How to Win a War That Never Looks Like One: Counterinsurgency, Small Battles, & Big Lessons

Small wars may seem limited in scale but demand strategic patience, political awareness, and cultural fluency. Unlike traditional warfare focused on defeating organized armies, these conflicts involve insurgents and irregular fighters embedded within civilian populations. They revolve around legitimacy, influence, and trust rather than battlefield control. Success does not depend on firepower alone, but on understanding complex environments, building local partnerships, and aligning military action with sustainable political outcomes.

Defining Small Wars

Small wars are irregular conflicts fought in politically unstable or socially fragmented environments. They often involve non-state actors using guerrilla tactics against formal military forces and take place within communities rather than on defined battlefields.

• Fought among civilian populations, not isolated combat zones
• Focused on influence, legitimacy, and local dynamics
• Resistant to traditional tactics rooted in decisive engagements

Distinguishing Features of Small Wars

Key characteristics separate small wars from large-scale conventional warfare:

• Ambiguity: Fighters may blend into local populations, making combatants hard to identify
• Political Centrality: Success is measured by legitimacy, not territorial gain
• Gradual Progress: Stability emerges slowly, often over years
• Cultural Complexity: Religion, language, history, and tribal structures affect every decision
• Irregular Tactics: Small-unit ambushes, roadside bombs, and deception replace conventional battles

Why Small Wars Are Difficult to Win

These wars challenge conventional doctrine and military assumptions:

• Tactical victories may not yield strategic gains
• Misunderstanding local cultures erodes trust
• Civilian harm or occupation optics provoke resistance
• Military action misaligned with political conditions reduces effectiveness
• Traditional metrics fail to capture progress in legitimacy and perception

Understanding Counterinsurgency

Counterinsurgency (COIN) is the coordinated use of political, military, economic, and informational strategies to defeat insurgencies and support legitimate governance. Field Manual 3-24 (FM 3-24) remains the foundational guide in U.S. doctrine.

Key elements include:

• Clear: Remove insurgents from an area
• Hold: Maintain security through persistent presence
• Build: Establish governance and deliver essential services
• Unity of Effort: Align military, civilian, and international partners
• Legitimacy as the Objective: Ensure local populations view governance as fair and capable
• Information Operations: Use every action to send a message and shape public perception
• Security Force Development: Help local forces become self-sustaining and trusted

Tactical Lessons from The Defence of Duffer’s Drift

Written in 1905, The Defence of Duffer’s Drift presents six fictional scenarios where a young officer repeatedly fails to defend a river crossing, learning key tactical lessons each time.

• Decisions at the lowest levels shape strategic results
• Civilians may be allies or adversaries depending on treatment
• Surveillance, discipline, and terrain awareness are vital
• Enemy adaptation must be anticipated and countered

Swinton’s narrative foreshadows modern COIN by showing that success comes through iteration, observation, and adaptation rather than reliance on formal doctrine.

The Iraq Case Study (2003–2011)

The Iraq conflict demonstrated the challenges and adaptations required in modern counterinsurgency.

• Early failures included dissolving local security forces and neglecting social dynamics
• The 2007 troop surge emphasized population protection and partnered governance
• The Anbar Awakening successfully leveraged tribal partnerships to isolate insurgents
• Gains followed when military presence supported civilian reconstruction and trust-building

Strategic Reflection and Critical Insights

Evaluations of counterinsurgency across campaigns reveal recurring themes:

• Overreliance on doctrine may obscure on-the-ground realities
• Without resources, local knowledge, and alignment, even good strategies fail
• Unrealistic goals and institutional incentives often distort outcomes
• Self-deception, when success is exaggerated, delays necessary adaptation

Effective counterinsurgency requires truthfulness, flexibility, and leadership that understands both people and politics.

Enduring Lessons from Small Wars

Several consistent principles emerge across historical, doctrinal, and field experiences:

• Deep understanding of local environments precedes successful operations
• Every action has political implications, regardless of intent
• Security is a means to legitimacy, not an end
• Partnerships with local actors are critical to stability
• Control over narratives and public perception often outweighs firepower
• Adaptation is not optional; it is the core of operational survival

Conclusion

Small wars redefine the meaning of victory. Their outcome depends less on destroying enemies and more on shaping legitimacy, trust, and local order. Whether in colonial-era South Africa or modern-day Iraq, success lies in listening, learning, and building governance that endures. In conflicts that rarely resemble conventional war, strategic clarity, patience, and human understanding become the most decisive weapons.

Intelligence in Orbit: Space, Satellites, & Strategy

Modern war depends on the ability to see and act from above. Satellites now shape how operations are planned, how defenses are strengthened, and how decisions are timed. In the Ukraine war, space-based tools have played a decisive role. Russia operates within a traditional doctrine focused on strategic space dominance, while Ukraine has adapted quickly by leveraging commercial partnerships. These space assets support accurate targeting, resilient communication, and real-time situational awareness. As technology evolves, space-based intelligence increasingly enables smaller, agile forces to challenge larger adversaries with speed and precision.

The Evolution of Space Intelligence

The history of orbital intelligence began with the U.S. Corona program during the Cold War. These early satellites delivered photographic reconnaissance that influenced nuclear strategy and global diplomacy. Over time, satellite systems transitioned from periodic image captures to continuous, near-real-time data streams. This transformation from snapshots to sustained surveillance redefined how militaries assess threats and manage crises.

Understanding Orbits and Mission Design

Satellites are positioned in specific orbital zones based on mission needs. Each orbit presents unique benefits and trade-offs:

• Low Earth Orbit (LEO): 160 to 2,000 km. Provides high-resolution imaging with rapid revisit capabilities, making it ideal for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR).
• Medium Earth Orbit (MEO): 2,000 to 35,786 km. Used for navigation systems like GPS, balancing coverage and signal delay.
• Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO): ~35,786 kilometers. Offers fixed-point coverage over specific regions, essential for communications and missile warning.
• Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO): Variable altitude. Provides prolonged visibility over high-latitude areas and supports specialized reconnaissance missions.

Understanding orbital regimes helps shape resilient architectures for strategic advantage.

How Space Intelligence Works: IMINT, SIGINT, ELINT

Orbital platforms provide critical intelligence through distinct but complementary functions:

• Imagery Intelligence (IMINT): Uses optical and radar imaging to monitor infrastructure, troop movements, and battlefield dynamics.
• Signals Intelligence (SIGINT): Intercepts radio communications and radar emissions to uncover enemy coordination and activity.
• Electronic Intelligence (ELINT): Detects non-communication signals, such as radar pulses, to reveal hidden or shielded installations.

Integrating these streams produces a unified operational picture that informs tactical choices and strategic responses.

From Combat Zones to Orbit: Strategic Integration

Understanding how satellites affect ground operations requires linking their capabilities to battlefield effects. In Ukraine, space-based ISR has enhanced national defense by revealing force buildups, supporting artillery targeting, and preserving command continuity. This connection between orbital design and operational output underscores how satellite architecture translates directly to combat advantage.

Space as a Battlefield

Military doctrines increasingly recognize space as a domain where conflict may begin. Operations aimed at degrading satellite function may involve:

• Jamming or spoofing satellite signals
• Cyber intrusions against command links
• Kinetic strikes on orbital infrastructure

Russia emphasizes early disruption of adversary ISR and communication networks. Yet its capabilities lag behind doctrine due to limited satellite coverage, aging hardware, and bandwidth bottlenecks. Space, once a passive background to war, is now a contested arena where access determines influence.

