Know the Enemy: A New Type of OPFOR Reflects Current Realities

A New Type of OPFOR Reflects Current Realities

“If you know the enemy, and you know yourself, you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.”1

A tanker’s worst enemy might very well be a single dismounted enemy soldier equipped with a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG). Or perhaps it’s a sniper positioned more than two kilometers away who can put a bullet through one of your tank commanders. At the operational level, your initial contact might occur when you lead your armored column into a sophisticated ambush that consists of 15 antitank guided missile (ATGM) teams, all firing at the same time and at selected targets. Maybe tanks aren’t the target, but as you escort the battalion trains to resupply a sister unit, the vehicle carrying ammunition erupts into a ball of fire as it passes over a command-detonated mine. These are just a few capabilities of the “new” enemy, an enemy that we are just now beginning to understand and respond to. Military operations in Afghanistan have many of us recognizing, some for the very first time, that there are some fundamental differences in how we deal with an enemy in the Contemporary Operational Environment (COE). Unfortunately, just as many fail to accept that there is any difference at all. We can attribute that particular mindset to the fact that the United States is the lead actor on the global stage. We’re also the best trained, best equipped fighting force in the world. We’re a world power, the world power, unstoppable and dominant. In addition, we have the most refined and robust intelligence apparatus at our disposal. Our various intelligence resources are in place to give us critical information on every potential and existing threat on the planet, whenever and wherever we need it. As long as we know everything there is to know about a specific threat country’s forces, namely their equipment, tactics, techniques and procedures, we will know what they are capable of and can easily defeat them. We are also great students of war and we study the writings of numerous great and ancient war philosophers, the most notable of whom is Sun Tzu. We regularly quote Sun Tzu’s sayings to the point of axiom. Not to deny the relevance, or reverence, of any of his great works, but there’s a big difference between “knowing the path, and walking the path.” A Catalyst for Change It has been more than 13 years since the 1989 collapse of the Berlin Wall, and we’re just now getting a look at anew Opposing Forces (OPFOR) doctrine. The new OPFOR may represent a world-class opponent, but it’s a living enemy, an enemy we face today. This new OPFOR is an excellent match to any number of potential threat countries that exist in the COE. The TRADOC Threat Support Directorate (TSD) web site at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, recently released copies of the FM 7- 100, OPFOR Doctrinal Framework and Strategy, FM-700.1, OPFOR Operations, and FM-700.2, OPFOR Tactics manuals. TSD can also provide a copy of the OPFOR Interim Training Support Package to all qualified instructors who wish to begin implementing the new OPFOR doctrine into training. However, many soldiers, even before reading the new manuals, are already saying, “We don’t need anew OPFOR,” and others will do just as much harm by adding the new manuals to their FM library without even cracking a cover. If you fall into either of those two categories, don’t be alarmed, because you’re not alone. Change almost always meets with resistance, especially when those facing it have to do some changing of their own to keep up, but it’s not change for the sake of change. What this OPFOR changes most is the “predictable conditions for victory.” We all like the “old” OPFOR because we know it and can defeat it. But one thing’s for certain: the new enemy isn’t predictable, and neither will be our OPFOR. Out With the Old, And In With the New The conventional “Krasnovian” OPFOR doctrine has served our CTCs and battle labs for generations of officers across all branches. It was a fightable opposition that tested our Army’s systems, functions, and services to their fullest. We even got a chance to validate our training against Iraq during the Gulf War. Desert Storm proved to everyone that we trained the right way to defeat the right kind of enemy. However, some still argue that we were a very fortunate coalition force. It’s interesting to consider a very different outcome had Saddam Hussein been given a chance to read our new OPFOR manuals prior to the Gulf War. For many, the Gulf War only solidified the opinion that the United States war machine is the supreme military fighting force of the world. Our notion of battlefield superiority, especially in terms of technology and intelligence, has resulted in some very painful and costly operational lessons learned. Yet despite those lessons learned, many warfighters continue to hold fast to the belief that fighting an adaptive enemy is no different than fighting an enemy that marches to a timetable, has distinctive organizations and structures, and relies on numerical superiority to achieve victory. The new OPFOR is the new enemy, but what’s so new about it? To be sure, the new, adaptive enemy is older than the Former Soviet Union (FSU), which makes it older than our conventional “Krasnovian” doctrine. The key and critical difference for us, especially in ARMOR — 43

