The Americans is more profitable to pay millions of dollars to the captain of the enemy than to fight against him. Little? Will give 100 million! Still it would be cheaper than to sacrifice the lives of their soldiers and expensive military equipment.
What is happening in recent years in different countries: Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, some call a breakthrough to democracy, the other is "orange" scenarios in the West. And among military experts, to talk about network-centric wars. This concept was born in the United States and for two decades successfully used by the Americans. Specific methods for conducting "quiet war" the "Results" said Igor Popov, the Colonel, the participant of military operations in Ethiopia (1977-1978) and Afghanistan (1985), candidate of historical Sciences.
— Igor Mikhailovich, explain how you, the professional Russian soldier, was aware of how the American military machine?
— In the mid 90-ies I was trained at the University of national defense — the most authoritative higher military educational institution of the country. It is a common practice, because in modern life there are many situations in which the military of different countries view each other not as potential enemies but as partners in solving common tasks. Say, counter terrorism is a global problem, to cope with which is possible only through joint efforts at the international level. For these purposes interact and military agencies of different countries, the emergencies Ministry and the interior Ministry: our military personnel study in the United States, other NATO countries, their officers in our military schools.
Just at that period began the heyday of military thought in the U.S., there are new interesting concepts and ideas. Remember, for example, a lecture by Admiral William Owens, who served in those years as Vice Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff — actually the second person in the American military hierarchy. He talked about UAVs at the tactical level — small, about the size of a children's toy airplane, which in the future were to enter the service of each soldier. "Toy" was launched, and she's flying on a given route in the direction of the enemy, trying to spot what's going on behind that rock that is covered at the height of what was happening in the yard of that house. And the soldier sits in a secluded place, and all it sees on the screen of your portable computer. He didn't need to think much where hid the enemy, what are his intentions and what he's doing at that moment. This was the basis of the fact that in a few years took shape in the concept of network-centric warfare.
— What is meant by "network-centric"? Surely The Internet?
— The term "network-centric" is not directly related to the worldwide web. The authors of this concept are considered to be Vice Admiral Arthur Cebrowski and Professor John John J. garstka, who in 1998 published an article "network-Centric warfare: its origin and future", which became a kind of war Manifesto of a new era.
This term became by opposition to traditional views on military force, which can be described as platform-centric. "Platform" is something (tank, gun, airplane, ship, etc.) or someone (soldier, officer, action). But in modern combat victory does not necessarily wins the one with more "platforms", but someone who can quickly and efficiently use them in the right place at the right time and in the right way. So all these "platforms" are combined into a single network, or more precisely, network — control, intelligence, navigation, fire, logistics, etc. of Information and computer network is a highly reliable, secure and agile — like covers on top. Each on the screen of your combat computer sees what he expected: about what is happening in Afghanistan not to know for those who is currently in Ecuador or the jungles of Southeast Asia. And that's when you can, if necessary, in the shortest possible time to gather in one area a strong fist of his troops, to inflict a lightning strike... and all run in different directions. To new combat challenges. So the situation has developed in Yugoslavia, in Iraq in 2003. So there was a war in Libya.
This is network-centric warfare, or, more precisely, the application of network-centric technologies in the organization and conduct of hostilities. It's all amorphous, vague and not at all like the traditional military system, where everything is painted to the last button: the company is definitely three platoon order of battle — in the line of the ledge to the left or right, etc. Instead of them — "battle pack". Heavy attack drones, in service with the U.S. air force, takes off from a base somewhere in the middle East are managed from the territory of the United States, and perform combat missions in Iraq or Afghanistan. The pilot sits in a comfortable chair in front of a computer screen with a Cup of coffee and a joystick controls the drone thousands of miles away. And here is the goal. The press of the button and the rocket flies into the lair of terrorists. And at 18.00 the pilot goes home, quiet dinner with the family — his working day is over. Neither threats of death nor of the hardships and privations of military reality. The feeling of absolute security and impunity. It's a different level of mentality, a different angle of perception of the war. Military action turn into a computer game on the principle: "I see you, and you won't see me".
