America's Global Competitions: The Gray Zone in Context by Lieutenant General James M. Dubik (U.S. Army, Ret.) and Nic Vincent – Institute for the Study of War
Partial Introduction
The international community is grappling for its future, but the wrestling is more complicated than Carl von Clausewitz’s “pair of wrestlers.” The U.S. is part of three ongoing regional and global competitions. At stake: the future of the international order. The first competition involves revisionist powers — Russia, China, and Iran. This competition is below the threshold of war so far, but recent events in Syria show just how easily that threshold might be crossed. Revisionist powers seek to revise the current global order to their advantage, increasing their regional and global influence while decreasing that of the United States and its allies and partners. The second has already crossed the threshold of war. This competition involves revolutionary powers — Al Qaeda, the Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham (ISIS), and their ilk. These groups are not mere terrorists. They are waging (and have been from the start) a global revolutionary (and therefore ideological) war, a form of insurgency which is initially local and regional but already has global implications. The United States has waged, with few exceptions, a counterterrorist war. Ultimately, these revolutionary powers seek to overthrow the current international order set in place after World War II. The third competition involves the rogue power, North Korea. This competition is also below the threshold of war, but as recent events have shown it is pressing right against that threshold. Brinkmanship describes this competitive space. Kim Jong-un seeks to maintain enough tension so that he can use it to maintain the legitimacy of his regime and remain in power. America, her allies, and partners should think of themselves as “leading powers”2 seeking to adapt the post-World War II international order to the myriad of changes brought about by the emerging information age, globalization, the revolution in digital technologies, and the end of the Cold War. The United States, with its allies and partners, are wrestling all three sets of competitors simultaneously, and wrestle they must. For these powers have more at stake in adapting the post-World War II rule-based international order than they seem to think.
Taking on one at a time, as desirable as that approach might be, is simply not possible. Like it or not, the U.S., with its allies and partners, faces three, interlocked challenges. How the eroding post-World War II international order adapts or crumbles will be a function of the degree of success the U.S. and its allies have in each of these interrelated challenges...
Comments
Modified slightly from my initial offering:
As one can see from my comment below, I tend consider the current era (the New Cold War?) in much the same way that we might have viewed the era which immediately preceded it (the Old Cold War).
Thus, in both cases, in Clausewitz's "pair of wrestlers" terms -- properly understood in these such instances -- as follows:
a. Wrestler No. One: The great expansionist entity (the Soviets/the communists in the Old Cold War; the U.S./the West today) -- who seeks to gain greater power, influence and control throughout the world -- this, by transforming the entire Rest of the World more along the great expansionist entity's own political, economic, social and value lines.
b. Wrestler No. Two: Much of the Rest of the World which, in both the Old Cold War and in the current era also, includes both great nations and small and both state and non-state actors; actors who, individually and/or collectively, often work to (a) prevent the unwanted transformation of their states, societies and civilizations and to (b) prevent the loss of power, influence and control which, in their mind, would thereby be incurred.
Having suggested this such "one single conflict"/"pair of wrestlers" concept, which seems to apply to both the Old Cold War and to our current era also, it now becomes easy to see why, for example in our current era, such diverse entities as (a) Russia, China and Iran, (b) Al Qaeda, the Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham (ISIS) and their ilk and (c) North Korea; why these such diverse entities might:
a. Approach their -- common -- "containment and/or roll back" mission, versus the expansionist U.S./the West today, this:
b. In a manner which -- individually -- works best for them? This, based on their own, very different and very distinct, abilities/capabilities?
(Same/same in the Old Cold War and with the different/diverse Rest of the World "resisting transformation" actors back then -- and, accordingly, versus the then-expansionist Soviets/communists?)
Bottom Line Thought -- Based on the Above:
"Global Competition" (and, thus, "The Gray Zone in Context") -- then and indeed now -- to be understood more in these such "one single conflict"/"pair of wrestlers" terms?
Re: Context:
In the "gray zone" conflict of Old Cold War, one could easily identify, and easily understand, the reason, back then, why such diverse entities as both great nations and small, and both state and non-state actors; why these such diverse entities would come to stand (sometimes together and sometimes separately) against the Soviets/the communists.
This such reason, of course, was the "clear and present danger" which Soviet/communist expansionist designs posed to the non-communist/less-communist states and societies of the world -- to these such states and societies non-communist/less-communist ways of life, ways of governance and values, attitudes and beliefs -- and, of course, to those most privileged and protected by same.
Likewise in our "gray zone" conflicts of the current era, one can correctly identify, and best understand, the reason why such diverse entities as both great nations and small, and both state and non-state actors; why these such diverse entities have come to stand (sometimes together and sometimes separately) against the U.S./the West today.
This such reason being the, very similar, "clear and present danger" which -- now post-the Old Cold War -- U.S./Western expansionist designs have come to pose to the non-western/less-western states and societies of the world -- to these such states and societies non-western/less-western ways of life, ways of governance and values, attitudes and beliefs -- and, of course, to those most privileged and protected by same.
It is as per this, latter, "West threatening the Rest" context, I suggest, that:
a. We might best view our state and non-state actors opponents today (see Russia, China, Iran; AQ, ISIS, etc.; and N. Korea in the article above) and their, respective, defensive activities today (see revisionist, revolutionary, rogue: likewise addressed in this article). And that, accordingly,
b. We might best understand why the Trump Administration -- realizing that this such, "instability-creating," "West threatening the Rest" dynamic had emerged -- has decided to scale back our such expansionist activities.
Bottom Line Thought -- Based on the Above:
As in many/most discussions today, one finds the activities of, for example, Russia, China and Iran, AQ, ISIS, etc., and N. Korea above -- all of these seeming to float in a so-called "context" which fails to acknowledge either that:
a. The greatest most powerful entity in the world (the U.S./the West) exists (except as an entity which, itself, is threatened) or that:
b. This such greatest most powerful entity in the world has been "wedded" to its very own expansionist (and thus clearly threatening) ambitions and activities.. ("Root cause" problems -- for much of the adverse developments that we are witnessing in the world today?)
Threatening ambitions which, today, and much as in the Old Cold War and vis-a-vis the similarly expansionist Soviets/the communists back then, can best explain such things as:
a. Why both great nations and small, and both state and non-state actors; why these folks might come to stand against you and, thus,
b. Why these such expansionist activities might come to hinder/preclude/undermine/prevent cooperation -- between states and societies -- on other critically important matters?