“The key and critical difference for us, especially in terms of training, is that the enemy doesn’t follow the rules as we know them. This is a fundamental element of asymmetric or adaptive warfare....”

terms of training, is that the enemy doesn’t follow the rules as we know them. This is a fundamental element of asymmetric or adaptive warfare. History is full of examples of military forces adapting their operations to overcome disadvantages and then defeat a numerically superior, better equipped, or better trained opposing force. This is no gross oversimplification of the facts; adaptive warfare is more a cause for victory than for defeat. Plainly put, the key to understanding adaptive or asymmetric warfare is in the ability to identify and exploit the weaknesses of your opponent while at the same time protecting your own assets. The New Enemy and His Objectives The road to better situational awareness begins with a look at how the enemy is described in the new OPFOR manuals. “The military and nonmilitary force of the ‘State’, a powerful, regionally dominant, nondemocratic nation that seeks hegemony within its region. The State views the U. S. as a potential threat to its regional and global aspirations. It seeks to undermine U. S. relations with other regional nations in order to increase its own. It seeks regional expansion. The State’s goals are long-term. The State is aggressive yet patient.”2 and its “…infrastructure and policy are representative of nations that may threaten U. S. interests.”3 This template fits many former and current countries we have been involved with militarily, but it does not represent any one particular country, or state. It represents the potential of any number of states. This OPFOR model serves as a basis for developing the training conditions that match our current global environment. We call this enemy an OPFOR for training purposes, but we call them “threat countries” when we identify the state by name. The primary operational objective of the enemy is the destruction of key U. S. systems. This “systems approach to combat” is a method employed by the enemy to target critical systems that we need to perform or accomplish our mission. For example, we would be extremely degraded in our response to enemy artillery fires if the enemy attacks and destroys our Q-36/37 radar systems. It’s highly probable that we will have to take the fight to the enemy, and because of this it is imperative that we protect our critical non-combat systems. When comparing our capabilities as an extra-regional force to any number of regionally dominant states from around the world, one thing is clear from the beginning: the enemy will have the home-field advantage. When it comes to the close fight, a home-field advantage is a big advantage. If the state cannot prevent us from entering the region, it will work to protect its key weapons systems while targeting ours. The enemy will accomplish this by placing his critical units and systems in sanctuaries, by mixing his special purpose forces in among the civilian populations, and by attempting to control the restricted terrain and urban environments. The enemy’s biggest advantage is time. He will attempt to control time completely and will use it to manipulate our actions by attacking us according to his schedule. His goal will be to create “windows of opportunity” where he can successfully destroy our key systems, even if it means accepting a reasonable degree of loss with the accomplishment of his mission. At a strategic level, his goal may be to force our early exit from the region by creating unacceptable casualties in an attempt to influence our national will, or more simply, he can just wait us out. The enemy knows the terrain in detail. He will work to draw us into the “close fight” in an attempt to negate our standoff capabilities. Standoff does not only refer to range, it also means spoofing our reconnaissance, intelligence, surveillance and target acquisition (RISTA) systems and sensors in an attempt to lull us into a false sense of security. Last, but equally important, the enemy will fight using rules of engagement (ROE) he finds appropriate for the moment and will use our strict adherence to the ROE against us. For obvious reasons, operations under these conditions put us at a distinct disadvantage. Here are the additional enemy objectives: No Force on Force - “The enemy understands that “force-on-force” maneuvers may not be the best way to win wars and achieve one’s goals.”4 You will probably not see as many tank-vs-tank engagements develop on the COE battlefield, but that doesn’t mean you won’t see enemy tank formations either. What’s important to study is how armor will be used in the close fight, namely in urban and restricted terrain. There is a high probability that some enemy armor may even be equipped with niche technologies that will either equal or exceed our capabilities. Systems Approach to Combat - “The enemy believes that a “systems approach to combat” is the most effective means of achieving success.”5 With the emergence of digitization, we are becoming more and more reliant on systems that represent “single points of failure.” Our biggest challenge on the COE battlefield will be protecting key systems that are mission-enabling or mission-enhancing. Our National Will - “The enemy believes that if it can disable our economy, capabilities, or even political stability by use of precision weapons and information warfare, it can cause our armed forces to lose its effectiveness….at the strategic level, the enemy may choose to target our political will and determination to continue the conflict.”6 The events of September 11, 2001 serve as a perfect example of this

