ANDREW KORYBKO
HYBRID WARS:
THE INDIRECT ADAPTIVE APPROACH
TO REGIME CHANGE

CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL CONTEXTS

Chapter 1.1.1: Geopolitical Context

Contemporary American foreign policy towards Russia is the result of the
cumulation of geopolitical theory. Being situated nearly halfway across the world
from one another and in opposite hemispheres, it is natural that geopolitics
would figure prominently in the policy formation of each state towards the other.
Both countries are also strong powers capable of projecting influence and force
beyond their borders, even more so nowadays for the US than for Russia. In fact,
it will be argued that the US has developed a Eurasian-wide approach towards
dealing with Russia and other powers, and it is this strategy that is at the heart of
Hybrid Wars. In order to get to this point, however, an overview of geopolitical
pillars that led to it must first be commenced. Without an understanding of the
theoretical principles that led to today’s policy, it is not possible to adequately
comprehend the significance of the new theory and its pivotal place in American
strategic planning.

Chapter 1.1.2: Mahan and Mackinder

Alfred Thayer Mahan can be thought of as the forefather of the geopolitical
thinking that led to and influenced current American policy. He published “The
Influence of Sea Power Upon History” in 1890 and is credited with highlighting
the importance of naval strategy in the projection of global influence4. The
overriding concept behind his work was that strategic control of certain areas of
the sea can be translated into control and influence elsewhere. This helped naval
powers in formulating their global strategy.
Partially as a response to Mahan’s treatise on the influence of sea power, Halford
Mackinder wrote “The Geographical Pivot of History” in 19045. His article focused
instead on the influence of land power, emphasizing that control over the
Heartland (which he identified as part of Russia and Central Asia) is a necessary
precondition for control over the “world island” of Eurasia. Although not a
prominent part of his theory, he distinguished the Inner Crescent as being the
part of the world island contiguous to the coast. Mackinder critically identified
Eastern Europe as the gateway to the Heartland, later writing in 1919 that “Who
4 Petersen, Alexandros. The World Island: Eurasian Geopolitics and the Fate of the West. Santa Barbara: Praeger
Security International, 2011. Print.
5 Mackinder, Halford. "The Geographical Pivot of History." . The Royal Geographical Society, Apr. 1904. Web. 7 July
2014. <http://stoa.usp.br/…/Geographical+Pivot+at+History+%28Macki…>.
15
rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands
the World-Island; Who rules the World-Island commands the World.”6
What is important here is that both geostrategists proposed opposite views of
how power is exercised across the world. In the context of this book, however,
Mahan’s primary importance is that he influenced Mackinder, who in turn utilized
some concepts of sea power in proposing the Eurasian world island and
Heartland theories. Combined with his analysis of Eastern Europe’s role,
Mackinder’s theoretical contributions elevated Russia’s role in global geopolitical
planning and placed it in the crosshairs of those eyeing global dominance.

Chapter 1.1.3: Prometheism

The next stage of geopolitical thought relating to Russia deals with interwar
Polish leader Josef Pilsudski and his Prometheism strategy. Pilsudski believed that
if the non-Russian people of the Soviet Union could be externally influenced to
rebel against the center, the entire state could fracture into a myriad of ethnic
entities that Poland could exploit via an alliance system7. Although he was
unsuccessful in achieving this goal, Pilsudski had a strong influence on Russianthemed
geopolitics. He pioneered the idea that strategic destabilization of the
periphery can spread into the interior, and this mantra can be seen as the
spiritual genesis of compatriot Zbigniew Brzezinski’s highly influential Eurasian
Balkans idea.

