nation that supplied the nuclear material or weapon; or against the nation hosting the terrorist organization, but such actions are ultimately ineffective at limiting a future threat.

Consider this scenario: al Qaeda acquires two loose nuclear weapons through sympathetic terrorist organizations in Russia. Al Qaeda then sends its operatives along with the weapons to the port in Los Angeles and to the Boston harbor. Even a dirty bomb (one that merely disperses nuclear material rather than creating a nuclear blast) could kill hundreds of people initially and thousands more from radiation poisoning. But the true terror is from the after effects.

Markets would crash, the port of LA would close – reducing US imports by 45 percent – the current administration’s security policies would be disparaged, and we would be forced to embark on even larger counterterrorism campaign. This is all, of course, in addition to the psychological effect on the American public, the heightened security measures by nations across the globe, and the looming question of whether or not there would be another attack.

But this scenario may, in fact, be a better than at least one alternative.

Imagine again that al Qaeda has acquired two nuclear weapons. It does not have confidence in its ability to bring the weapon on to US soil, so it follows a different path – it detonates one bomb in a remote region of Southern Afghanistan. Nuclear forensics across the globe detect the blast and confirm that it is a nuclear weapon. Relatively few people are thought to be affected, but three hours later a video is released on the internet showing a senior al Qaeda leader positioned next to the second nuclear device. “There are more.” He says. “And you will bow to our demands.”

What would the world do? Certainly the US publicly claims not to negotiate with terrorists, but its own history and that of its allies suggests that negotiating with terrorists may not be too far from the norm. For example, the British did it in Northern Ireland and (depending on semantics) the US did it in Iraq and during the Iran Contra affair, among others. It is true that these “terrorist” organizations were very different from al Qaeda, but the point is the same. And we know from Spain’s example in 2004 that terrorist threats and attacks can and do influence political decisions and the democratic process.

Could the US be forced to withdraw prematurely from Iraq or Afghanistan? Close its embassies in Muslim nations?

Depending on the demands, it may not be up to the US to decide whether or not to negotiate. If the demands were to immediately withdraw all troops from Pakistan or the bomb would be detonated in Islamabad, one can be nearly certain that the either the government or the population of Pakistan would quickly drive US forces out.

So where does that leave us? Not detonating a nuclear device is at least as easy as detonating one. And that means that this even-worse case scenario is more probable. A nuclear attack leaves the US with thousands of dead civilians, a terrified population, but an emboldened sense of determination. Being held at nuclear gun-point leaves the US and its allies mostly crippled – certainly privately, if not publicly –with a terrorist organization effectively dictating foreign policy and still with the possibility of a devastating nuclear attack.

In that situation, what could we do?

How Do You Ask a Man to Be the Last Man to Die In Afghanistan?

Senator John Kerry has posed this same question about Vietnam, and also later during his presidential campaign with regard to Iraq.  I believe that Kerry’s basic premise was how you can ask a man to be the last one to die for a mistake. Kerry’s characterization of his own war, Vietnam, or mine, Iraq, is all an argument for history. However, with the current operations in Afghanistan we have to ask ourselves this same question again.  How do you ask a man to be the last to die in a country where the government places no importance on their sacrifice?

President Obama has set what appears to be a clear agenda for the military strategy in Afghanistan. While visiting troops there recently the President attempted to lay out for the deployed soldier his assessment and plan as Commander-in-Chief. The President explained to the troops that direct changes as a result of their presence could be directly seen, and that there will be an increased focus on making progress in the civilian sector including anti-corruption and rule of law.

“All of these things end up resulting in an Afghanistan that is more prosperous and more secure”

But how can President Obama even envision such a plan given the Afghan government’s complete inability to lead, and what’s more, the hostile incompetence of its leader, Hamid Karzai?

Recently in a meeting with Afghan lawmakers, Karzai accused the United States of interfering with his country’s affairs, and surmised that this meddling would cause the Taliban to become a legitimate resistance movement.  Karzai did not stop there but went on to say that if the parliament did not back Karzai’s attempt to seize control of the country’s electoral watchdog from the United Nations, he would consider joining the Taliban.