Civilian Capabilities and the Commercial Turn

Ukraine’s wartime resilience demonstrates the operational value of commercial space services. Without a sovereign satellite constellation, it formed alliances with:

• Maxar: Provided high-resolution optical imagery
• ICEYE: Delivered radar imaging through synthetic aperture radar (SAR)
• Starlink: Maintained secure battlefield communications under electronic attack

These services allowed Ukraine to counteract a larger force with precision, flexibility, and speed. Commercial constellations blurred the line between civilian infrastructure and military effect.

Civil-Military Convergence and Strategic Risk

Private firms now shape the battlespace through ISR, connectivity, and logistics. This raises several challenges:

• Civilian systems used in war may become targets
• Commercial service policies may constrain military use
• Dual-use technologies complicate escalation thresholds

As commercial actors become enablers of national power, space law and military doctrine must evolve to address new strategic dependencies.

Aerial Observation and Strategic Vision

Strategic observation from above began with World War I balloons and aircraft. These platforms mapped trenches and adjusted fire, introducing vertical intelligence into warfare. Today’s satellites perform the same function with greater reach, persistence, and clarity:

• Global coverage, including denied and remote areas
• Near-constant surveillance
• Automated change detection using artificial intelligence

Satellites turn the sky into a domain of persistent insight, enabling faster, more informed military action.

Intelligence and the Strength of Defense

Carl von Clausewitz argued that defense is inherently stronger because it preserves force, dictates timing, and exploits terrain. Satellites reinforce this principle:

• Early ISR cues enable precision engagement
• Resilient communications preserve command structure
• Situational awareness enhances mobility and concealment

Ukraine’s defensive success illustrates how orbital intelligence enhances survivability and enables counteroffensive action.

Vulnerabilities in Space Systems

Space-based systems face growing risks from adversaries and natural hazards:

• Cyber Intrusions: May compromise satellite control or spoof data
• Kinetic Anti-Satellite Weapons (ASATs): Risk fragmenting orbit and escalating conflict
• Orbital Debris: Adds collision risk and reduces maneuver space
• Space Weather: Disrupts electronics and sensor performance

The 2022 Viasat attack highlighted how early strikes on commercial networks may paralyze national response. Building redundancy and dispersal into architecture mitigates such vulnerabilities.

Strategy, Resilience, and Global Coordination

Modern space strategies focus on:

• Redundant Architectures: Resilience through overlapping coverage and failover capabilities
• Space Situational Awareness (SSA): Continuous tracking of satellites and debris to avoid collisions
• Counterspace Deterrence: Hardens systems against attack and signals retaliatory thresholds

Allied planning emphasizes multilateral coordination, responsible behavior in orbit, and resilience in crisis.

Future Trends and Expanding Horizons

Emerging developments will shape the next phase of space intelligence:

• AI and Edge Processing: Allow real-time onboard analysis
• Distributed Mega-Constellations: Increase temporal resolution and resilience
• Hybrid Civil-Military Ecosystems: Demand frameworks for managing civil-military partnerships
• Cislunar Operations: Extend ISR and logistics to the Earth-Moon system

The growing integration of space with cyber, air, land, and sea domains will drive innovation and require agile policy adaptation.

Strategic Lessons and Enduring Wisdom

From Ukraine’s battlefield to geosynchronous orbit, several themes emerge:

• Strategic foresight depends on uninterrupted visibility
• Resilience, not superiority, ensures continuity
• Civil-military cooperation must balance innovation with control
• Ethical behavior in space reflects broader security norms

Space is no longer a frontier. It is a strategic platform from which national power is projected and protected.

Conclusion

Modern warfare now extends to the orbital domain. Satellites provide the intelligence backbone for decision-making, precision, and resilience. In Ukraine, the combination of commercial agility and allied coordination proved decisive. Space intelligence is no longer optional. It is the new high ground. Success in future conflicts may depend less on firepower than on who sees, understands, and acts first.

The Eyes Above: Space Intelligence & the Evolution of Modern Warfare

Modern war involves machines in space called satellites. These orbital platforms take pictures of the ground, listen to electronic signals, guide weapons to their targets, and maintain military communications even when normal systems are damaged. Satellites orbit Earth high above, continuously observing events below. The war in Ukraine showed these space assets are essential in how modern wars are planned, fought, and won.

The Evolution from Balloons to Satellites

In the early 1900s, armies used balloons and small planes to watch battlefields from above. These tools helped locate enemy trenches and guide artillery but were slow, fragile, and easy to target.

Today’s satellites are a significant upgrade. They fly in space and provide clear, fast, and global views of activity on the ground. These orbital systems operate continuously, day or night, in all weather conditions. Satellites combine multiple capabilities in one system, similar to how smartphones replaced single-purpose devices.

Core Functions of Satellites in War

Satellites help military forces see, hear, and act with precision. Their three most important roles are:

• Earth Observation: Satellites carry powerful cameras that take high-resolution pictures of Earth’s surface. These images help identify troop positions, roads, bridges, vehicles, and environmental changes.
• Signals Intelligence (SIGINT): This involves gathering information by intercepting electronic signals such as radio waves and radar. SIGINT satellites help track enemy communications, detect radar installations, and locate hidden activity.
• Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT): PNT allows accurate location and time coordination. It uses satellite systems such as the Global Positioning System (GPS) from the United States and the Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS) from Russia. These networks support guided weapons, troop movements, and synchronized military actions.

Together, these capabilities provide commanders with essential information to detect threats, target enemies, and coordinate operations across all warfare domains.

Ukraine’s Use of Space Capabilities Without Ownership

Ukraine does not operate its own military satellites. Instead, it relied on partnerships with private space companies to access space-based services. These partnerships gave Ukraine the tools needed to observe, communicate, and strike effectively.

• Maxar Technologies and Planet Labs are commercial Earth imaging companies that provided detailed photos of Russian troop locations and movements.
• ICEYE, a Finnish private company, builds radar satellites using Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR). SAR allows satellites to produce clear images through clouds, smoke, or darkness by bouncing radar signals off the ground.
• Starlink, created by SpaceX, is a global satellite internet network. It provided high-speed communication to Ukraine’s military forces when ground networks were cut or destroyed.

In June 2022, Ukraine combined radar data from ICEYE and GPS guidance to launch a precision strike using the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS). HIMARS is a mobile missile launcher that fires guided rockets. The strike successfully hit a Russian ammunition depot and forced a change in Russian logistics.

Russia’s Military Satellite Systems and Limitations

Russia entered the war with a larger military satellite fleet and used several systems for navigation, observation, and signal monitoring:

• GLONASS (Global Navigation Satellite System): Russia’s satellite navigation system, similar to the U.S. GPS. It provides accurate coordinates for weapons and vehicles.
• Persona and Bars-M satellites: Optical imaging systems that take photographs of terrain, roads, and military positions.
• SAR satellites: Radar satellites that allow Russia to see through clouds and during nighttime.
• Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) satellites: These detect and collect radio and radar emissions from enemy forces. ELINT helps understand enemy radar systems, communication patterns, and electronic movements.