Chapter 1.1.4: The Rimland and Shatterbelt

Nicholas Spykman returned to Mackinder’s Inner Crescent idea in 1944 and
expanded upon it by renaming it the Rimland. He saw this region as being more
important than the Heartland because of its industrial and manpower potential,
as well as its recent legacy of aggressive revisionist powers (Napoleonic France
and Germany in the two World Wars)8. This led to his revision of Mackinder’s
thesis about Eastern Europe and the Heartland to instead command that “Who
6 Fettweis, Christopher. "Eurasia, the "World Island": Geopolitics, and Policymaking in the 21st Century."
GlobalResearch.ca, 14 Mar. 2006. Web. 7 July 2014. <http://www.globalresearch.ca/eurasia-the-world-islandgeopol…-
and-policymaking-in-the-21st-century/2095>.
7 Petersen, Alexandros. The World Island: Eurasian Geopolitics and the Fate of the West., Op. Cit.
8 Sempa, Francis P. . "Spykman's World." . American Diplomacy Publishers, Apr. 2006. Web. 7 July 2014.
<http://www.unc.edu/…/diplomat/item/2006/0406/semp/sempa_spy…>.
16
controls the Rimland rules Eurasia; who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the
world.”
9
Saul Cohen took this a step further by conducting a cross-regional comparison of
the Rimland states to create what he termed Shatterbelts10. He defined this as “a
large, strategically located region that is occupied by a number of conflicting
states and is caught between the conflicting interests of the Great Powers”,
which he saw as being Sub-Saharan Africa, the Mideast, and Southeast Asia.
Because of their diverse characteristics, he predicted that they were more averse
to conflict than any other places in the world.
Chapter 1.1.5: The Eurasian Balkans
Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter and
godfather of the Mujahedeen11, wrote the “The Grand Chessboard: American
Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives” in 199712. In this famous work, he
outlined how the US can preserve its unipolar dominance across Eurasia,
specifically by utilizing something that he termed the “Eurasian Balkans”. He
defines it as such:
9 http://metapoinfos.hautetfort.com/tag/rimland
10 Diehl, Paul F. , and Paul R. Hensel. "Testing empirical propositions about shatterbelts." . University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, 1994. Web. 7 July 2014. <http://www.paulhensel.org/Research/pgq94.pdf>.
11 Cockburn, Alexander , and Jeffrey St. Clair. "How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen." » CounterPunch:
Tells the Facts, Names the Names. CounterPunch, 15 Jan. 1998. Web. 7 July 2014.
<http://www.counterpunch.org/…/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-start…/>.
12 Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. New York, NY:
BasicBooks, 1998. Print.
17
“The Eurasian Balkans form the inner core of that oblong (portions of
southeastern Europe, Central Asia and parts of South Asia, the Persian Gulf
area, and the Middle East)…not only are its political entities unstable, but
they tempt and invite the intrusion of more powerful neighbors, each of
whom is determined to oppose the region’s domination by another. It is this
familiar combination of a power vacuum and power suction that justifies
the appellation ‘Eurasian Balkans’”
13
Brzezinski essentially expanded the idea of the Rimland/Shatterbelt to include the
newly independent former Soviet republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus. This
places the “ethnic cauldron”, as he terms it, right on Russia’s doorstep. He then
borrowed from Pilsudski to include peripheral strategic destabilization within the
Eurasian Balkans as a possible method for weakening the Russian core and
preserving American hegemony. This is also envisioned as preventing the
collusion of continental powers that could threaten American control of Eurasia.
Chapter 1.1.6: Geopolitical Context Summary
Brzezinski’s Eurasian Balkans concept is the apex of American geopolitical
thinking. If Mackinder constructed the world island and located Russia as its
Heartland, Spykman and Cohen outlined its vulnerabilities, and Pilsudski
innovatively conspired to break it up, then Brzezinski combined the teachings of
all of them in identifying the geostrategic imperatives of American primacy. In
13 http://orientalreview.org/wp-content/uploads/…/06/EB_map.jpg
18
order to permanently weaken Russia and thus control the Heartland, it must be
indirectly targeted via the Pilsudski method of destabilization in select Shatterbelt
areas.
The idea is not necessarily to foster separatism within Russia itself as Pilsudski
had planned (although this would also serve American goals), but instead to
embrace the general idea of peripheral chaos and maximize it for strategic
purposes. The logic goes that if Russia’s Eurasian periphery can remain in a
constant state of destabilization or chaotic flux (or at the very least be stably filled
with anti-Russian governments, which in and of itself would be extremely
destabilizing), Russia would be thrown off balance and not be able to hinder
America’s hegemonic plans. The closer that this destabilizing chaos can penetrate
into the Russian core, the better.
America’s challenge today lies in the fact that as the world grows more multipolar
and Russia restores its ability to reassert its neighborly interests (and China and
Iran acquire theirs), the US must now tread indirectly with its destabilizing
methods. The “Shock and Awe” campaign of 2003 or the 2011 NATO War in Libya
are nearly impossible to repeat in Kazakhstan and Ukraine, for example, owing to
the changed international circumstances and enormous collateral (physical,
financial, political) costs that they would entail. What can happen, however, are
campaigns of indirect geopolitical sabotage under the guise of “pro-democracy”
movements or externally supported civil conflicts. In fact, combining both of
them into a “one-two punch” is the perfect “knockout” attack for dealing with
Eurasian heavyweights, in this case, Russia.
The novelty of this approach lies in the fact that it succeeds simply by reaping
chaos and creating centripetal forces that threaten to tear a targeted society
apart. It doesn’t have to overthrow a government per say in order to be a success
– all that has to happen is that society becomes divided and large-scale
uncertainty, the harbinger of social chaos, ensures. This combination of vacuum
and suction, as Brzezinski wrote about above, creates a geopolitical deadlock,
which in turn presents an enormous challenge for the indirectly targeted state
(Russia) to take initiatives past the border of the directly destabilized one. They
are deadlocked into dealing with it, whether they want to or not, and this places
them on the strategic defensive. This is even more so if the targeted state directly
abuts the main indirect target, as Ukraine does to Russia, for example.