This is the second round of anti-Western statements by Karzai in as many weeks.  More importantly this is just the latest in what has become a troublesome reign by Karzai. A reign which may lead to a failure of the U.S. effort in Afghanistan, whether military or civilian

The timeline begins with Karzai’s shadowy election in 2009 in which over one million votes cast in his favor were disqualified by Afghanistan’s Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC). This caused a runoff election which never took place because the second place candidate withdrew from the race.  Karzai now wants the authority to appoint all five members of the commission instead of including the three members previously appointed by the United Nations.  Karzai’s election is still associated with his government’s widespread corruption.  Instead of making any showing to the West that he is serious about stopping this corruption, Karzai instead chooses to seize control of one of the few checks on corruption within the country.  Luckily, Karzai’s meeting last week with lawmakers came about as a result of parliament’s rejection of his plan.  The lower house of parliament rejected Karzai’s attempt, almost unanimously.

The last year has also seen Karzai continue to reach out to traditional rivals and enemies of the United States to include Iran. This really just continues a pattern from Karzai beginning in earnest in 2007, when he described Iran as a “very close friend.” Karzai used this friendly characterization even as United States officials informed him that Iranian made weapons were flowing to Taliban fighters. There is no evidence that the Iranian government is behind the alleged shipments, but I think we’d have to look very hard to find the country with a more legitimate interest than Iran in flooding the Taliban with Iranian made weapons to use against U.S. troops.

Karzai hosted his friend Mahmud Ahmadinejad while Secretary of Defense Robert Gates visited Afghanistan, and then returned the favor by visiting with Ahmadinejad this past March. This is counter to President Obama’s diplomatic campaign to “isolate” Iran in the region. It leaves the foreign policy of the Obama administration and the reputation of the United States in a laughable position worldwide.

Karzai currently presides over a country where bribes are equal to a quarter of the GDP. According to recent United Nation’s statistics, 59% of the country’s citizens point to corruption as the greatest problem facing the country.  During 2009 Afghan citizens paid $2.5 million in bribes.  Almost half of those Afghans surveyed, 40% said that during recent contact with a government official they were asked for a bribe. This pervasive corruption makes any governance progress next to impossible.  But more than that, this corruption makes citizens lose their faith in the state and look for security elsewhere.  Karzai spoke just weeks after his election “victory” and promised to take steps against corruption.  However, almost five months later the Afghanistan government has yet to announce any strategy for dealing with corruption, nor has Karzai created any national entity or agency to address the problem.

The billions of dollars in Western aid and the 100,000 men and women waging war against the Taliban require that the government of Afghanistan do its part. It requires Karzai at least make a bumbling attempt at transparent and honest government.

But President Obama also has some decisions and changes to make of his own.  How long can the President legitimately ask his country to sacrifice some of its best and brightest for a man who could care less about their sacrifice?

This Karzai mess represents perhaps a larger problem with President Obama’s diplomatic course. The man whose corruption continues to leave his country in a state of disarray is rewarded with an additional 30,000 American lives. Meanwhile we turn a blind eye to his close relationship with our enemies.  But perhaps that is the consistent course; after all we’ve been just as hands off with Iran’s human rights violations as Afghanistan. It is not that this President has a problem articulating a foreign policy; he has a problem wielding the stick to enforce it.

Mr. Obama, friend or foe, what is the difference? How will you ask a man to be the last to die in Afghanistan?

photo: flickr/whitehouse

Military Ad Campaigns: Why the Marines Still Rule Madison Ave.

USMC Ad: The Few The Proud The Marines

As I’ve been driving along I-95, making my way north, I’ve taken notice of the great frequency of billboards advertising the United States Marine Corps. What struck me was not so much the content and veracity of these ads in particular but rather the incredible effectiveness of the Corps’ overall advertising campaign. Just a glance at those strong, composed young Marines in their dress blues makes one aspire to be one of them. That got me thinking, what about these ads makes them so effective?