Despite these capabilities, Russia faced challenges:

• Many satellites were outdated and slow to deliver data.
• Western commercial providers stopped sharing imagery with Russia after the war began.
• Russia relied on Chinese radar providers to fill gaps.
• On the first day of the invasion, Russia launched a cyberattack on Viasat, a European satellite internet provider, cutting off Ukrainian satellite internet access in key regions.

The Strategic Importance of Satellites

Satellites are vital for military coordination, communication, and precision. If damaged or lost, entire operations may suffer:

• Reduced accuracy: Guided weapons and navigation tools may fail.
• Lost communication: Units may not send or receive commands.
• Reduced awareness: Enemy activity may go undetected.
• Slowed decisions: Without information, military responses may be delayed.

Satellites are not just support tools but central elements that connect and enable all parts of modern warfare.

Artificial Intelligence in Space-Based Warfare

Artificial Intelligence (AI) refers to smart computer systems that learn and make decisions. In warfare, AI analyzes satellite data faster and more accurately than humans. AI supports operations by:

• Detecting patterns and changes in satellite images, such as sudden vehicle movements or destruction.
• Translating intercepted foreign messages instantly.
• Operating loitering munitions, small drones that hover over a target area and strike at the right moment.
• Predicting enemy movements based on past behavior and new information.

By linking sensors directly to decision-making systems, AI reduces the time from threat detection to action.

Threats to Satellite Operations

Satellites are powerful but vulnerable. Militaries must protect space systems from growing threats:

• Anti-Satellite Weapons (ASAT): Missiles designed to destroy satellites. Russia’s 2021 ASAT test shattered one of its own satellites into thousands of pieces, creating long-lasting debris that threatens other satellites.
• Cyberattacks: Hacker intrusions that may disable satellites, steal data, or send false signals.
• Signal jamming: Disrupting GPS or radio signals, causing weapons to miss or units to lose contact.
• Dual-use systems: Satellites serving both civilian and military purposes. Attacks on these may disrupt peaceful services like weather forecasting or emergency response.

Protecting space assets is now as critical as defending ground bases.

Integrated Military Strategy Across All Domains

Modern warfare spans five domains: land, air, sea, space, and cyber. Cyber includes computers, networks, and digital communication systems. Cyber warfare involves hacking, electronic attacks, and defense against digital threats.

To succeed, militaries employ two key strategies:

• Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2): A U.S. military approach linking all forces, including ships, planes, drones, satellites, and ground troops, into a single connected system. This enables instant information sharing and coordinated real-time responses.
• Multi-Domain Operations (MDO): A method combining land, air, sea, space, and cyber tools simultaneously to overwhelm and outmaneuver enemies. It increases speed and flexibility through integrated use of all military assets.

Ukraine’s use of drones, AI, commercial satellites, and satellite internet shows how these strategies may be applied even without owning a dedicated space fleet.

Conclusion

Satellites are no longer just support tools. They form the central nervous system of modern warfare. They provide visibility, timing, connection, and control across every domain. Ukraine demonstrated that even without owning satellites, a country may fight smarter by using commercial systems, AI, and coordination. Just as airplanes redefined warfare in the early 20th century, satellites are shaping how future battles are planned, fought, and won. The power to see first, act faster, and connect everything from land to space now defines military strength.

Air Power & Space Operations: Exploring the Frontiers of Modern Warfare

Air power and space operations have become foundational in modern warfare, offering rapid, flexible, and precise capabilities. Advancements such as precision-guided munitions (PGMs), unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), stealth technology, and cyber capabilities have transformed military operations. The integration of air power with space operations, including satellite reconnaissance, GPS, and communication systems, has further enhanced military effectiveness. These integrated operations are crucial in global security dynamics, especially in the geopolitical competition between the U.S., China, and Russia.

The Evolution of Air Power and Space Operations

Early Theories and Beliefs About Air Power
During World War II, air power was seen as a decisive force capable of winning wars through strategic bombing, targeting civilian infrastructure and military capacity. However, it soon became clear that air power alone could not guarantee victory. The complexity of modern warfare and the resilience of enemy forces highlighted the need for air power to be integrated with ground forces and other military domains. This evolution marked the transition to multi-domain operations, where air, ground, and space forces work together to achieve military objectives.

The Role of Air Power Over the Last 30 Years
Since the Cold War, air power has been central to military operations in conflicts like Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Syria, Ukraine, and Gaza. Technological advancements such as PGMs, drones, stealth technology, and AI integration have improved the precision and speed of air operations. Moreover, the synergy between air power and space operations, such as satellite reconnaissance and GPS, has enhanced its strategic impact by enabling real-time intelligence gathering and precise targeting.

Air Power and Space Integration
Air power and space operations are inseparable today. Space-based systems like reconnaissance satellites and GPS enable air forces to gather real-time intelligence and conduct highly accurate strikes. These systems ensure global reach and operational success, making air power and space operations a unified force in modern warfare. This integration is essential for decision-making and achieving military objectives, from battlefield supremacy to strategic deterrence.

Why Air Power Is the First Choice of Policymakers

• Speed and Precision:
  Air power allows for rapid, precise strikes, ideal when ground operations are not possible. Technologies such as PGMs and UAVs allow for targeted strikes on critical assets with minimal collateral damage, making air power essential for swift military interventions.

• Low Risk to Personnel:
  Air power, particularly through drones and UAVs, reduces the risk to personnel compared to large-scale ground invasions. This capability is valuable in politically sensitive operations where minimizing casualties and managing public perception are crucial.

• Flexibility in Various Conflicts:
  Air power is versatile, applicable in a wide range of conflicts, from state-on-state wars to counterterrorism and internal suppression of rebellions. Its ability to adapt to dynamic battlefield conditions makes it highly effective in both conventional and unconventional conflicts.

• Deterrence and Psychological Impact:
  Air superiority serves as a powerful deterrent, signaling military strength and resolve. Precision strikes destabilize enemy capabilities, disrupt infrastructure, and undermine morale, influencing both military strategy and public perception. The psychological impact of air power underscores its strategic significance.

Air Power in Key Conflicts

• Desert Storm (1991):
  Air power played a pivotal role in achieving air superiority, destroying key infrastructure, and supporting rapid ground operations. The integration of stealth bombers, PGMs, and satellite reconnaissance allowed for precision strikes, setting a new standard for air power in modern warfare.

• Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003):
  Air power was crucial in decapitating Iraq’s leadership and dismantling its military infrastructure. Despite these tactical successes, air power alone could not secure long-term political stability, highlighting the need for integration with information warfare and ground operations to achieve lasting success.

• Gaza/Lebanon (2006-present):
  Israel’s air operations in Gaza and Lebanon focused on counterterrorism, using UAVs for precision strikes against militant infrastructure. These operations provided Israel with a technological edge in asymmetric conflicts, allowing for precise engagement with minimal civilian casualties.

• Syria (2015-present):
  The air campaign in Syria showcased the complexities of operating in contested airspace. U.S. and Russian air forces conducted operations in close proximity, supporting opposing factions. Deconfliction mechanisms minimized the risk of escalation, while urbanized air combat underscored the importance of precision in densely populated environments.

• Ukraine (2022-present):
  Russia’s air forces struggled to achieve air superiority due to Ukrainian air defense systems. The conflict demonstrated the importance of integrating air power with counter-air strategies and ground forces to influence the war’s outcome. Ukraine’s effective air defense systems show how modern conflicts require multi-domain integration.