Chapter 1.2.1: Military Theories

It is now appropriate to segue into an explanation of certain military theories that
promote the appeal of indirect warfare. It is important to understand how and
19
why American decision makers apply these concepts in order to have a better
grasp of the Hybrid War theory. Select theories, strategies, and tactics will be
discussed within this section, and for the sake of brevity, only the relevant
aspects of each will be included.

Chapter 1.2.2: Fourth Generation Warfare

In 1989, William Lind co-authored an article in the Marine Corps Gazette which
forecast the next generation of warfare14. Identified as Fourth-Generation
Warfare, it is predicted to be more fluid, decentralized, and asymmetrical than
the warfare of the past. When one looks at the explosion of non-state actor
activity since the end of the Cold War15, Lind’s prognosis appears to be correct.
This type of warfare also corresponds to the style of Unconventional Warfare,
meaning that its rise can be seen as a direct consequence of Fourth-Generation
Warfare. Lind also forecast that there would be an increased emphasis on
information warfare and psychological operations, which perfectly meshes with
the modus operandi of Color Revolutions. He writes:
“Psychological operations may become the dominant operational and
strategic weapon in the form of media/information intervention… A major
target will be the enemy population's support of its government and the
war. Television news may become a more powerful operational weapon
than armored divisions.”
Thus, in the context of the book, Lind’s forecasts were very prescient. They
foretold the coming popularity of Unconventional Warfare and the rolling out of
massive anti-government information campaigns. He also wrote that “the
distinction between “civilian” and “military” may disappear”, and this has also
turned out to be the case. Specifically, it will later be seen how civilians are coopted
into fulfilling de-facto military roles during Color Revolutions and how the
military uses civilian support during Unconventional Warfare. Through this way,
Hybrid Wars are the epitome of Fourth-Generation Warfare.
14 Lind, William , Colonel Keith Nightengale, Captain John Schmitt, Colonel Joseph Sutton, and Lieutenant Colonel
Gary Wilson. "The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation." . Marine Corps Gazette, Oct. 1989. Web. 7
July 2014. <http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/…/the-changing-face-of-…>.
15 Arasli, Jahangir. "States vs. Non-State Actors: Asymmetric Conflict of the 21st Century and Challenges to Military
Transformation." . INEGMA, Mar. 2011. Web. 7 July 2014. <http://www.inegma.com/Admin/Content/File-
81020131379.pdf>.
20