1) Consistency. The Marine Corps’ message has remained pretty much the same for decades. The Few. The Proud. The Marines. This is their message, their mantra. They found something that works and stuck with it. The words are timeless. One can see their use here in a 1970s tv ad all the way through to the present day. Compare this to the Army’s ever changing slogans (Be All You Can Be, Army of ONE, Army Strong) or the Navy’s (Accelerate Your Life, Global Force for Good) or the Air Force’s (Aim High, Cross Into the Blue, Above All). None of the other services have found one that resonates nearly as well across the generations as The Few and The Proud.

2) Exclusivity. The Marines present themselves as a very exclusive club, quite accurately I might add. They are a (comparatively) small, elite group of warriors. This does well to excite the imaginations of their target demographic – young men – and proves a source of great inspiration to many. With ads like this they set themselves apart, as something great, something to strive for. The requirements for entry into the other services may be different from those of the Corps, but they are certainly no cake walk. It takes a great deal of effort, talent, and competitive edge to become an Air Force Pilot, or an Army Ranger, or a Navy Submariner. And yet these services are rarely associated with the word “elite,” at least not nearly to the same degree as the Corps. It stands to reason that they could incorporate more of that certain air of exclusivity that most of their present campaigns lack.

3) Mythology. More than any other service, the Marine Corps has embraced their own mythos. They have an enduring legacy, one that shines through in their traditions, their uniforms, the manner in which they conduct themselves. So too do the other services. But the Corps has been able to capitalize on this legacy, this mythology, to much greater effect. From the crucible to the silent drill team to the never ending line of warriors in dress blues, they know how to tell their own story in a way that awes and inspires. The other services have achieved this on occasion, I point to the Army’s recent Officer campaign as one example. But by and large their strategies have involved a hodgepodge of stories and messages, from “adventure on the high seas” to “help with college loans.” If there is one thing I would note it is that the services need to embrace their mythos, and make every effort to share it with the world. It is Service Members’ identification with that legacy, that sense of belonging to something great, that more than anything else inspires them to serve, and to continue to serve for years to come. College money may help, but they need to believe in it first.

4) Simplicity. The Marine commercials don’t say much. Because they don’t need to. The images say it all. One of the best Army commercials I ever saw was the premier of the new Army Strong campaign that was shown to a few of us Junior Officers back in 2006. It was epic. And not a single word was spoken. Sadly this version never appeared to make it to air, but was instead replaced by a variety of voice-overs. Effective? Sure. But not nearly as inspiring as that first commercial. Pictures are worth a thousand words. Actual words often just get in the way.

Secure Nation Welcomes New Editor Sean Wilkes

As I transition to the next chapter in my life, Sean Wilkes will be taking over the editorial duties at Secure Nation indefinitely.

Sean is a U.S. Army Captain who has just arrived at Harvard to study for a master’s degree in biology. He comes to us from the Pentagon where he worked as an Inspector General, overseeing the DoD Detainee Program. Prior to this he served as a Clinical Investigator deep in the jungle of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and as a Preventive Medicine Science Officer for the U.S. Army Public Health Command. He holds a B.A. in Neuroscience from Columbia University and an M.S. in Biosecurity and Biodefense from the University of Maryland.

I am deeply grateful for Sean’s willingness to keep this project alive and for his enthusiasm in making it an even better resource for the people who care about national security.

Please welcome Sean to the community and let him know what you would like to see from Secure Nation going forward! Connect with us on our Facebook page or email him here.

photo: jcolman

Should We Scrutinize the Security Implications of Immigration Reform?

The new Arizona immigration law has done nothing else, if not make a national statement.  While its constitutionality is being debated, it has certainly brought a recently forgotten about campaign topic of 2008, back into the limelight.

Behind the veil of a hotly debated domestic governance issue, there are actually national security implications at stake when it comes to immigration.  In the last 15 years, all major terrorist attacks conducted in the US and Western Europe, with the exception of Oklahoma City, have been conducted by migrants. Migrants in this case being illegal immigrants or visitors.

The hesitancy to revisit this hot topic, despite the weakened state of our nation, is concerning.  The President actually only reengaged the issue previous to Arizona passing its current law, giving his support to the Charles Schumer (D-NY) – Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Immigration Reform Bill of 2010 only after a threat of an anti-Obama protest at the White House.