Technological Advancements in Airpower

• Precision-Guided Munitions (PGMs):
  PGMs have revolutionized air operations by enabling precise strikes and minimizing collateral damage. These technologies are especially useful in urban warfare or civilian-populated areas, such as Syria and Gaza.

• Drones and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs):
  Drones offer a cost-effective and versatile alternative to traditional aircraft, providing capabilities for surveillance, reconnaissance, and precision strikes. Their use in contested environments like Ukraine and Gaza has proven invaluable, with suicide drones (FPVs) playing an increasing role in modern warfare.

• Stealth Technology:
  Stealth bombers and fighter jets, such as the B-2 Spirit and F-22 Raptor, allow air forces to operate undetected in heavily defended airspaces. This technology was pivotal in Desert Storm and continues to offer a significant advantage in modern air combat.

• Cyber and Electronic Warfare:
  Modern air power integrates cyber capabilities to disrupt enemy air defense systems and communication networks. These advancements enhance precision and flexibility in multi-domain operations, and as air power evolves, cyber and electronic warfare will increasingly play a role in operational superiority.

The Future of Airpower

• Drones, AI, and Cyber Capabilities:
  The future of air power will increasingly rely on autonomous drones and AI-driven operations. These technologies will enable rapid responses, swarming tactics, and enhanced precision in multi-domain operations. Integration with cyber capabilities will ensure air forces stay ahead of adversaries in rapidly evolving conflict environments.

• Space Operations:
  Space operations will continue to provide essential support for satellite targeting, communications, and advanced reconnaissance. As air power becomes more integrated with space operations, this synergy will be crucial for ensuring global reach and operational success.

Conclusion

Air power and space operations are essential to modern warfare, providing speed, precision, and adaptability. The integration of AI, drones, cyber capabilities, and space operations ensures that air power remains relevant and dominant in future military strategies. As technology continues to evolve, air power will maintain its critical role in shaping modern conflicts, offering key advantages in precision, speed, and adaptability. The ongoing development of drones, AI, and cyber warfare will ensure air power’s dominance in rapidly changing environments, with global security increasingly defined by these capabilities.

The Indo-Pacific Rehearsal: Balikatan, the First Island Chain & the West Philippine Sea

The Indo-Pacific region is entering a phase of steady readiness and structured coordination. Balikatan, a joint military exercise led by the United States and the Philippines, now functions as a peaceful and practical rehearsal for regional stability. With participation from Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and France, the exercise reflects a unified approach to maritime challenges in the Taiwan Strait and the West Philippine Sea. Joint planning, legal cooperation, and advanced defense systems indicate a calm but deliberate transition toward sustained preparedness.

Strategic Significance of the First Island Chain

The First Island Chain is a geographic arc that begins in Japan, passes through Taiwan, and extends through the Philippines. It serves as a natural boundary that supports surveillance, early warning, and access management across the Pacific. Luzon and Palawan are central to this chain. Securing this position enhances regional coordination, while losing it may reduce operational flexibility and limit collective response capability.

Balikatan and Regional Coordination

Balikatan 2025 includes approximately 16,700 troops, with about 11,000 from the United States and 5,000 from the Philippines. Australia contributes between 150 and 260 personnel, and Japan provides 100 to 150 troops. The United Kingdom, Canada, and France are also participating, although their exact contributions have not been publicly disclosed. For the first time, parts of the exercise extend beyond Philippine territorial waters into areas of strategic concern.

Key operational scenarios include:

• Island retaking exercises in designated training zones
• Joint missile defense and coastal protection drills
• Simulated Sink an Enemy Ship operations (SynEx), designed to test live combat decision-making
• Coordinated navigation through contested maritime corridors

These scenarios reflect real-world contingency planning. They are intended to prepare for potential security risks rather than serve as symbolic gestures.

Persistent Defense Systems and Deterrence

Several advanced systems deployed during Balikatan remain active beyond the exercise:

• Typhon: A mobile missile launcher with a range of up to 2,000 kilometers
• NEMESIS: A ship interdiction system engineered for narrow sea channels
• M-AADIS: A low-altitude air defense system designed to counter drones and small aerial threats
• Leonidas: A microwave-based, non-explosive system that disables drone swarms

Together, these platforms form a cohesive and layered defense network that strengthens maritime protection across the Indo-Pacific and establishes a firm foundation for managing regional tensions. Building on this capability, strategic attention now turns to one of the region’s most contested maritime domains.

The West Philippine Sea as a Strategic Pressure Point

The West Philippine Sea lies within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, as upheld by the 2016 international arbitration ruling. Despite this legal clarity, overlapping claims persist. China continues to assert its influence through gray-zone tactics that operate below the threshold of armed conflict.

These include:

• Underwater surveillance and intelligence-gathering
• Use of water cannons during maritime standoffs
• Civilian vessels deployed as informal patrols
• Flag placement on maritime features such as Sandy Cay
• Media campaigns designed to shape public and diplomatic perception

These actions increase tension while avoiding open confrontation. They gradually challenge existing norms and maritime boundaries without crossing into declared conflict.

Taiwan and Operational Planning

Taiwan is located just north of Luzon, placing the Philippines in a vital position. If tensions rise, the Philippines may help manage access to key maritime routes such as the Bashi Channel and the Luzon Strait. The years leading up to 2027, often referred to as the Davidson Window, are considered a period of elevated risk. Balikatan 2025 aligns with this timeline and demonstrates coordinated readiness without escalation.

Philippine-Led Modernization and Sovereignty

The Philippines is leading its own defense modernization effort. It has requested platforms such as Typhon and NEMESIS, is acquiring twenty F-16 fighter jets, and is expanding radar and surveillance infrastructure. These choices reflect a clear strategic shift from internal security to maritime defense, anchored in sovereign planning and supported by international cooperation.

China’s Multilayered Response

China has responded with measured actions that include:

• Increased naval and coast guard patrols
• Official statements portraying Balikatan as a destabilizing exercise
• Symbolic flag placements in disputed areas
• Surveillance and monitoring of overseas critics and diaspora groups
• Protests against global map updates that reflect Philippine claims

These actions aim to influence global perception while avoiding direct military engagement. They are part of a wider strategy to project control without overt escalation.

Symbolic Geography and Strategic Naming

Geopolitical influence now includes digital and symbolic domains. Satellite imagery, map labeling, and legal designations all shape perception. Google’s decision to label areas of the South China Sea as the “West Philippine Sea” reinforced the Philippines’ lawful maritime claims. These symbolic acts support digital diplomacy and help strengthen norms aligned with international law.

From Exercise to Enduring Presence

Balikatan has transformed from a periodic drill into an enduring component of regional security architecture:

• Defense systems remain deployed beyond the training window
• Drone surveillance continues across sensitive maritime routes
• Training teams operate as integrated force elements
• Legal and symbolic frameworks support a rules-based maritime order

These developments signal a durable and reliable presence. The Philippines is now positioned as a central coordination hub for allied operations in the Indo-Pacific.

Conclusion

The Indo-Pacific Rehearsal is more than an exercise. It represents a structured evolution in collective defense, regional sovereignty, and maritime stability. Balikatan 2025 marks the transition from preparation to posture, from cooperation to capability. With advanced systems in place and international partnerships deepening, the Philippines stands as a stabilizing force at the heart of the region’s future. This integrated approach not only strengthens Indo-Pacific security but also sets a global benchmark for peaceful deterrence, lawful access, and cooperative maritime defense.