— They already see everything that happens anywhere on the planet?
— Finally, this is not yet implemented, but much has already been done. For these purposes, the US war Department creates global information network Global Information Grid — kind of lattice of satellites in earth orbit that monitor and control the entire globe. This is the basis of the information and communication space wars of the future, which will operate the U.S. armed forces and their allies. It is planned that the project will be fully completed by 2020. And then the entire globe will be under total control.
— Technology of star wars in action?
Network — centric war is not an exclusively technical concept. To strike with precision weapons — not the most difficult task. Much more difficult is to know what pain points need to strike. In the theory of network-centric wars, there is a corresponding notion of — system priorities objectives, based on the concept of "five rings", which justified Colonel in the U.S. air force John warden. The basis of this concept is a systematic approach to the assessment of a victim state, that is the enemy. These goals are represented in a structure of five radial rings as a target in the shooting range. "Apple" is the political leadership of the country. There you have to aim and hit! Recall the aggression of NATO against Yugoslavia in 1999, the tragic events in Iraq and Libya — the scheme is the same everywhere. The main objective is the leader of a victim state, which must be destroyed. The destruction, by the way, not necessarily physical. It can be moral or psychological. There are lots of technologies, mainly information: the attempt to destroy the leader of the moral force to voluntarily renounce power, to flee the country. We remember: accusations of bloodthirsty, brutal repression, murder of political opposition and protests by local tribes, etc. If the same leader, like Gaddafi, has very great weight in his country and it is hard to discredit, attempted physical destruction. And, by the way, not necessarily with their hands. Remember, Saddam Hussein the Americans have arrested and executed, but Muammar Gaddafi by his own countrymen torn to shreds.
Further according to the concept of "five rings" is an industrial and energy base, such as a power network of a big city. If the temperature outside is minus 40 degrees it is to disable, will only impose its will on the loser, who will meet the enemy with bread and salt. And only the last place among the priorities of the objectives, the armed forces. Surprised? To fight with the armed forces of the country are victims, if to be guided by the concept of Colonel worden, no one will. You need to put the whole country or region, if not on his knees, in a subservient and controlled position. Ensure that whatever you need, they have made themselves: and the administration has created, and the police formed — all, however, in the interests of the aggressor country. This, incidentally, is obtained almost automatically, as if worked the first four levels of objectives, the more "organically" the revolution erupts within the doomed state. In parallel to work with residents at all stages of the start network revolution on blogs and Facebook. This is a purely social technology.
Who would the military experts two years ago said that the entire Arab world — Islamic civilization — can zaburlit? A whole series of "color revolutions", and then revolutions in the Arab world is seen by the powerful performances of the masses against the totalitarian and bloody regimes in these countries. Actually we are talking about using network technologies to solve political problems in relation to all covered by the revolutions of States. . These technologies are continuously tried in different countries and become more sophisticated.
Now in Syria are the same processes. Around the country have already established such a foreign policy, military-political, psychological, moral atmosphere, I'm not talking about economic sanctions, what is its current political leadership just has no room to manoeuvre. Scenarios of the coming to power of the opposition forces within States-the victims worked to perfection.
— What about an army that by definition is created to protect the existing regime?
— We take the war in Iraq 2003. Then many military experts wondered: what happens? It proposes a Iraqi tank division, ready to fight against the invading Americans and their allies, and to fight-not with anyone — American troops had to go somewhere. Troops of the elite Republican guard of Saddam Hussein promoted to positions around Baghdad with the slogan: "Turn Baghdad to the Iraqi Stalingrad!" but it soon turns out that they are not on the positions put forward, shoot and then quickly diverge. What's the matter? Yes all is very simple: the commanders of the Iraqi army the Americans elementary bought. The ancient principle! In fairness it should be said that we in due time in Afghanistan was done the same way: the contractual relationship with the local tribes, militias and opposition groups has helped to save many lives of our soldiers. Here and in Iraq the same thing happened: Saddam Hussein and his own passed. All heads of power structures at the critical moment turned out to be bought. Americans aren't hiding they say that it is more profitable to pay millions of dollars to the captain of the enemy than to fight against him. Little? Give 10! Give 100 million! Still it would be cheaper than to sacrifice the lives of their soldiers and modern military equipment.
