In what ways is a non-state actor different from a nation-state?

AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

 

MIDTERM ASSIGNMENT

KAELA SEAY

 

INTL434: Threat Analysis

29 January 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

NATION-STATE VERSUS NON-STATE FACTORS

Threats have been an issue many societies have faced throughout history. Though the meaning of a threat lacks detail, Merrian-Webster defines it as “an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage” (“Threat,” n.d.). When one thinks of a threat, the first thing that usually comes to mind is terrorism. However, “threats pervade human relations and should not be discussed solely in terms of nuclear deterrence or game theory” (Baldwin, 1971, pg. 71). When identifying and analyzing threats, the Intelligence Community must remain unbiased and open-minded, as no one threat is the same. Threats can originate from a variety of places and/or people. They can also be motivated by many things such as: economics, politics, religion, culture, ideology, and personal feelings. Due to the vague nature of the definition of threat, many scholars and theorists have debated the details of what does or does not constitute threats and how to combat them. There are two types of threat that have been established and will be discussed, which are nation-state and non-state actors.

A nation-state is defined as “a form of political organization under which a relatively homogeneous people inhabits a sovereign state; especially: a state containing one as opposed to several nationalities” (‘Nation-state, n.d.). These threats are easier to describe, as nation-states are structured in an organized fashion and are thought to be the most common and dangerous types of threat. Generally, a nation-state belongs to a delineated geographical area, has a well-established government and military, has clearly defined leaders, and is recognized by other nation-states (Haddock, n.d.). However, the power of a nation cannot be based solely on the nation-state’s structure or military. Per the RAND Analyst’s Handbook, a nation’s power can also be based on their resources (input), how they use those resources (context), and if the resources are successfully used to achieve the final goal (results) (Tellis, 2000). One example of a nation-state threat is when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in the 1940s. Thus, the United States declared war on Japan. Another example of a nation-state threat, though it did not result in a war, was the Soviet Union’s threat during the Cold War. Though threats have typically come from nation-states in the past, the post-Cold War era introduced another type of threat.

A non-state is defined as, “something that does not belong to or is not controlled by a government” (“Non-state,” n.d.). These threats are harder to describe, as they are not defined by what they are, but they are instead defined by what they are not. Non-states can be anything other than a nation-state. This type of threat has been found to be more non-traditional, which can make analyzing these threats more difficult. Non-state actors can include terrorist organizations, private organizations, activists, criminals, pirates, and so on. One example of a non-state threat is the terrorist organization, Hezbolla, whose members bombed the United States embassy in Beirut in the 1980s (Byman, 2016). Though there are many unknowns with non-states, these post-Cold War era threats are occurring more often, which is creating a bigger concern. The question is, “how is the Intelligence Community to prepare for and combat these threats?”

The United States is vulnerable to traditional and non-traditional threats. To explain how and why the United States can be vulnerable to these threats, the Department of Homeland Security developed the following risk formula: (Risk = f(T, V, C)), which is broken down by a function of threat, vulnerability, and consequences (Haddock, n.d.). After determining the United States’ vulnerabilities, the Department of Homeland security follows a detailed risk management process, which can be applied to nation-state and non-state threats. This process requires the following steps: providing context supporting why risk management efforts are being used, identifying any possible risks, analyzing those risks, developing alternatives, implementing the strategy that was agreed upon, evaluating the threat, and communicating the risks internally and externally (“Risk Management Fundamentals,” 2011). Additionally, to better understand a nation-state’s characteristics, capabilities, and possible future threats, analysts use the “Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World.” This report was created by the Intelligence Community, but is overseen by the National Intelligence Council (Haddock, n.d.). With these resources, the United States can know how to properly respond to all threats. Historically, the most common method used to respond to a threat is a symmetrical threat, which is generally backed by the nation’s military forces. Other methods used to respond to a threat include political, diplomatic, and economic strategies, as some scholars believe that the stronger the United States is in these areas, the less threatened the nation will feel (Haddock, n.d.).