Chapter 1.2.3: The Five Rings

Air Force Colonel John Warden is the originator of The Five Rings strategic
concept. This states that there are five primary centers of gravity that hold an
opposing force together16. Beginning from the core (the most important) and
expanding outwards, they are: leadership; system essentials; infrastructure;
population; and fighting mechanisms. The picture below represents this in visual
form:
17
Warden writes that the enemy is like a system, therefore meaning that all of
these parts are interconnected to some degree. The closer one strikes at the core,
the more powerful and reverberating the attack will be. Hitting the system
essentials, for example, will affect all of the circles outside of it, whereas harming
the fielded military will keep the attack isolated to that ring only.
This concept is very important for both Unconventional Warfare and Color
Revolutions, the two pillars of Hybrid Wars. When it comes to Unconventional
Warfare, the fighting units seek to attack each of these circles, but there seems to
be a preponderance of focus on the middle three (population, infrastructure,
system essentials) out of convenience and effectiveness. Of course, attacking the
fielded military or leadership does occur, but as for the former, the odds may be
stacked against the Unconventional Warfare actors, and for the latter, it may be
difficult to come across such an opportunity as a high-profile target.
The Five Rings look different when it comes to Color Revolutions, and there are
two different sets of rings for each target: society and the individual. Society is
targeted by the Color Revolution en masse after the decision has been made to
16 Warden, Colonel John. "The Enemy as a System." . Airpower Journal, Spring 1995. Web. 7 July 2014.
<http://www.emory.edu/BUSINESS/mil/EnemyAsSystem.pdf>.
17 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warden%27s_Five_Rings…
21
initiate the destabilization. From the outer ring to the inner ring, the listings are
on the right-hand side:
Society
Population
(International) Media
National Elites
Military/Police
Leadership
The goal of the activated Color Revolution is to seize power and overthrow a
state’s leadership. It is very effective in doing this, since it gathers the population
into a swarm (a concept which will be described in Chapter Three) and has them
overwhelm public institutions that represent the government. The massive outer
ring thus comes together (or importantly, creates the impression of doing so) in
order to strike directly at the inner ring, circumventing the rest. If the
military/police come to the protection of the leadership core and are successful in
repelling the offensive, then the stage for an Unconventional War is set, even if it
is low-scale like the events in Ukraine (and not full-fledged like in Syria).
The elites are the third deepest ring because they have the power to influence
the media and the populace but are usually unable to affect the military or police.
International and national media have varying degrees of importance depending
on the targeted state, but both do have an effect on the population. Antigovernment
(international) media may make the authorities uncomfortable and
hesitant defending themselves from the Color Revolution coup attempt, but it is
not the deciding factor in whether or not the government is overthrown.
The second target of the Color Revolution is the individual, and “the movement”
attempts to poach as many of them as possible prior to the onset of the
destabilization. These rings are different for each culture and age demographic,
as there are many variances present within a targeted state. One of the myriad
possibilities is below:
Adult Individual (Western)
22
In this example, the family is the core of the individual’s life, so if the information
psy-op campaign can target this vulnerability in convincing the person to join the
movement, then their odds are improved. Likewise, if the movement appeals to
patriotic sentiments but the person or the majority of the population do not place
a strong emphasis on this notion, then it will not be successful. This means that
each Color Revolution must first gather data about their target demographic and
then accordingly market itself to the most vulnerable core circle.

Chapter 1.2.4: The Indirect Approach and the OODA Loop

One of the defining characteristics of Fourth-Generation Warfare is that it is
largely indirect. Be it through asymmetrical warfare or psy-ops, targets are not
typically attacked directly. The whole concept of the indirect approach was
institutionalized long before the advent of Fourth-Generation Warfare in 1954 by
B. H. Liddell Hart. In “The Strategy of Indirect Approach”, he writes about the
necessity of approaching targets via unexpected and indirect methods18. His work
includes the following except that summarizes this concept:
“In strategy the longest way round is apt to be the shortest way home.
More and more clearly has the fact emerged that a direct approach to one's
mental object, or physical objective, along the 'line of natural expectation'
for the opponent, has ever tended to, and usually produced negative
results…the dislocation of the enemy's psychological and physical balance
has been the vital prelude to a successful attempt at [the enemy’s]
overthrow…This dislocation has been produced by a strategic indirect
approach, intentional or fortuitous. It may take varied forms…”
18 Liddell Hart, B. H. . "The Strategy of Indirect Approach." . Internet Archive, 1954. Web. 7 July 2014.
<https://archive.org/…/st…/strategyofindire035126mbp_djvu.txt>.
23
Color Revolutions are an indirect assault on the government of the targeted
nation because no conventional outside forces are being utilized, and the same
holds for Unconventional Warfare. Instead of sending an anti-establishment army
directly into battle against the state or its military, Color Revolutions and
Unconventional Warfare indirectly wage war by selectively targeting various parts
of the Five Rings. This makes them amorphous and difficult to predict.
Unpredictability is the Achille’s Heel of John Boyd’s OODA Loop. Although initially
conceptualized to assist fighter pilots, writer and strategist Robert Greene
believes that the Loop is applicable to all fields of life as well19. The idea is that
decisions are made after the individual Observes the situation, Orients himself,
Decides, and then Acts. The unpredictability associated with the indirect
approach upsets the target’s OODA loop by disorienting them, thereby
hampering their ability to make the right decisions and act properly. Color
Revolutions disorient the police and military because their manifestations are
purposely designed to appear unpredictable, and Unconventional Warfare by its
very nature is endowed with this quality. On the other hand, when Color
Revolutions try to appeal to future participants, they cater their message in as
simple a way as possible in order to maximize the target’s OODA loop.