Neither party is glad the debate is back.  Democrats are split between those in favor of labor unions and those in favor of minority issues.  Republicans are split between the guest workers provision and blanket deportation.  If there were any a time to put differences aside, make concessions and pass immigration reform, that time would be now.

With unemployment at all-time highs, it would be tough to oppose the bill by way of the labor shortage argument.  Last time I checked over 9% of the eligible working class in our country are still looking for jobs.  One can only hope that the attention that Arizona is bringing to this issue will expedite the process in Washington.

There are a few issues that have shaped the immigration reform debate in recent years.  The first is the question regarding the over 12 million illegal immigrants that reside in this country.  A reasonable person would understand that attempting to deport each and every illegal alien would be an exercise in futility.  The financial cost and human capital necessary are astronomical.

A second issue framing the debate is the subsequent enforcement of this reform, in the way of increased border patrol and sanctions against employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens.  Both of these enforcement components were passed through the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

This act, signed into law by President Reagan, also granted amnesty to immigrants entering the US prior to 1982 and residing here continuously as well as providing a pathway to citizenship for others who have been here illegally post 1982.  Congress is again debating both of these measures for the current reform.  For practical and ethical reasons, the pathway towards legalization is essential in any bill, new or old.  But why the inefficiencies?  Why re-do work that has already been done, instead of enforcing measures already in place?

The fact of the matter is, that we will not be able to realistically reduce the number of immigrants entering the US, legally or otherwise.  The only solution is more government and more scrutiny.  There will be some who will argue constitutionality and civil rights, such is the debate in Arizona, but if done with the proper oversight those complaints can be mitigated.  There is no other way.

Most Americans are unaware of the ways in which this issue of immigration affects them directly.  What they don’t realize is that our immigration policies can, and will, affect the path of our country from a labor and economic perspective, and determine how safe our borders truly are.

It’s no secret that thousands of immigrants enter the United States every year.  What’s alarming is the disregard given to exactly who these people are, their location, or how they spend their time here in America.  Is it naïve to assume each illegal immigrant or visitor has the United States and its citizens’ best interests in mind?

Keeping in mind our nation was formed by immigrants, it is so important to remain the country that drew to it those people who have made the United States the power it is today, and thus not entirely close our borders.  However, in this day and age, we need to make an outstanding effort to understand those people desirous of entering from another country.

The global and asymmetric wars that are being currently fought make us much more vulnerable here at home than we would like to think.  It is naïve to reason that a loosely patrolled border and more loosely enforced laws are not a threat to our security.

photo: flickr/threadedthoughts

Money Talks: Deconstructing Militant Terrorism in Somalia

While a lot of attention is focused on Yemen as the next major center for Islamic terrorism, a disturbing trend is continuing in Somalia.  As the country continues to suffer from lack of a central government to provide for its people, militant Islam is gaining a progressively stronger foothold.  Two stories this week provide evidence that both Al Shabab and Hizbul Islam (the two major Islamist groups in Somalia) are starting to significantly affect the social landscape of the country, as well as easily recruit young people into their ranks.

A New York Times Article reported that Hizbul Islam ordered radio stations in the capital of Mogadishu to stop playing music because it is “un-Islamic.”  The terrorist group threatened radio stations with consequences if they did not comply with the order.  The article goes on to point out that this is just one in a series of attacks aimed at the media in Somalia.  Al Shabab has denounced some broadcasts at Western propaganda, and reports say that nine journalists were killed in Somalia in 2009.

It was also reported that Al Shabab is recruiting young Somalis into the group by offering them regularly salaries and what amounts to “signing bonuses” of up to $400.  The Somali youth are tempted by the money because their families are desperate need of it to buy food.  The story tells about former recruits that joined up with Al Shabab not because of any ideology, but because the militant groups are one of the few ways that a person can provide for their family.