In summary, the complete definition of a threat is unclear, as it can be defined and interpreted differently by an individual. Threats can come from many places, both domestically and internationally. They can be motivated by a wide variety of conflicts, such as political and religious beliefs. Despite the complex nature of the definition, scholars and theorists’ have aided the Intelligence Community in better understanding threats through debates and theories. Two types of threats that have been recognized are nation-state and non-state threats. Nation-states are traditional, based on a well-established government, and focus on power. Non-states are non-traditional, based on anything that is not a nation-state, and focus on keeping an open mind for all non-traditional possibilities. Though the United States is vulnerable to traditional and non-traditional threats, there are several ways in which the United States can respond to threats. Responses to threat can include diplomatic, political, and economic strategies. With technology advances and more knowledge regarding characteristics of threat, the Intelligence Community can work towards improving their ability to identify and resolve threats the United States faces.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY: NON-TRADITIONAL THREATS

The Intelligence Community has multiple, but clearly defined, roles and responsibilities. They are responsible for monitoring targets, forecasting problems, and communicating any relevant intelligence with policy-makers, decision-makers, and warfighters in a timely manner. One of their best practices is the use of an intelligence cycle, which allows information to be collected, made into an available product, and distributed to policy makers and law enforcement agencies to assist them in decision making. Despite the Intelligence Community not having much of a record being a part of national security, it has changed significantly throughout history due to our nation’s events. One event in our nation’s history that changed the Intelligence Community is the Cold War.

Following World War II in 1947, the United States and the Soviet Union who were once allies reached a state of political and military tension, which led them to a forty-five-year long war. This way became known as the Cold War. Prior to World War II, the Intelligence Community was severely limited, but the Cold War would bring many changes to the Intelligence Community. At the beginning of the Cold War, a permanent intelligence structure was created. Shortly after, the National Security Act of 1947 was passed, which officially established the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (“Chapter 6: Intelligence,” n.d.). With these advances the Intelligence Community could be more effective in doing their job, specifically when gathering intelligence regarding the Soviet Union. These small triumphs allowed the Intelligence Community to be perceived more positively in society, which encouraged them to deem themselves as a fundamental element in national security, but, they would soon be faced with many challenges (“Chapter 6: Intelligence,” n.d.). After the United States overrode the Soviet Union and the Cold War ended, the Intelligence Community was faced with multiple, smaller threats. However, the Intelligence Community was incredibly inadequate due to a lack of budget, structure, amount of staff, and resources they required to effectively do their jobs. The challenges the Intelligence Community faced following the end of the Cold War quickly diminished their sense of triumph. In 1994, shortly after the Cold War ended, it was found that “the United States remains the primary intelligence target for many countries, including some traditional allies who have increased their attempts to acquire economic and corporate secrets” (“Chapter 6: Intelligence,” n.d.). Despite the Intelligence Community’s accomplishments during the chaos of the Cold War, the failed events that followed led to many questions regarding the importance of the Intelligence Community in national security.

During the beginning of the post-Cold War era, the Intelligence Community struggled to reestablish its identity, but everyone was watching to see if they would succeed or fail (Kerr et al., 2008). The Intelligence Community’s performance was inconsistent, but they were faced with even more challenges yet again. The budget was cut dramatically, they were short-staffed, and received limited and incorrect intelligence, which had a very negative impact on intelligence and counterterrorism. During the 1990s, The Soviet Union was no longer a threat to the United States. Instead, terrorism became the major national security concern (Carafano, 2004) However, the Intelligence Community had no initiative to address the areas in which they were deficient, which resulted in terrorism becoming their second priority instead of their first. Though this is something the Intelligence Community struggled with for some time, following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, they started to make improvements such as how the Intelligence Community was structured. Originally, there was no form of structure or organization, but has since been updated to include sixteen different agencies, which are: Air Force Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Coast Guard Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of State, Department of Treasury, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Marine Corps Intelligence, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, and Navy Intelligence (“Members of the IC,” n.d.).

Today, improvements within the Intelligence Community, technological advances, and scholars’ thoughts and theories, allow us to approach and respond to threats more appropriately.