In this context, network-centric warfare is not so much technical, how many philosophical-mental concept. Readiness for such a war is not determined by ones material factors and the state of minds of military leaders, commanders and generals, their ability to beat the enemy, or, as they say in the American papers, to turn the decision-making process of the enemy in a favorable direction. The basis of this idea was based on the concept developed by a retired Colonel of the U.S. air force John Boyd. He proposed a universal formula for success in aerial combat, which is now in the military literature as the "OODA loop": Observe — Orient — Decide — Act. That is, "Observe — Orient — Decide — Act." Over time, Boyd came to the realization that this formula works well not only in aerial combat but also in the military sphere in General: if we interfere in the process of fighting the enemy, breaking them, then he is completely disoriented. The next operation will plunge the enemy into more chaos. A new look at the reality of war, modern and future era.
— How remains a war by whatever name?
— They say: milk war, gas war, the war of compromising materials. What is war, if military violence is not? Don't shoot! Bullets not fly! On the other hand, the "color revolutions" accompanied by internal unrest, robbery, use of force by the army and police. All signs of classic civil wars. So all these "color revolutions" — all the same war?
The answer is simple — war change over centuries: first for the mammoth to eat it, then for gold and slaves, for territory, for resources. Now for the consciousness of the people, for the full mental and psychological subjugation of the people. In order to take other people's land or wealth, military violence necessarily. But in order to change the minds of people, not necessarily to beat them, and the more it makes no sense to kill. When we realize this, it becomes clear that the war can not always perceived as acts of war. And the very concept of war changes dramatically. The continuation of the policy? Yes. Violent means? It is not a fact. What kind of violence can be discussed if the people and government of the country-the victim voluntarily will do as the initiator of hostilities? Information technologies, techniques and methods of information warfare allow the operator to control huge masses of people to, say, voluntarily give their resources. In addition to information technology there are a lot of absolutely peaceful political, psychological, financial and economic levers, for example, monetary funds and banks, loans and credits, economic blockade, defaults, etc., etc. Acting on network-centric principles, all these non-military levers are, however, serious weapon in the war of the new era. How to hold in the mind of a military man who taught and continue to teach that war is lined up in order of battle, with a cry of "Hooray" went on the attack and captured the enemy trench? As we now say: no, guys, the war is different, the obvious opponent. The classics of the soldier, the so-called combatant must be military uniforms, insignia, weapons in hand. Then it can be captured, and his rights will be protected by the relevant international conventions. So how can you call a female terrorist with explosives belt under her dress? And the peace of the peasant or the trader, under cover of night, setting land mines on a busy highway? Where do one draw the line between war and peace? No. We think now at peace live. But maybe we are wrong? In the US considerable flexibility include the concept of "war" and not getting stuck in terminological subtleties, actively develop new approaches and in military theory and practice of military operations in the middle East.
— Is it difficult to learn to think as flexibly?