Chapter 1.2.5: Chaos Theory

One of the most applicable streams of thought for Hybrid Wars is Chaos Theory.
Steven Mann wrote “Chaos Theory and Strategic Thought” in 1992 in an attempt
to fuse these two seemingly disparate concepts20. It must be said, however, that
Mann’s understanding of chaos may be different than that of the reader’s. He
views chaos as synonymous with “nonlinear dynamics” and applying to “systems
with very large numbers of shifting parts” (e.g. society or war). Although it may
seem disorderly, he argues, it is possible to sporadically see some semblance of
patterned order among the chaos, especially in “weakly chaotic systems”.
He theorizes that chaos is dependent on a few initial variables, and that “once we
arrive at an accurate description of our environment, we are in a position
to create strategies which advance our interests.” These variables are the
following:
19 Greene, Robert. "OODA and You." . 24 Feb. 2007. Web. 8 July 2014. <http://powerseductionandwar.com/oodaand-
you/>.
20 Mann, Steven. "Chaos Theory and Strategic Thought." . Parameters, Autumn 1992. Web. 8 July 2014.
<http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/…/1992/1992%20man…>.
24
* initial shape of the system
* underlying structure of the system
* cohesion among the actors
* conflict energy of the individual actors
They apply just as much for Color Revolutions as they do for Unconventional
Warfare. For example, the initial shape of the social situation in the targeted
country is just as important for a Color Revolution as the initial shape of the
physical, military, and infrastructure situation is for Unconventional Warfare. The
same goes for the other two variables.
Where things get extra interesting is when it comes to the last one, the conflict
energy of the individual actors. Mann writes that “to change the conflict energy
of peoples – to lessen it or direct it in ways favorable to our national security
goals – we need to change the software. As hackers have shown, the most
aggressive way to alter software is with a “virus”, and what is ideology but
another name for a human software virus?” Although he wrote this in reference
to what he calls America’s “democratic pluralism and respect for individual
human rights”, it is applicable in many more contexts than that.
Simply put, depending on the civilizational/cultural code and the best way to
penetrate the target citizenry’s social Five Rings, Color Revolutions can adapt
their message to create their own custom “virus” for winning over converts. The
virus “infects” individuals by working to change their political sentiment, and the
idea is that once it finds one “victim”, this individual will then actively “spread”
their new ideas to others, leading to a “political contagion”. This will be discussed
more at length in Chapter Three and the creation of “swarms” via (social)
network warfare, but it is important to at least mention that strategic facet at this
moment due to its relevancy.
The incorporation of chaotic principles into Hybrid Wars is a defining aspect of
Fourth-Generation Warfare. Also, due to their nonlinear nature, they are
inherently indirect and (initially) unpredictable to the target, upending the OODA
Loop that was discussed earlier. On a geopolitical level, chaos fulfils Brzezinski’s
Eurasian Balkans concept, thereby showing that it can have an effect in
International Relations as well as in sociology and military science. This makes
chaos versatile and deeply extends the horizons of its applications.
25
When chaos is willingly unleashed in International Relations as part of a larger
strategy, it has been termed “constructive”21, “creative”22, or “managed”23 chaos.
This form of chaos has been used to describe the Arab Spring events (essentially
theater-wide Color Revolutions, as in the Moscow Conference on International
Security 2014 PowerPoints24) and the externally and non-state-actor-driven
destabilization in Syria and Iraq. At its core, Hyrbid War is managed chaos. It
begins as a virus that upends the social system of the targeted state, and if its
swarms and pseudo-Unconventional Warfare vanguard (e.g. Pravy Sektor-esque
individuals) cannot forcibly seize power or intimidate the government into
stepping down on its own, then an actual Unconventional War is commenced.
The final step, the commencement of Unconventional Warfare, is the new
complementary contribution to Color Revolutions that creates Hybrid War. It was
learned from the Color Revolution failures in Belarus, Uzbekistan, and other
places where such coup attempts were initiated without any fallback
(Unconventional Warfare) plan. Taken together as a unified package (as has been
seen in Syria and to some degree in Ukraine), the ultimate aim of the Color
Revolution and Unconventional Warfare combination (Hybrid Wars) is systemic
chaos.

