BATTLEFIELD OF THE FUTURE

BATTLEFIELD OF THE FUTURE
characteristics of that competitor . Leading experts in the field
of assessing the nature of future competition have provided
significant insights into how we view and think about potential
competitors .
Dr Paul Bracken of Yale University, in his article on "The
Military After Next," 1 , characterizes nations as Type A, B, and
C competitors . Type A competitors are peer competitors, able
to compete with the United States on a global basis across a
full range of military capabilities . Type B competitors are
regional competitors, able to compete regionally, and only
across a limited set of military capabilities . Bracken's Type C
competitors are terrorists, low-intensity conflict countries,
drug lords, and the like . We feel this type of competitor is not
really a national security competitor but a political competitor .
It is more useful to think of Type C competitors as being niche
competitors . A niche competitor would be a country that has
chosen to specialize in a specific military capability that
appears to have high leverage against US forces . This type of
characterization seems useful in bounding the range of
possible competitiveness in a military sense .
Dr Stephen Rosen of Harvard University has framed the
debate on future competitors by dividing the world into "zones
of peace" and "zones of turmoil ."2 His fundamental division of
the great powers places the industrialized democracies in the
zone of peace with all other countries in the zone of turmoil .
Conflicts will most likely arise among nations in the zone of
turmoil, or between them and countries in the zone of peace . It
is difficult to develop scenarios that lead to wars among
nations in the zone of peace .
So long as the countries remain democratic, Dr Rosen cannot
envision a war between the United States and, for example, a
democratic Japan or Germany . Dr Rosen's analysis reminds
us that it is important to consider political traditions, cultural
norms, economic strength, alliances, and many other factors
as we think about the evolution of competition between states .
Furthermore, states may swing between peace and turmoil,
dramatically change goals and directions, or gain or lose military
capabilities, making our strategic planning even more difficult .
To understand the nature of future competitors and, more
importantly, plan for their potential emergence requires an
72