Threats can originate from many places, both domestic and international. They can also be motivated by many reasons, such as political or religious beliefs. One challenge that the Intelligence Community faces today, that they did not face during the Cold War, is the different types of threats, which have been established over history. The two types of threats that can be faced are traditional and non-traditional. Historically, traditional threats are the most common while non-traditional threats are becoming an increasing concern with national security. Today, the Intelligence Community must take on more responsibilities when approaching and responding to non-traditional threats, as they have more possible outcomes. One responsibility the Intelligence Community must take on is considering an alternative analysis, which uses “several techniques geared toward broadening an analyst’s thinking” (Fishbein and Treverton, 2012). Another responsibility they must take on is being more open-minded and remaining unbiased to the intelligence. If the Intelligence Community fails to do so, it could potentially result in the missing or miscommunicated intelligence.

In summary, the Intelligence Community’s time associated with the United States’ national security has not been long. Prior to the Cold War, the Intelligence Community was very small. However, the Cold War gave them an opportunity to strengthen their organization and better their practices. The Intelligence Community did well gathering intelligence against the Soviet Union during the war, but faced many challenges during the post-Cold War era. Their budget was cut multiple times, they lacked an organized structure, were short on staff, and had very limited resources. Although, the Intelligence Community has changed significantly with our nation’s events and advances in technology. The Intelligence Community would not have come nearly as far if they had not faced the challenges they did in the post-Cold War era. These challenges showed them the areas in which they needed to improve. With the improvements that have been made and the new theories and definitions of threat available, the Intelligence Community can now better approach and respond to both traditional and non-traditional threats.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References:

 

Baldwin, David A. “Thinking about Threats.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, March 1971: 71-78. Accessed January 9, 2017. https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/337557/Thinking%20about%20Threats.pdf.

 

Byman, Daniel L. “Hezbollah’s growing threat against U.S. national security interests in the Middle East.” Brookings. July 28, 2016. Accessed January 23, 2017. https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/hezbollahs-growing-threat-against-u-s-national-security-interests-in-the-middle-east/.

 

Carafano, James J., Ph.D. “The Case for Intelligence Reform: A Primer on Strategic Intelligence and Terrorism from the 1970s to Today.” The Heritage Foundation. July 21, 2004. Accessed January 25, 2017. http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/the-case-for-intelligence-reform-a-primer-on-strategic-intelligence-and-terrorism-from-the-1970s-to-today.

 

“Chapter 6: Intelligence.” Accessed January 25, 2017. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/sa96/sa96ch06.html.

 

Fishbein, Warren, and Gregory Treverton. “Making Sense of Transnational Threats.” Central Intelligence Agency. January 03, 2012. Accessed January 23, 2017. https://www.cia.gov/library/kent-center-occasional-papers/vol3no1.htm#sect03.

 

Haddock, Ginny. “Lecture 1: Introduction to “Threats”.” APUS CLE. Accessed January 25, 2017. https://edge.apus.edu/portal/site/337557/page/3ccdc2ea-9faa-48eb-83f2-b7dc9c2da2d8.

 

Kerr, Richard, Thomas Wolfe, Rebecca Donegan, and Aris Pappas. “Issues for the US Intelligence Community.” Central Intelligence Agency. June 26, 2008. Accessed January 23, 2017. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol49no3/html_files/Collection_Analysis_Iraq_5.htm.

 

“Members of the IC.” Accessed January 27, 2017. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/intelligence-community/members-of-the-ic.

 

“Nation-state.” Merriam-Webster. Accessed January 23, 2017. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation-state.

 

“Non-state.” Non-state. Accessed January 25, 2017. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/non-state.

 

“Risk Management Fundamentals.” April 2011. Accessed 2017. https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/rma-risk-management-fundamentals.pdf.

 

Tellis, Ashley J., Janice Bially, Christopher Layne and Melissa McPherson. Measuring National Power in the Postindustrial Age. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2000. Accessed January 23, 2017. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1110.html.

 

“Threat.” Merriam-Webster. Accessed January 3, 2017. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/threat.