Despite the benefit that they provide, reports from Somalia seem to suggest that Al Shabab and Hizbul Islam’s popularity is in decline.  The argument could be made that these groups will simply go away eventually if the population does not embrace them.  That may very well be true.  Without the support of the Somali people it will be extremely difficult for the Islamists to gain control of the country; however, the fact remains that Somalia is a country with essentially no central government and that makes the country a prime target to become a  major terrorist hub.  Without a government to provide for the people of Somalia those people will do what they have to in order to survive, even if they have to turn to militant groups that they may dislike.  The influence of militant groups in Somalia will remain high as long as they are the central source of obtaining money and other essentials.

photo: securitywatch/flickr

The AfPak Madrassa Threat: What Are We to Believe?

Islamic religious schools, or “madrassas,” have garnered special attention in recent years because they have proliferated rapidly and are thought to be the cultivators of Islamic religious extremists responsible for terrorist attacks.  Steve Coll writes in Ghost Wars that “in 1971 there had been only 900 madrassas in Pakistan, by the summer of 1988 there were about 8,000 official religious schools and an estimated 25,000 unregistered ones.”  Others, such as P.W. Singer, have suggested that there may be as many as 45,000 madrassas in the region.

Madrassas have also provoked concern in the West because of the narrative being told here.  The narrative begins in the 1980’s when the military commander turned President of Pakistan, General Zia-ul-huq, gave madrassas money and land.  This support was given in concert with anti-Soviet US aid money and Saudi support that together provided the foundation for the force that eventually vanquished the USSR from Afghanistan.  According to the narrative, the Mujahedeen continued to use the madrassas after the Soviets departed.  Then, the narrative suggests, madrassas became the best alternative for poor families with limited options.  Out of desperation, the story goes, the sons of poor families attend madrassas where they are turned into religious fighters and Islamic extremists.  From this point of view, the logical method of fighting extremism is to counter the proliferation of Madrassas by offering scholastic alternatives.

Greg Mortenson, a mountain climber turned activist, and the author of the best selling book Three Cups of Tea, has done just that.  He founded the Central Asia Institute (CAI), which has built nearly 150 schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Mortenson builds schools in the most difficult to reach regions of the two countries – his goal is to illustrate that if an NGO such as the CAI can build schools in the hard to reach parts of AfPak, then others should be able to build them everywhere else.

Mortenson also specifically strives to educate girls and young women (girls still only make up just 30% of the total student population in Pakistan).  He quotes the African proverb: “If you teach a boy, you educate an individual; but if you teach a girl, you educate a community.” This is critical to battling extremism because, according to Mortenson, “a person who has been manipulated into believing in extremist violence or terrorism often seeks the permission of his mother before he may join a militant jihad – and educated women, as a rule, tend to withhold their blessing for such things.”  Mortenson’s assertion is that education will act as a counter to the growth of extreme Islamic militancy.

The western narrative that leads to this conclusion, however, is somewhat skewed.  To begin with, there may not be as much difference between public school students and madrassa students as it indicates.  According to Christine Fair (formerly of the Rand Corporation) a survey of 141 martyrs (based on posthumous family interviews) indicates that the only thing truly remarkable about the profile of extremists is that they generally have more money and more education than average citizens of the region.  And, according to the survey, only 4% of the martyrs referred to in the survey had attended a madrassa as a full time student.  This suggests that some families who enroll their children in madrassas have other options – and that extremists find their way to militancy by way of various paths.

Additionally, consider the survey conducted by Peter Bergen and Swati Pandey in 2005.  Of the 75 terrorists they interviewed, a majority of them were college educated, and only 9 had attended a madrassa.  Bergen and Pandey also found that madrassa students lacked sophistication:

While madrassas may breed fundamentalists who have learned to recite the Koran in Arabic by rote, such schools do not teach the technical or linguistic skills necessary to be an effective terrorist.  There is little or no evidence that madrassas produce terrorists capable of attacking the West.