When Strategy Moves Faster Than Supply: A Lesson in Sustainment from the Korean War

Modern warfare depends not only on tactics or planning, but also on whether military forces may continue operating across long distances and over extended periods of time. This ability is called sustainment. It includes transportation, fuel, equipment maintenance, medical care, and troop replacement. In 1950, during the Korean War, a United States command decision led to a large-scale amphibious operation that placed overwhelming pressure on limited logistics. The outcome showed how operations that move faster than the systems supporting them may lose both momentum and strategic effectiveness.

Background: The Situation After Inchon

In September 1950, United Nations forces led by the United States launched a successful amphibious landing at Inchon, a port city near Seoul on South Korea’s western coast. The operation forced North Korean forces into retreat and shifted the momentum of the war. General Douglas MacArthur, the commanding general, ordered a second amphibious landing on Korea’s eastern coast. The new target was Wonsan, a port city on the Sea of Japan.

Instead of reinforcing the Eighth Army, which was advancing north through central Korea, two major divisions—the 1st Marine Division and the 7th Infantry Division—were reassigned to carry out this new landing. The decision introduced significant logistical strain.

Redeployment and Logistical Demands

To prepare for the landing, the 7th Infantry Division had to travel from the Inchon area to Busan, a port city in southeastern South Korea. The process required:

• Long overland movement by road and rail
• Complete reloading of troops, vehicles, and equipment onto naval ships
• Intensive use of manpower, fuel, and time
• Diversion of shipping resources needed elsewhere

Once at sea, both divisions were delayed by the discovery of underwater mines in the harbor. Clearing the mines took nearly a week. When the landing finally took place on October 26, South Korean forces had already secured the area, making the operation unnecessary from a tactical standpoint.

Lost Time and Operational Setbacks

The delay weakened the momentum gained after Inchon. While American troops remained offshore, North Korean forces regrouped inland. Several setbacks followed:

• Naval transport and manpower were tied up without gaining new ground
• Time and fuel were spent without any direct combat engagement
• Pressure on retreating enemy units was paused at a critical moment
• Combat-ready divisions remained inactive during a key phase of the campaign

This loss of tempo also reduced the ability to respond quickly to new developments.

Separation of Forces and Command Structures

While the Eighth Army pushed through central Korea, X Corps—which included the 1st Marine Division and 7th Infantry Division—operated independently along the eastern coastline. There was no shared command or logistics system connecting the two forces.

This separation created additional complications:

• Reinforcements and supplies could not be easily transferred
• Intelligence and planning became disconnected
• Commanders lacked visibility on each other’s actions
• When Chinese forces began their counterattacks in late October, the divided structure delayed an effective response

Campaign maps confirm that X Corps remained isolated along the coast while the Eighth Army advanced inland, reducing operational flexibility.

Sustainment Under Pressure

The second landing consumed fuel, manpower, ships, and planning bandwidth. These resources were also needed to pursue North Korean forces and prepare for future threats. Once committed to the landing, they were no longer available elsewhere.

Although the landing was completed without resistance, the effort did not deliver any new tactical gains and reduced the momentum of the overall campaign.

Lessons in Strategic Sustainment

Several enduring lessons emerged from this case:

• Military strategy must match what sustainment systems may support. A plan that moves faster than its logistics may slow down the entire force.
• Unified command improves timing and coordination. Separate forces without shared leadership increase delays and risk.
• Operations without clear advantage may reduce combat power. Every maneuver should have a measurable benefit.
• Transport is a part of fighting strength. How and where troops move shapes their ability to fight, reinforce, or retreat.

Conclusion

The second amphibious landing during the Korean War showed how bold plans may fail when not matched by logistical readiness. Time, ships, and fuel were consumed without gaining ground or achieving tactical effect. Forces were split across regions without unified leadership, just as new threats emerged. Even without battlefield losses, the larger campaign slowed and opportunities were missed. In modern war, strategy must move no faster than its supply lines. Without that balance, even the strongest operations may lose their power before they begin.

The Supply Chain of Victory: Operational Sustainment in Modern Warfare

Modern warfare depends not only on tactics or weapons, but also on whether a military force may continue operating across distance and under sustained pressure. This ability is called operational sustainment. It includes transportation, fuel, repair, medical support, and troop replacement. Without these systems functioning together, even the strongest battlefield plans may stall. Historical and ongoing conflicts reveal that victory depends not just on movement and attack, but on the infrastructure that makes both possible.

Core Components of Operational Sustainment

Operational sustainment refers to the systems that keep military operations functioning after combat begins. These include:

• Transportation – Moving troops, fuel, weapons, and supplies by land, air, or sea. When transport fails, operations may halt.
• Maintenance – Repairing vehicles, weapons, and communications at the front or rear. Without maintenance, equipment becomes a liability.
• Medical support – Treating, evacuating, and rehabilitating the wounded. This preserves fighting strength and morale.
• Manpower replacement – Replacing lost, injured, or fatigued personnel with trained reinforcements. Sustained combat requires continuous renewal.

Each of these pillars supports the others. If one fails, the entire operation may lose momentum.

Sustainment and Strategic Reach

Every strategy is shaped by what logistics may support. A campaign may only advance as far as its fuel and medical systems may carry it. A unit may only hold if its equipment remains functional and its personnel remain sustained. When logistics fall out of sync with plans, the strategy may fail before it begins.

Russia’s Centralized Model Under Pressure

Russia began its 2022 invasion of Ukraine with approximately 190,000 troops. Its logistics model was designed for short-range operations and relied on centralized command and rail infrastructure. As the war expanded, several limitations emerged:

• Rail supply lines were fixed and vulnerable to attack.
• Truck convoys moved slowly and lacked protection.
• Frontline units had little control over their resupply.
• Combat planning was disconnected from sustainment planning.
• Reinforcements included conscripts and penal battalions with limited training and low morale.

These issues led to stalled offensives, abandoned equipment, and diminished combat power.

Ukraine’s Decentralized and Adaptive Approach

Ukraine applied a NATO-style, decentralized logistics model. Local commanders were empowered to manage sustainment near the front. This structure allowed rapid adaptation. Key features included:

• Truck-based supply networks that reduced reliance on rail.
• Brigade-level logistics control for faster decision-making.
• Forward repair teams that returned equipment to service quickly.
• A layered medical system for treating and evacuating the wounded.
• Rotational deployments to prevent fatigue and maintain readiness.

This model helped Ukraine remain flexible in dynamic environments.

The 155th Brigade: A Case of Logistical Disconnection

In 2023, Ukraine deployed the 155th Brigade to a contested zone near Pokrovsk. The unit, reportedly trained and equipped in France with around 1,700 personnel, entered combat before it was fully integrated into Ukraine’s logistics and command systems. Reports identified several issues:

• Supply lines were underdeveloped and inconsistent.
• Communication with supporting commands was limited.
• Timely resupply and maintenance were unavailable.
• Casualties mounted, and performance declined.

This case illustrates how even elite, well-equipped units may underperform when logistics are not synchronized with operations.

Manpower as a Sustainment Factor

Personnel readiness is a critical aspect of sustainment. Replacing combat losses must not degrade force effectiveness.