Chapter 1.2.6: Lead From Behind

In the Introduction, it was mentioned that certain international constraints limit
the application of American force abroad. For example, the resurgence of Russia
and its nuclear parity with the US makes it all but impossible for the Pentagon to
launch a regime change-oriented invasion of Ukraine or Kazakhstan. The US has
thus formulated the Lead From Behind policy to deal with such matters. This
policy has been defined as “discreet U.S. military assistance with [others] doing
the trumpeting”25. It is the new strategy of warfare for theaters where the US, for
whatever reasons, is reluctant to directly militarily engage itself. It relies on using
regional allies/’leaders’ as proxies to further US geostrategic and geopolitical
21 Nazemroaya, Mahdi Darius. "Iraq and Syria are Burning, "Constructive Chaos" and America's Broader Strategy to
Conquer Eurasia." GlobalResearch.ca, 23 June 2014. Web. 8 July 2014. <http://www.globalresearch.ca/iraq-andsyria-
burning-a-collection-of-articles-about-constructive-chaos-at-work/5388270>.
22 Nazemroaya, Mahdi Darius. "Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a "New Middle East"."
GlobalResearch.ca, 14 June 2014. Web. 8 July 2014. <http://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-themiddle-
east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882>.
23 Shahskov, Sergei. "The theory of 'manageable chaos' put into practice." Strategic Culture Foundation, 1 Mar.
2011. Web. 8 July 2014. <http://www.strategic-culture.org/…/the-theory-of-manageable…-
into-practice.html>.
24Cordesman, Anthony. "Russia and the "Color Revolution": A Russian Military View of a World Destabilized by the
US and the West (Full Report)." . Center for Strategic and International Studies, Op. Cit.
25 Cohen, Roger. "Leading From Behind." The New York Times, 31 Oct. 2011. Web. 8 July 2014.
<http://www.nytimes.com/…/11/01/opinion/01iht-edcohen01.html…>.
26
goals via Fourth-Generation Warfare asymmetrical measures. Although originally
conceived to describe America’s position relative to France and the UK in the
Libyan War, Poland and Turkey can also be described as Lead From Behind allies
in the destabilization of Ukraine and Syria26. Whereas France and the UK fulfilled
a more conventional combat role, Poland and Turkey, due to the sensitivities of
the states they are helping to destabilize, proceed along more of a Fourth-
Generation Warfare approach. For the argument of this book in proving the
theory of Hybrid War, Lead From Behind should henceforth be taken to mean the
Fourth-Generation Warfare approach of Poland and Turkey.
Conventional (forceful) regime change strategies (Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq)
were possible in a unipolar world, but with the unipolar moment fading, the US
has been compelled to revive the Lead From Behind template first flirted with
during the Soviet-Afghan War. The first official indication that the US was moving
towards this strategy was its behavior during the 2011 Libyan War, the first-ever
use of the Lead From Behind moniker. This was followed by then-Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates’ final speech that summer, in which he implored NATO
allies to do more to assist the US in tackling global challenges27. It thus became
clear that the US was no longer as enthusiastic about “going it alone”28 as it had
been before, nor does it seem willing to pose the ultimatum of “you are either
with us or against us.”29
The indication that American power is relatively slipping vis-à-vis the other Great
Powers was formally seconded by the National Intelligence Council in late 2012.
In its “Global Trends 2030”30 publication, it writes about how the US will be “first
among equals” because “the 'unipolar moment' is over, and 'Pax Americana' --
the era of American ascendancy in international politics that began in 1945 -- is
fast winding down.”31 Clearly, under such a competitive environment, aggressive
unilateralism will be more difficult to deploy without risking collateral
consequences. This further gave an added impulse to the Lead Form Behind
strategy’s implementation into mainstream American military planning.
26 Korybko, Andrew . "Poland as the 'Slavic Turkey' of NATO Destabilization." . Oriental Review, 21 Feb. 2014. Web.