— Here is an example from my own experience. Training sessions together with American colleagues, we comprehensively analyzed the different military-political situations. For example, talking about the Cuban missile crisis, in which our opinions are diametrically opposed. I cite their arguments, they own. I see that they are clearly wrong, because just juggling words. And happily think: "Well I'm going to get this all put into place!" "What do you understand under the concept of military operation?" — I ask. And in response to hear something entirely different field. "Wait — I interrupted, — after all there is a clear definition!" And one of the Americans I respond: "That's what you think, and I'm now in this concept is put here such a concrete sense, and in a minute it could be different". I was taken aback. "Why," I said, " we are going to talk about?" They smile. "Very," they say, " you, Igor, rigid thinking, and we have flexible: can and a meaning to attach, and such, why argue about the terms? Let's solve the problem, and not to dot the "i" in verbal duels". By the way, they even military codes and manuals necessarily contain a Glossary. And in this Glossary, each term is given a certain interpretation. Take another document, and there may be another interpretation of the same term. What you want, and do. But if we are going to take their American colleagues as equals in the international arena, we need to learn to be more flexible in this sense. For Americans, the terminological sense of the word is irrelevant — once fired, this means war. Whatever you call it, the essence of what happened will not change. But there is more room to manoeuvre, including the political.
— How much flexibility is generally characteristic of the military modern USA?
As you may have heard of DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) — the Agency defense advanced research projects responsible for the development of new technologies for use in the armed forces. Americans created it in response to the launching in 1957 of our satellite. The Soviet breakthrough in space cast them then in a state of shock. However, they instantly realized that something had to do, to prevent the superiority of the USSR in space, and moved quickly to establish the appropriate structure. By the way, we still want to organize something like that, and our President set the task to the Minister of defence in 2010. At the beginning of this year, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin has announced that the idea of creating a national structure, such as DARPA, has already begun to be implemented practically. Will it be formed? Of course — Yes. But whether this idea is implemented the way it should? Probably not. Let me explain why. DARPA is an open organization, which attracts ideas from all sides. And we have all kept secret and closed, and everywhere the officer decides what is right and what is wrong, what and how to do it. Looks like it will be created some sort of regular structure, which will be just to simulate activity and master budget. "Classified" — the ideal form of concealment of professional incompetence, and sometimes, outright stupidity chiefs and officials. The American DARPA is a structure, which contains unconventional thinking people, capable of looking beyond the horizon into tomorrow or even the day after. Of course, there is a secret development. This is normal. However, the search for new ideas cannot do "under the covers". He goes everywhere where only it is possible. Imagine DARPA even among schoolchildren holding competitions to create war machines of the future! Because the solution of complex problems is often based on quite simple, "childish" ideas. For example, Americans are faced with the fact that the roads in Afghanistan and Iraq has happened a lot of explosions. Military version Hummer — the car seems reliable, with a good book. But a land mine or a mine laid on the road, brings it down. How to protect the crew? Those who watched an old French movie "Fantomas", remember that the car of the villain-hero, if necessary, abruptly soared into the sky, and Commissioner Juve forever remain with the nose. Here in DARPA and ordered a machine with a capacity of four people, which moves along the road like a normal car, and where mine begins the place takes off like a helicopter using rotor setting.
— Can our military research Institute to work in the style of DARPA?
— There are a lot of problems. Very large linked to the planning and development of the military-industrial complex and the real needs of the troops. Question: do we need our Armed forces one ultra-modern ship or plane, which has no analogues in the world? Or five of these planes? What are we going to do? Who ever said that we will fight the most modern armies in the world? But if less modern, have not five but a hundred of conventional aircraft, but United in a network? They still deal with our top five. And if we are the "battle pack" not mercenaries, not terrorists? What supersaturate to chase after them?
Around the traditional approach to arms has developed a system of organization of orders, the financing system and the General system of views, what exactly and for what types of wars need to purchase. How to change the whole system, realizing that for a new kind of war can be quite a hundred million dollars in cash to bribe the commanders of the enemy? The tragic events in South Ossetia in 2008 have clearly shown that the presence of Georgian tanks satellite navigation GPS gave them a significant advantage over our more sophisticated battle machines, which, however, was built in the area. What does it do? Let we have a strong tank grouping, and we brought our supertankov in the open field — we'll fight. And the enemy that uses network-centric warfare, in this pure field, don't go — he sees that our tanks are. He will go the other way. And while we are going to rebuild their military orders, to put the troops new combat missions, the enemy will strike where we did not expect. The result — we have confusion, panic, chaos, and the enemy is winning. Here you have a supertankov!