• Russia relied on conscription and penal units. Many replacements lacked discipline and proper training.
• Ukraine mobilized civilians quickly. Some brigades were prepared, but others lacked time for full readiness.

Troop replacement must maintain unit cohesion and capability. Poorly integrated reinforcements may weaken rather than strengthen.

A Historical Echo: The Wonsan Landing

In October 1950, following the Inchon landing, U.S. forces attempted a second amphibious assault at Wonsan. The operation faced immediate logistical problems:

• The 1st Marine Division spent seven days afloat awaiting mine clearance, known by troops as “Operation Yo-Yo.”
• The 7th Infantry Division waited ten days in Pusan before being diverted north to Iwon.
• South Korean troops had already secured Wonsan before U.S. troops landed.
• No combat occurred, but fuel, shipping, and planning resources were diverted.

The operation failed to achieve strategic impact and disrupted momentum. It serves as a cautionary example of logistics being overlooked.

Strategic Lessons from Ukraine, Russia, and Korea

• Logistics shape strategy – Plans must align with what sustainment may deliver.
• Centralization adds friction – Russia’s model slowed response in fluid conditions.
• Decentralization adds speed – Ukraine’s approach enabled flexibility under fire.
• Personnel systems matter – Reinforcements must be trained and integrated.
• History repeats – From Wonsan to Pokrovsk, ignoring logistics leads to setbacks.

Strategic Reflections

• Failure risk – Transport and personnel systems often collapse first under pressure.
• Flexibility – Decentralized logistics may build resilience in unstable environments.
• Long-term vision – Iraq and Afghanistan showed how sustainment shapes outcomes.
• Training – Leaders with logistics fluency may align strategy with operational reality.

Conclusion

Operational sustainment is not background support. It is the invisible framework that powers movement, response, and survival. Russia’s model failed to scale. Ukraine’s logistics allowed resistance to continue. The Wonsan landing showed how even disciplined forces may falter when logistics are misaligned. Victory in war depends on more than plans. It depends on the fuel truck, the mechanic, the medic, and the replacement convoy. In future conflicts, the most successful strategies will be those built to last.

The Logic of Modern Warfare: Speed, Coordination, & Decisive Action

Modern warfare shifted from slow, grinding battles to fast, coordinated operations designed to achieve clear, lasting effects. This evolution was driven by the need to move rapidly, remain organized across complex forces, and act with purpose. Speed without coordination leads to confusion. Coordination without action leads to delay. When integrated, these three elements—speed, coordination, and decisive action—form the logic that transforms military force into meaningful outcome.

The Problem with Earlier Wars

By the late 1800s and early 1900s, armies had become too large and complex to control efficiently. Railroads, telegraphs, and mass mobilization expanded operational scale but reduced flexibility. World War I exposed these limits. Commanders issued detailed plans, yet battlefield conditions changed faster than orders could arrive. Trenches, machine guns, and artillery made maneuver deadly. Victories were rare and came at overwhelming cost. Leaders lacked real-time awareness and struggled to manage dispersed forces. Operational momentum was nearly impossible to sustain.

The German Breakthrough

Between 1919 and 1939, the German military developed a new operational logic. Studying past failures, they reimagined warfare around movement, initiative, and decentralized command. By combining maneuver warfare with emerging tools—radios, tanks, and aircraft—they built a system known as Bewegungskrieg, or “war of movement.” It was not about technology alone. It was about using mobility, tempo, and intent-based orders to overwhelm and outpace the enemy before organized resistance could form.

Radio and Real-Time Command

The introduction of radio transformed command and control. It replaced messengers and wires with voice communication, allowing orders to adapt mid-battle. A 1932 German exercise revealed how radios enhanced operational flexibility:

• Radios had to be present in every vehicle, from motorcycles to tanks.
• Messages had to be brief, clear, and quickly transmitted.
• Operators needed to fully understand the mission’s intent.

This enabled entire formations to maneuver as unified, responsive systems with shared understanding and real-time adaptability.

Combining Speed with Coordination

The German campaigns in Poland (1939) and France (1940) demonstrated the power of combining rapid movement with aligned objectives. Tanks bypassed strongpoints, aircraft disrupted logistics and communications, and radios synchronized dispersed units. Officers were empowered to act on intent without waiting for specific instructions.

Key features included:

• Orders focused on commander’s intent, not micromanagement.
• Units advanced in parallel across multiple axes toward shared effects.
• Initiative was delegated across all levels to maintain tempo and pressure.

This resulted in deep thrusts, rapid encirclements, and the breakdown of enemy cohesion before defenses could form.

Why It Changed Warfare Forever

This operational logic reshaped global doctrine. U.S. concepts like AirLand Battle adopted similar principles: speed, initiative, and joint coordination. Today’s multidomain operations apply the same logic to cyber, space, and electromagnetic warfare. Speed now includes not just physical movement, but the velocity of sensing, deciding, and acting.

Recent conflicts reinforce this shift. In Ukraine, the integration of drones, precision fires, and real-time data has allowed agile forces to outmaneuver larger ones. In the Red Sea, coalition navies use distributed sensors, fast communications, and synchronized response to defend critical maritime routes from asymmetric threats. These examples show how combining speed with coordination remains decisive—even in complex, contested environments.

Planning at the Operational Level

Modern warfare is guided by a level of planning that bridges tactical engagements and strategic objectives. This is the operational level, where decisions are made to shape campaigns, not just battles. It involves:

• Selecting objectives that shift the trajectory of conflict.
• Integrating land, air, sea, cyber, and space operations.
• Sequencing actions so that each supports a broader operational effect.

The German military institutionalized this mindset through officer education, map exercises, and campaign wargames. Their goal was not just to fight—but to plan with foresight, agility, and effect.

Information as a Weapon

Timely, accurate information became a weapon in its own right. The ability to see, interpret, and act faster than the adversary delivered operational advantage. What began with aerial photography evolved into satellite imagery, persistent surveillance, and AI-assisted targeting. Today, the flow of information defines tempo.

Modern operations depend on:

• Continuous battlefield awareness.
• Secure, distributed command and control.
• Fast integration of intelligence into operational decisions.

When information is clear and timely, coordination accelerates. When disrupted, even superior forces may falter.

The Principle of Decisive Action

Decisive action means more than winning engagements. It means ending the conflict—or breaking the opponent’s ability to fight. It involves disrupting systems, collapsing leadership, or paralyzing movement. In practice, this may include:

• Rapid, multidomain strikes.
• Isolation of enemy forces or leadership nodes.
• Use of tempo and surprise to cause systemic failure.

Historical examples include the collapse of France in 1940, where German forces bypassed resistance and struck deep, and the 2003 campaign in Baghdad, where armored columns and precision airpower shattered command structures before organized resistance could mount.

The Lesson from Doctrine and History

Germany’s success was not due to sheer numbers or advanced machines. It came from disciplined doctrine, mission clarity, and synchronized movement. Even under treaty restrictions, they trained for scale, adaptability, and operational vision. Other nations studied and adopted these ideas because they worked. The true power lay not in the tools—but in the system: intent-driven command, flexible execution, and decisive tempo.

Conclusion

Modern warfare runs on speed, coordination, and decisive action working in concert. This logic—refined through experience and proven in past and present campaigns—continues to guide how forces plan and fight. Whether through networks, maneuver, or multidomain integration, the principle remains the same: win the tempo, control the space, and strike with clarity. Understanding this logic is essential not only for grasping the past—but for shaping the future of conflict itself.