8 July 2014. <http://orientalreview.org/…/poland-as-the-slavi…/commentpage-
1/>.
27 Gates, Robert. "The Security and Defense Agenda (Future of NATO)." . U.S. Department of Defense, 10 June
2011. Web. 8 July 2014. <http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1581>.
28 "UK and US would 'go it alone on Iraq'." . Telegraph Media Group Limited, 18 Oct. 2002. Web. 8 July 2014.
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/UK-and-US-would-go-it-alone-on…>.
29 "'You are either with us or against us'." . Cable News network, 6 Nov. 2001. Web. 8 July 2014.
<http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/>.
30 "Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds." . Office of the Director of National intelligence, 10 Dec. 2012. Web. 8
July 2014. <http://www.dni.gov/…/national-intelligence-council-global-t…>.
31 Smith, Matt, and Pam Benson. "U.S. to face 2030 as 'first among equals,' report projects." Cable News Network,
11 Dec. 2012. Web. 8 July 2014. <http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/10/us/intelligence-2030/>.
27
Finally, President Obama institutionalized the Lead From Behind template when
he spoke at West Point at the end of May 2014. In his speech, he notably said
that “America must lead on the world stage… but U.S. military action cannot be
the only -- or even primary -- component of our leadership in every instance. Just
because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.”32
This has been interpreted as the US formally abandoning the unilateral “go it
alone” doctrine except under exceptional circumstances33. At this point, it is
evident that the US has definitively displayed its intention to trade the world
policeman post for the Lead From Behind mastermind mantle. Further illustrating
this point, the theater-wide social and political transformation that the US
envisioned with the Arab Spring could not have succeeded with unilateral action.
Therefore, the year 2011 represents the official end of the unipolar moment and
the beginning of the Lead From Behind era, which is in and of itself the US
military’s adaptation to a multipolar world.
Lead From Behind has both Color Revolution and Unconventional Warfare
applications, although it is more commonly used for the latter. Pertaining to Color
Revolutions, the US leads from behind by manufacturing the entire
destabilization and using its on-the-ground proxies to carry it out. Also, it is
important for a pro-US government to abut a state undergoing the coup attempt
in order to funnel material support to the organizers and participants. This state
can also serve to pressure and intimidate the targeted government from utilizing
its right to forcefully defend itself from the coup attempt, and under the “right
scenarios”, it could be a launching ground for the open military interference stage
of the Adaptive Approach (even more so if it is a NATO member or close NATO
partner). The US can also use its ally for funnelling the material necessary to
transform the Color Revolution into an Unconventional War. As for the latter,
which can be prominently witnessed in the case of Turkey and Jordan’s role to
Syria, the US uses its Lead From Behind partners as training grounds for antigovernment
insurgents34 and conduits for arms shipments35.
32 Obama, Barack. "Full transcript of President Obama's commencement address at West Point." The Washington
Post, 28 May 2014. Web. 8 July 2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/…/full-text-of-president-obam…-
address-at-west-point/2014/05/28/cfbcdcaa-e670-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_story.html>.
33 Dionne, Jr. , E.J. . "The New Obama Doctrine: The U.S. Shouldn't Go It Alone." Investors's Business Daily, 28 May
2014. Web. 8 July 2014. <http://news.investors.com/…/052814-702436-us-should-usemili…-
force-only-when-we-or-allies-are-threatened.htm?ref=SeeAlso>.
34 "CIA and the US military operatives train rebels in Turkey and Jordan - report." Autonomous Non-Profit
Organization "TV-Novosti", 22 June 2013. Web. 8 July 2014. <http://rt.com/news/usa-cia-train-syria-rebels-087/>.
35 Chivers, C.J., and Eric Schmitt. "Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A.." The New York Times,
24 Mar. 2013. Web. 8 July 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/…/middl…/arms-airlift-to-syrianrebels-
expands-with-cia-aid.html?pagewanted=all>.
28