This lack of sophistication doesn’t mean that madrassas produce extremists incapable of participating in local or regional fighting, and madrassas promote militancy in other ways – recruiting, for example – but it does indicate that providing alternatives to religious schools as a means to reduce extremism should be just one tactic in a larger strategy.  It cannot become the focus of our effort – as Nicholas Kristof suggests – at the expense of a well-rounded approach.  Rather, it must be just one part of how we make terrorism unprofitable and unattractive.  It would be easy – too easy – if the way to defeat Islamic extremism were simply to build secular schools faster than the enemy could build madrassas.  As we have found in the wars of the last decade time and again – our foe is crafty and complex, and we must attempt to understand him without presumption.  It is only when we shed our own logic and expectation – and see the fight through his eyes – that we will find successful solutions.

Finally, despite what I’ve written here, I believe that Greg Mortenson’s work remains vital. If we truly believe that success in Pakistan and Afghanistan is critical to our national security, then we must recognize that madrassas are not a singular villainous threat, nor are they benign or insignificant.  At a minimum they contribute to the narrow worldview that permits and perpetuates extremism.  Extremists can only thrive in a society that lacks the organization, resources and the will to oppose them.  Raising the general level of education in the AfPak region won’t happen overnight; certainly not by the stated US draw down date of July 2011.  But if we have, as I have suggested above, shed our logic and expectation to see the fight through our enemy’s eyes – we will recognize that societal education is critical to many other facets of our effort; state building, institutional capacity, fighting corruption – and that it is these efforts and not our specific tactical victories that will, eventually, bring about the national security we seek.

Photo by phil_p

Link Up with the Secure Nation Page on Facebook

We’ve added a Secure Nation page on Facebook to make it easier for our readers to subscribe to posts, interact with the Secure Nation writers, and connect with other like-minded individuals within the community. One click and you’re good to go.

A Response to Tom Ricks: My Definition of Chaos

Tom Ricks’ article on chaos construes chaos as an unfamiliar, complex system, which, with experience, can be mastered over time; chaos as extreme kayaking from my interpretation.  From Ricks’ writing, I infer his definition of chaos to be the third option given by Merriam-Webster’s dictionary: “a state of utter confusion.”  But, as one who has experienced the fog of war, I submit that the second option given by Merriam-Webster,“a state of things in which chance is supreme,” is more relevant and meaningful to veterans, those who made it back.

I used to sit in my bunk at night in Baghdad and imagine that I was on top of one of the many mortar shells the insurgents fired at us, riding it at its highest point before it arced over.  Beneath me, blissfully unaware, camouflaged soldiers and Iraqis mingled in a delightfully unpredictable way, spread out in random patterns that defied symmetry or order.

Maybe a random gust of wind would push me a little left or a little right, push me away from a cluster of boys playing soccer in a dirty field.  Maybe a truck would pull forward, clearing a path for hot shrapnel to tear into the line of men waiting to pick up their benzene.  Maybe a little girl would decide that she wanted to run out into the street and wave to the friendly Americans.  Maybe one of the guys inside the armored vehicle would decide he wanted to stretch his legs, open the door, and step outside.

Boom.

Chaos, the kind I know, has little to do with a traffic jam in Calcutta or whitewater rapids.  There is chance in those systems, but, as Ricks notes, it does not reign supreme.  In warfare, chance does reign supreme.

We tilt the deck in our favor.  We shoot better.  We have better armor.  We communicate better than our foe.

We bring order to the variables we can.  But we only hold a few of the cards.  We can’t always control where or how we enter the rapids, nor even tell where the rapids are.

War is not perfect chaos, for we have a little control.  But it is damn close.  The little girl I mentioned before is real.

Why her?  I’ve asked God that a million times.  Or the men who did not come back – I will refrain from using their names to respect their dignity… it seemed to me that God usually took the good ones.

He took some of the bravest, most decent men I have ever met.  Because they happened to pick the left side of the truck and not the right.  Because they volunteered to stand a watch before it was their turn.  Because – well, there really isn’t any because.

I don’t know anything about Napoleon’s mind.  Or any of those who planned strategy in Great Halls of power.  I do know that those who are able to master their fear of that terrible unpredictability, who are able to accept that they are dead before they enter battle, are able to operate with greater alacrity and navigate the rapids.

