The Long War Against Terrorism: A Military Perspective

Conference Context & Objectives

• The session marked the Milken Institute's first panel with a purely military perspective on the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), facilitated by Operations Officer Lt. Cmdr. Matt Driscoll and senior advisor Travis Dredd.
• The panel included seven military officers from the Milken Institute's funded Military Leadership Circle, aiming to bridge the gap between the defense community and the broader business/academic audience.
• The session structure prioritized interactive dialogue, with specific protocols for audience Q&A after each panelist response wave.

Panelist Credentials

• Brigadier General John Danu: Assistant Division Commander, 1st Marine Division; former commander of Marine Expeditionary Brigade Afghanistan and Regional Command (2014); holds multiple master's degrees and is a permanent Council on Foreign Relations member.
• Lieutenant Colonel John Gallagher: Army strategist and West Point graduate; served as special assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (Gen. Martin Dempsey); advised Coalition Forces in Afghanistan (2009–2010) and U.S. Central Command during the Arab Spring.
• Retired Brigadier General Kimberly Field: Former Pentagon Joint Staff Deputy Director for Middle East Political Affairs; executive officer to the Commander in Afghanistan; dual experience in military strategy and State Department stabilization operations.

Core Strategic Challenges & Enemy Analysis

• Prolonged Conflict Duration: General Field cites the Syria situation as the "most complex problem" seen in 40 years of U.S. military service, driven by unstable environments, disenfranchised populations, and governance failures.
• Ideological Shift: Lt. Col. Gallagher notes an expansion in active Salafi jihadist groups from 3 in 1988 to 19 on 9/11, and currently 49 active groups.
• Nature of the Threat: The enemy is characterized as loosely networked, non-state actors utilizing unprecedented information/communications access, money flows, and violent means to exploit weak governance.
• Territorial vs. Ideological: The U.S. previously over-emphasized the "no safe haven" doctrine; the threat has evolved to outpace territorial constraints by migrating to areas of weak governance and weaving narratives into local grievances.
• Delegitimization Gap: Current strategies lack a robust mechanism to delegitimize the extremist worldview, relying too heavily on tactical interdiction without countering the ideological narrative with constructive local voices.
• Adaptation Rate: General Field observes that while the U.S. destroyed 75% of Al-Qaeda leaders in 14 years, the enemy continues to adapt, with ISIL representing a pseudo-state entity rather than just a terrorist network.

Operational Lessons & Case Studies

• Afghanistan Successes: General Danu characterizes the transition of the Afghan National Army to full security responsibility as a success, noting the force's capability to operate in the southwest, though he warns of persistent sanctuary issues in Pakistan and Iran.
• Afghanistan Challenges: Lt. Col. Gallagher highlights the "debt" Afghan leaders feel toward the coalition for infrastructure and security, but notes high casualties among local reformers (e.g., broadband advocates) and the difficulty of sustaining gains without local ownership.
• Yemen Model: General Field describes Yemen as a short-term success in degrading AQAP via intelligence and special operations, but notes the strategy stalled due to bandwidth being consumed by the rise of ISIL in Syria and Iraq.
• Syria Strategy: General Field states U.S. policy focuses on degrading and destroying ISIL; while Assad is not a partner, the U.S. must carefully sequence targets to avoid bolstering Iranian-backed regimes or Sunni extremists.
• Humanitarian Interventions: Strikes in Kobani and on Mount Sinjar were driven by a mix of strategic interest and humanitarian values to prevent mass atrocities, balancing political constraints.

Governance, Civil-Military Relations, & "Whole of Government"

• Governance as Foundation: Panelists agree military force only creates space; long-term stability depends on governance, rule of law, and essential services, not just kinetic action.
• Local Partner Necessity: General Field and Lt. Col. Gallagher emphasize that success in Iraq and Afghanistan now relies on local Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish partners who understand regional grievances, making the U.S. role less heavy-handed.
• Economic Solutions: Panelists agree that military force alone creates frustration; solutions require economic opportunity, as illustrated by David Solomon's comparison to Israel's "Nachal" model combining agriculture and military training.
• Resource Allocation: General Danu argues that failure to synchronize and prioritize national power instruments (diplomacy, economics, security) leads to operational delays, such as the slow response to the crisis in Yemen.

Resource Constraints & Future Outlook

• Budgetary Pressure: General Danu notes 65 cents of every military dollar is consumed by pay and entitlements, leaving limited funds for modernization, maintenance, and infrastructure.
• Strategic Prioritization: The military must balance counterterrorism with emerging threats in Ukraine (Russia), the Pacific (China), and the Middle East while facing sequestration and shrinking NATO budgets.
• Multi-Domain Threats: The security environment has expanded from four domains (land, air, sea, space) to include cyber, requiring the military to underwrite all tenets of national security strategy.
• Forward-Looking Warning: Lt. Col. Gallagher expresses concern that U.S. leadership may fall below a critical threshold of deterrence and alliance assurance if resources continue to shrink, potentially making the global security environment irreversible worse.
• Generational Continuity: Panelists agree that the threat of terrorism and instability is likely to persist for future generations, with the conflict evolving rather than concluding.