The Art of Joint Warfare: Principles, Planning, & Execution

Joint warfare refers to the coordinated use of U.S. military forces from different service branches—Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, and Coast Guard—under a unified plan to achieve national security objectives. These operations follow standardized frameworks established by the U.S. Department of Defense and formalized through Joint Publications. The foundational doctrinal reference is Joint Publication 3-0: Joint Operations, which defines how military campaigns are structured, directed, and synchronized across land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace to ensure unity of effort in both conflict and competition.

Foundations of Joint Warfare

Joint operations combine the unique strengths of each service into a unified and synchronized force. The Navy may control sea lanes, the Air Force may provide long-range strike and surveillance, the Army may seize and hold ground, the Marine Corps may secure entry points, and the Space and Cyber forces may control satellite systems, networks, and electromagnetic access. Success depends on integrated planning, disciplined execution, and mutual trust across all components. This approach minimizes operational gaps and improves mission effectiveness.

Principles of Joint Operations

Thirteen core principles guide the conduct of joint operations. These reflect both enduring military wisdom and adaptations from irregular and modern warfare:

• Objective: Focus every action on a clearly defined and attainable goal
• Offensive: Maintain the initiative through proactive and decisive action
• Mass: Concentrate combat power at the critical time and place
• Maneuver: Position forces to gain a relative advantage
• Economy of Force: Allocate minimum essential resources to secondary efforts
• Unity of Command: Ensure coordinated direction under a single commander
• Security: Protect forces, plans, and critical information
• Surprise: Strike at a time or place the enemy does not expect
• Simplicity: Prepare clear and uncomplicated plans
• Restraint: Apply force with discipline to avoid unnecessary damage
• Perseverance: Sustain efforts to achieve long-term goals despite setbacks
• Legitimacy: Maintain legal and moral authority throughout the operation
• Unity of Effort: Harmonize actions across services, agencies, and multinational partners, even without formal command authority

These principles may be adapted to fit different operational environments, levels of conflict, and strategic requirements.

Planning Joint Operations

Joint planning connects national strategic goals to coordinated military actions. It uses a conceptual tool called operational design, which helps frame complex environments and guide planning. Core components include:

• Operational Environment: All conditions—physical, informational, and human—that influence military activity
• Center of Gravity: The key source of power, strength, or will that must be protected or targeted
• Lines of Operation and Effort: Logical pathways that link tasks and effects to overarching goals
• Decisive Points: Locations, conditions, or events that may provide operational leverage
• End State: The desired set of conditions that defines mission success
• Operational Reach: The distance and duration over which forces may remain effective
• Risk: Factors that may threaten objectives and must be mitigated

While Joint Publication 3-0 introduces these fundamentals, Joint Publication 5-0 provides expanded guidance for planning staff and commanders.

Phases of a Joint Campaign

Campaigns are often organized into overlapping, flexible phases that help manage sequencing, force posture, and strategic adaptation:

• Shape: Establish favorable conditions and partnerships
• Deter: Demonstrate resolve and credible combat power to discourage aggression
• Seize the Initiative: Act quickly to gain early advantage
• Dominate: Apply decisive force to break resistance and control momentum
• Stabilize: Restore essential functions and secure critical areas
• Enable Civil Authority: Transition to legitimate governance and local control

Campaigns are rarely linear. Branches and sequels enable commanders to plan alternate or follow-on actions, providing the flexibility to respond to new threats or opportunities.

Command and Control

Command and control (C2) provides the framework for directing and coordinating military forces. It ensures that authority, responsibility, and decision-making are clearly assigned:

• Combatant Command (COCOM): Full command over assigned forces and missions
• Operational Control (OPCON): Authority to organize and employ forces for specific operations
• Tactical Control (TACON): Limited authority over designated tasks or activities
• Support: Obligation to assist another command with designated capabilities

Joint operations apply the principle of mission command, which emphasizes clear intent, decentralized execution, and trust. This enables initiative at all levels while maintaining alignment with strategic objectives, especially when conditions are dynamic or communications are degraded.

Joint Functions

Joint functions categorize the major military activities that support planning, execution, and assessment. These provide structure across the operational spectrum:

• Command and Control: Directing and managing forces across time and space
• Intelligence: Collecting and analyzing information about threats, environments, and opportunities
• Fires: Employing weapons or capabilities to generate physical or psychological effects
• Movement and Maneuver: Deploying and positioning forces to achieve advantage
• Protection: Defending personnel, equipment, and information from attack or disruption
• Sustainment: Delivering logistics, medical care, and support to maintain operations
• Information: Shaping knowledge, securing communications, and influencing perception

The information function includes cyber operations, electronic warfare, psychological operations, and strategic messaging. These tools shape what is known, influence behavior, and safeguard operational freedom in both physical and digital domains.

Executing Joint Operations

Execution turns plans into coordinated action. Operations may unfold gradually through shaping and deterrence or escalate rapidly in crisis. Commanders assess progress continuously and adjust resources, objectives, and timelines in real time.

Joint operations are rarely conducted in isolation. They typically support broader national strategies that include diplomatic engagement, economic measures, intelligence activity, and interagency coordination. Collaboration with allies, partners, and civilian organizations strengthens unity of effort and contributes to enduring stability.

Conclusion

Joint Publication 3-0 provides the foundation for how U.S. military forces operate together across land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace. It organizes strategic thought into coherent doctrine, aligning tactical decisions with broader goals. Through shared principles, flexible planning, and unified execution, joint warfare supports national objectives with speed, precision, and resilience in a complex and evolving global environment.

Operation Hotel California: The Clandestine Prelude to the 2003 Iraq Invasion

Operation Hotel California was a covert U.S. mission launched in northern Iraq in mid-2002, several months before the start of the 2003 invasion. The operation sought to shape the northern battlefield by building alliances with Kurdish forces, neutralizing terrorist threats, gathering actionable intelligence, and controlling key territory. These early actions disrupted Iraqi defenses in the north and allowed coalition forces to focus their primary advance through the south. While many aspects remain classified, open-source reporting indicates the operation played a foundational role in the lead-up to the Iraq War.

Operational Context

Several strategic factors led to the launch of the operation:

• Semi-autonomous Kurdish region: Northern Iraq was governed by Kurdish political factions outside Saddam Hussein’s direct control, offering the U.S. an accessible operating environment for irregular missions.
• Ansar al-Islam presence: A terrorist group affiliated with al-Qaeda had established a stronghold along the Iran-Iraq border, posing an immediate security risk and complicating future operations.
• Turkey’s denial of access: The U.S. was prevented from using Turkish territory to open a northern invasion route, requiring alternative means to secure Iraq’s northern flank.
• Need for battlefield shaping: With no conventional military presence in the region, the U.S. relied on special operations and intelligence personnel to stabilize the north and prepare for full-scale war.

Strategic Goals

The mission pursued four primary objectives:

• Form strategic alliances with Kurdish groups, specifically the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), to create a local partner force.
• Eliminate terrorist threats, particularly Ansar al-Islam, and deny extremist groups control of operational space.
• Gather intelligence on Iraqi military deployments, leadership structures, and logistics hubs.
• Secure key routes and terrain to block the movement of Iraqi reinforcements and enable future coalition operations.