But the fact that some of us were able to survive longer does not delay the inevitable.  Bullets fired by children kill just as surely as the bullets fired by my elite snipers.  There is more predictability, less chaos if you will in my snipers rounds.  But, if you roll the dice enough, my kind of chaos again, you will find that you can get the real definition of Chaos from its source.

The Military as an Innovation Source: Combining Cutting-Edge Technology with Local Knowledge

Innovation involves utilizing existing or new technology in previously unknown ways.  Assuming this requires both physical technology and the local application of that technology, militaries can be major domestic sources of innovation by possessing local knowledge along with the funding and technology needed for massive R&D efforts; this can best be realized by partnering with large-scale organizations such as universities.

Militaries often possess a significant amount of cutting-edge technology in transportation, telecommunications, arms, and other infrastructure.  Soldiers are trained to use such technology and often have a high amount of human capital in many fields.  Militaries are also uniquely positioned for partnerships with other well-resourced organizations such as multinational organizations and major foreign militaries; this provides an avenue for direct technology transfer and associated high-tech training and support.  Further, soldiers operate in risky environments that force them to innovate by using all available means to accomplish their goal when surprises arise, as they often do during battles and training.  Thus, soldiers experience unique circumstances in new locations while using fairly advanced technology, which demands critical brainstorming to innovate on a regular basis.

Militaries often have large amounts of personnel.  If they were conducting socioeconomic development activities as outlined in my previous post, or if they had numerous bases around the nation, soldiers will probably be dispersed throughout the country.  They have the transportation/mobilization capabilities and the security training to operate virtually anywhere in the country.  Further, assuming they are somewhat representative, militaries contain citizens from throughout the countryside with experience from a variety of different local conditions.  Therefore, although militaries are a large-scale organization, they tend to possess a significant amount of local knowledge as well.

Large-scale organizations, as measured by money available and by ability to possess or work with cutting-edge technology, are a main source of building on existing technology, possessing the scale and the fixed capital necessary.  Such large-scale organizations include large firms, think tanks, and universities.  This blog will observe universities in particular, but similar ideas are applicable to other large-scale organizations.  Universities are some of the biggest sources of innovation due to a steady source of skilled, diverse, and often entrepreneurial manpower (students) to brainstorm and experiment on developing new technologies, knowledge of current cutting-edge technologies and how they work, and much funding available specifically meant for R&D.

Local knowledge applies cutting-edge technologies to make them locally useful.  Militaries do not have a comparative advantage in focusing many efforts towards R&D—they need to train for security first and foremost.  However, militaries can join universities in a mutually beneficial partnership to produce relevant cutting-edge technologies and spread them out to adapt them to specific environments.  Militaries can be a large source of R&D funding in universities; for example, the U.S. military is one of the biggest funders of R&D at MIT.  Also, although universities already have some level of local knowledge from their diverse student body, it may be beneficial for some soldiers to join in R&D efforts to offer their experiences throughout the country while using the technology in risky environments; this will add to local knowledge and provide ideas for innovation.  Further, although students may not able to implement this technology throughout the countryside, militaries often possess the manpower and capabilities to do so in unique ways.

To ensure this innovation is utilized in ways that maximize development, rather than keeping it solely for their own benefit, militaries should be encouraged to share this technology with civilians in the countryside and offer them training.  One way to achieve this is through a new socioeconomic mandate for the military.  Another indirect means of achieving this is by offering incentives for turnover of soldiers into civilians to maximize the amount of civilians with high-tech training.  This should be combined with efforts by universities to market and promote the new technology to the private sector.

Much of the R&D efforts will be tailored towards technology that may be only useful for the military; for example, it is not clear that innovations in arms, heavy machinery, and other battle-related technology directly contribute to development.  However, aspects of these products will likely advance technology in other areas that will only be recognized based on pre-existent local knowledge and a knowledge of current cutting-edge technology in other areas.  Certain radar systems in helicopters may be applicable to new innovations in telecommunications in certain locations, for example.  Further, if militaries had a socioeconomic mission complementary to their traditional security mission, they will be much more likely to fund R&D that also focuses on socioeconomic-related technology.