PDA

View Full Version : Bond-Relationship Targeting



thedrifter
03-22-06, 06:22 AM
Bond-Relationship Targeting
by Robert J. Bunker

Reverse engineer the bond-relationship target and be successful against the insurgency.

Maj Daniel A. Miller and Capt John P. Sullivan’s article, “The Value of Expeditionary Engineering in Theater Engagement and Combat Support” (MCG, Dec03) discusses the application of advanced warfighting concepts without specifically mentioning them. Apparently this is because the authors took the initiative and applied their own original thinking to this issue. Rather than take away from their achievement, it is the intent of this short article to directly link their real-world engineer support battalion (ESB) activities to these advanced concepts.

It is known that terrorists and guerrillas do not succeed because of the application of traditional forms of “destructive combat power” utilized by military forces. Instead, they principally rely upon the application of “disruptive combat power.” The term for this form of combat power is bond-relationship targeting (BRT). Given the networked nature of nonstate forces and their unwillingness to engage in force-on-force combat, the application of BRT, combined with other means, is far more effective against them than the use of standalone forms of traditional combat power. The 1997 definition of BRT is as follows:

Rather than gross physical destruction or injury, the desired end state is to create tailored disruption within a thing, between it and other things, or between it and its environment by degrading, severing or altering the bonds and relationships which define its existence.1

9th ESB activities in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM that resulted in “increasing the legitimacy of the national government and minimizing the relevancy of resident terrorist groups” fall within the scope of BRT. Miller and Sullivan’s Figure 1 (shown at right) portrays a slightly modified Clausewitzian trinity with the government, people, and terrorist (in place of the military). They do not focus upon these things but rather upon the bonds and relationships that hold them together. The outcome of 9th ESB activities enhanced legitimacy between the government and the people, severed support between the people and the terrorist, and helped to create an appropriate governmental response to the terrorist.

Enhancing legitimacy is a form of defensive BRT. Successful terrorist campaigns over time take the public’s view of a government and alter it from one of competence and trust to that of incompetence, corruption, and mistrust. Attempts by terrorists to bring about overreaction and brutality against the general public by police and military forces is a standard ploy. 9th ESB operations, on the other hand, sought to strengthen the bond with the public—in a sense provide some defensive armor—against the effects of terrorist activity.

Severing support is a form of offensive BRT. A classic example of offensive BRT was the Tet offensive that took place in 1968 during the Vietnam War. It resulted in severing the bonds between the American populace and the Government—even though it was a battlefield disaster for the Viet Cong—and resulted in a political defeat for the United States. We can fight “fire with fire” and apply BRT against terrorists. This way support from the people that allows terrorists to operate will be degraded or severed, and the terrorists will become isolated. This seeks to counter Mao Tse Tung’s view on nonstate forces being likened to fish that exist within a sea of population.

Military response to the terrorist is a form of offensive BRT. A viewing of the celebrated film Battle for Algiers supports this statement by showing how the Algerian insurgency was successfully broken by the French. They did this by systematically unmasking parts of the terrorist cell structures and then severing the bonds and relationships that held it together. This is an effective technique because the “not crime-not war” operational environment in which terrorists and guerrillas operate is too complex for a standard military responses.

BRT can also be applied in counterdrug, countergang, and counterriot control (anarchist direct action) missions. It requires the bond-relationship mapping of an opposing force (OpFor) for offensive targeting purposes and the same form of mapping of friendly assets for defensive purposes. BRT has been used by various U.S. military and law enforcement groups against nonstate OpFors and represents another tool in our global war against terrorism. It provides a useful conceptual framework in both offensive and defensive missions and can make successful activities, such as those implemented by the 9th ESB in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, even more successful.

Note
1. Bunker, Robert J., Editor, Non-State Threats and Future Wars, counter-OpFor strategies section, Frank Cass, London, 2003, pp. 104–107.

>Dr. Bunker is a consultant, Counter-OpFor Program, National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center-West, a program of the National Institute of Justice. He was recently a guest speaker on the topic of suicide bombings in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM at the I MEF/Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton Base Antiterrorism/Force Protection Conference.



Ellie