So it's not just the right approach to developing weapon systems, not only in Finance, but also in a state of military science in General. Our military recently can't complain about the lack of attention by the state: the army and its rearmament allocated huge funds. Military research institutes and universities, the Academy of military Sciences, independent analytical centers, military experts and scientists. But there is no single environment interaction, there is no creative exchange of opinions and ideas. And, most importantly, there is no demand for ideas: military-political leadership has no need or interest in new ideas and innovative approaches. Calls for innovation are reduced to questionable organizational transformation.
— How the Americans managed to change the minds of the military?
In the USA the structure of the military DARPA is today, and in other departments: energy, homeland security. And all of them sharpened by the search for new ideas. A number of military concepts developed there is generally civil. Let's say, the U.S. military operation against Iraq in 2003 was based on the book "Shock and awe: achieving rapid dominance", which was written by two American professors, Harlan Ullman and James Wade — from national defense University USA. And in USA are understanding to the fact that outstanding ideas are born not in the heads of chiefs, and in the minds of subordinates. It's possible that this is a consequence of Western culture based on individualism and respect for the individual. Even very important "many stars" generals do not hesitate to communicate with Junior officers, to drink beer with majors at the officer's party and escape the cross with your soldiers on Sunday. I still have pictures of General John Shalikashvili, who was then the Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and William Perry when he was Secretary of defense. The first Pentagon officials are required to attend military universities, to give lectures to the students and to be photographed for memory with graduates. And ask our military officers, many of them over the years, happened to witness the highest officials of our military Department? I personally, for example, such a chance for years of long service, not dropped even once.
Another interesting point: in American military educational institutions established tradition — the first Deputy chief of military University is a U.S. state Department spokesman, as a rule, with the rank of Ambassador extraordinary and Plenipotentiary in retirement. A rational approach, agree: the military should understand that they are just a tool of foreign policy. Military know how to kill, how to destroy, but there are diplomats who know when and why to use force.
Pay attention to last year's interesting "rokirovka" in the leadership of the Ministry of defense and the CIA. A very significant event. The defense Minister was former CIA Director Leon Panetta, the main merit of which is the destruction of "terrorist number 1" Osama bin Laden. The Director of the CIA appointed retired General David Petraeus — a unique personality, a major theoretician and practitioner in the field of counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, nicknamed King David. The difference between these two major departments is becoming thinner. This is again in line with network-centric warfare: the war for American ideas is not only soldiers, but also by the intelligence community, diplomats, government agencies, non-governmental and private organizations, private military companies, the civil administration jointly with anthropologists, culturologists, linguists, priests, engineers and even plumbers-plumbers. It's all networking technologies for local, regional and global coverage.
— The concept of network-centric wars use any of the other States, in addition the United States with their global manners?
— The concept of network-centric warfare and operations are being actively developed in the countries of NATO and the headquarters of the North Atlantic Alliance, as well as in Sweden, Australia, Singapore, China, India and some other countries in the world. Singapore — the government is quite peaceful, but the military exists not just to attack but also to repel any attacks. And not only from external enemies. Remember what you've done in Norway, Anders Breivik! Law enforcement agencies are needed to in such moments to show his power and intelligence. More than one year in three regions of the world — USA, Europe and Asia — at the highest level are a major international conference devoted to the problems of network-centric war, but Russia is in these processes. But the events in the middle East and North Africa over the past year have clearly shown that network-centric technologies and principles — this is not fiction, but reality. In the era of cyber warfare and network-centric operations it is impossible to live the concepts and categories of the last century. And the political leadership of any country, if he values freedom and independence of their country, must draw the appropriate conclusions.
Tags: assessment , war , strategy , USA , tactics , NATO , security , forecasts , information war , threat