ARMOR — 45 “We are the enemy of our enemy, and as simple as that sounds, our awareness of that perception is often fleeting. The enemy knows and studies us, so let us know and study him....” Continued on Page 48

“Three crewmen killed when tank hits mine,” Margot Dudkevitch, The Jerusalem Post, 15 Feb 02 “Israeli Tank Regarded With Pride,” Jack Katznell, Associated Press, 15 Feb 02 “Arabs Deploy New Explosive Against Tank; 3 Israelis Die,” James Bennet, New York Times, 15 Feb 02 “A Hollowed Magnetic Charge and Mine Blew up Chariot-3 Tank in Palestinian Ambush in Gaza Strip Thursday Night,” DEBKAfile, 15 Feb 02 “Wrecked Tank Lacked Special Plate Protection,” Amnon Barzilay, Ha'aretz, 17 Feb 02 “Tank Inquiry: No Amount of Armor Could Have Helped,” The Jerusalem Post, 19 Feb 02 “Israeli tanks leave Ramallah as U. S. envoy visits,” CNN, 14 Mar 02 “Three soldiers die in Gaza Strip landmine explosion,” Arieh O'Sullivan, Margot Dudkevitch and the Associated Press, The Jerusalem Post, 14 Mar 02 “Three IDF soldiers killed in tank blast near Gaza settlement,” Amos Harel, Jalal Bana, and Haim Shadmi, Ha'aretz and agencies, 15 Mar 02

CPT Adam Geibel is the S2, 5/117th Cavalry, 42ID (NJARNG). In civilian life, he is the Associate Editor of the Journal of Military Ordnance and a freelance writer.

ARMOR —

These shared learning experiences result in officers and NCOs who are, “self-confident, adaptive leaders who motivate teams to solve complex problems while operating in a full-spectrum environment in an Army transforming to an Interim and an Objective Force.”15 The Armor School continues to refine and enhance leadership development that trains our future leaders to, “Lead teams that are lethal at the point of contact.” When discussing the new enemy, there are two words we should drop from our vocabulary — “always” and “never.” Those two words quickly sum up our understanding of the enemy in the COE. The authors of the new OPFOR manuals fully understand the importance of their mission to bring us this information; now it’sup to us to use it to our advantage. “Thus we know that there are five essentials for victory:

• He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.

• He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.

• He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all the ranks.

• He will win who prepared himself, and waits to take the enemy unprepared.

• He will win who has military capability and is not interfered with by his sovereign. Victory lies in the knowledge of these five points.”16 We are literally standing on the doorstep of anew age of warfare, and we must embrace the fact that we are a principal actor in the COE. We are the enemy of our enemy, and as simple as that sounds, our awareness of that perception is often fleeting. The enemy knows and studies us, so let us know and study him.

Notes 1Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Thomas Cleary (Translator), Shambhala Publications, Inc. January 1991. 2The Opposing Forces. (See also FM 7- 100/.1/.2), TSD, TRADOC, Ft. Leavenworth, Kan., 28 August 2001. 3Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9Ibid. 10White Paper: Capturing the Operational Environment, TSD, TRADOC, Ft. Leavenworth, Kan., 2 February 2000. 11The Transformation of War, Martin van Creveld, The Free Press, 1991. 12White Paper: Capturing the Operational Environment. 13Martin van Creveld. 14Unrestricted Warfare, Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House, February 1999. 15Command Philosophy, COL John F. Antal, May 2000. 16Sun Tzu.

MAJ Kenneth C. Cary enlisted in 1980, and served with the 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell Ky., and the 3rd Armored Division. He attended California State University Fresno, earning his ROTC Commission as a Distinguished Military Graduate in 1989. After Armor Officer Basic Course, he served during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield as a tank platoon leader in the 2-8 Cav, 1st Cavalry Division. He later led 1st Cavalry Division’s Horse Cavalry Detachment. In 1994, he transitioned into military intelligence, and served as a G2 plans officer and as the special security officer for the 2nd ID, Korea. He later served with the 902d Military Intelligence Group, Fort Meade, Md., as the group S2; as operations officer for the 308th MI BN, and as commander of Charlie Company, 308th MI BN, Fort Leavenworth, Kan. In 1999, he was assigned as the S2 and intelligence instructor-writer for the 2nd Squadron, 16th Cavalry Regiment. Currently, he is the regimental S2 for the 16th Cavalry Regiment, Fort Knox, Ky.

Know the Enemy from Page 45