Mission Execution

The operation began with the covert insertion of CIA Special Activities Division (SAD) personnel into Iraqi Kurdistan in 2002. U.S. Army Special Forces later joined, embedding with Kurdish Peshmerga fighters to train, advise, and lead operations.

Key activities included:

• Training and advising local forces in modern military tactics, communications, and coordinated movement.
• Executing joint raids against Ansar al-Islam positions, including a targeted assault on the Sargat compound, which reportedly contained traces of chemical agents. The extent, source, and military relevance of these materials remain subject to debate in open-source intelligence assessments.
• Fixing Iraqi Army units—notably the 5th Corps—in place to prevent their redeployment to southern defensive positions.
• Establishing coordination hubs, such as the Northern Iraq Liaison Element (NILE), to synchronize intelligence, operations, and battlefield movement.

While CIA paramilitary teams and U.S. Army Special Forces led the mission, some reports suggest additional interagency involvement, though specific details remain unavailable.

Operational Constraints

The campaign faced multiple constraints:

• No conventional access routes, requiring all operations to be executed covertly and with limited resources.
• Numerical inferiority against larger Iraqi military formations, necessitating asymmetric strategies and local alliances.
• Difficult terrain and logistics that challenged resupply, communication, and mobility.
• Tight intelligence timelines, requiring rapid decision-making and execution without compromising secrecy.

Despite these constraints, the operation was executed effectively through close coordination and field adaptability.

Strategic Impact

Operation Hotel California contributed directly to the broader success of the 2003 invasion:

• Dismantled Ansar al-Islam’s stronghold, reducing terrorist activity and eliminating a significant threat along the border.
• Captured the Sargat site, which contributed to broader intelligence assessments, though its military implications remain contested.
• Prevented Iraqi forces from shifting south, allowing the coalition to engage fewer enemy units during the main offensive.
• Stabilized Kurdish territory, allowing coalition forces to later use the region without encountering sustained resistance.

Operational Lessons

Several enduring lessons emerged from the mission:

• Small, well-coordinated teams may deliver outsized strategic effects, especially when supported by local allies.
• Indigenous partnerships serve as critical enablers in denied or politically constrained environments.
• Pre-invasion shaping operations may determine campaign momentum before conventional war begins.
• Cross-agency coordination, while partially classified, likely enhanced operational speed, intelligence integration, and flexibility.

These lessons continue to influence U.S. irregular warfare doctrine and special operations planning.

Conclusion

Operation Hotel California was the clandestine starting point of U.S. military efforts in Iraq. Through strategic partnerships, covert strikes, and pre-invasion positioning, it quietly shaped the northern front in advance of the 2003 invasion. While full details remain unavailable, open-source reporting and operational analysis indicate that this mission played a significant role in shaping the northern front ahead of the Iraq invasion.

The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security: A Principal Advisor at the Pentagon

The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security (USD(I&S)) is a senior civilian official in the Department of Defense (DOD) responsible for overseeing intelligence, cybersecurity, counterintelligence, and security operations. This role ensures that military intelligence supports national security objectives and serves as a critical link between defense intelligence agencies, military operations, and policymakers.

Origins and Evolution

Before the establishment of the USD(I&S) role in 2003, military intelligence and security functions were scattered across various agencies. This lack of coordination created inefficiencies, delays in responding to threats, and challenges with intelligence-sharing.

• Pre-2003 Structure
• Intelligence operations were divided among multiple agencies.
• This fragmented approach caused delays and limited quick decision-making.
• There was no centralized leader overseeing defense intelligence, leading to gaps in cybersecurity and counterintelligence.
• Creation of the USD(I) in 2003
• The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)) was created to better coordinate intelligence efforts within the DOD and across the Intelligence Community (IC).
• Expansion to USD(I&S) in 2020
• As cybersecurity and counterintelligence threats grew, the role was expanded to include security oversight.
• The title changed to Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security (USD(I&S)) to reflect the increasing importance of cybersecurity and digital defense.

Key Responsibilities

The USD(I&S) ensures that intelligence operations align with military strategy and national security goals while protecting classified information and preventing espionage.

Military Intelligence Oversight

• Directs and supervises key defense intelligence agencies:
• Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA): Provides intelligence for military operations.
• National Security Agency (NSA): Manages signals intelligence and cybersecurity.
• National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA): Oversees satellite imagery and geospatial intelligence.
• National Reconnaissance Office (NRO): Manages satellite surveillance.
• Coordinates intelligence-sharing with the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), CIA, and FBI.

Cybersecurity and Digital Defense

• Develops strategies to protect military networks and communications from cyber threats.
• Works with U.S. Cyber Command and the NSA for offensive and defensive cyber operations.
• Secures classified defense systems from cyberattacks and digital espionage.

Counterintelligence and Threat Protection

• Prevents foreign intelligence threats from infiltrating U.S. military operations.
• Oversees the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA), responsible for background checks and security clearances.
• Identifies insider threats and unauthorized disclosures of classified information.

Security Policy and Risk Management

• Advises the Secretary of Defense on security policies related to classified information, defense technology, and military installations.
• Develops risk management strategies to prevent espionage, cyber intrusions, and intelligence leaks.
• Balances intelligence-sharing with security to protect classified information.

Coordination with National Security Agencies

• Works with the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to align defense intelligence operations with national security objectives.
• Collaborates with the CIA, FBI, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and State Department on counterterrorism, cyber threats, and intelligence-sharing.
• Supports joint intelligence efforts for military operations, conflict monitoring, and crisis response.

Position in the Chain of Command

The USD(I&S) operates within a clear chain of command to ensure that intelligence and security operations are aligned with broader defense strategies.

• President of the United States: Supreme commander of U.S. Armed Forces.
• Secretary of Defense (SecDef): Highest civilian authority responsible for defense strategy and intelligence oversight.
• Deputy Secretary of Defense (DepSecDef): Coordinates daily defense operations.
• Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security (USD(I&S)): Oversees military intelligence, cybersecurity, and security operations.
• Defense Intelligence Agencies and Directors: DIA, NSA, NGA, and NRO report to the USD(I&S), along with other service-specific intelligence offices.

This hierarchy ensures intelligence and security operations are integrated into broader defense strategies while maintaining civilian oversight of military intelligence functions.

Challenges and Future Considerations

As global threats evolve, the role of the USD(I&S) continues to grow. Some of the most pressing challenges include:

• Cyber Threats
  Military networks are constantly targeted by cyberattacks, requiring strong digital defenses.
• Artificial Intelligence and Automation
  AI-driven surveillance and intelligence analysis must be balanced with security, precision, and accuracy.
• Foreign Espionage
  U.S. adversaries are increasingly using sophisticated methods to infiltrate defense agencies, demanding stronger counterintelligence measures.
• Balancing Intelligence-Sharing and Security
  Ensuring effective collaboration with allies while protecting classified information remains a key challenge.

Conclusion

The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security (USD(I&S)) plays a critical role in safeguarding U.S. national defense. By overseeing military intelligence, cybersecurity, counterintelligence, and security operations, this position ensures that defense agencies operate efficiently and that classified information is protected. As modern warfare increasingly involves cyberattacks and digital espionage, the USD(I&S) will continue to be a key figure in securing military operations and maintaining strategic readiness in a rapidly evolving security landscape.