In the 2010 mind-bending action flick Inception, Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is the ultimate dream invader—think of him as a high-tech snoop with a penchant for napping. He’s been given a wild task by a high-paying customer- Saito (Ken Watanabe) to pull off "inception": planting ideas in people's heads instead of just stealing them, like some sort of dream gardener.

To tackle this absurd mission, Cobb rounds up a quirky crew: the planner Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), the forger Eames (Tom Hardy), the techie Yusuf (Dileep Rao), and the architect Ariadne (Ellen Page), who always comes off like she wishes she went to art school instead. Their goal? Wriggle through layers of dreams—like peeling an onion that makes you question every life decision—until they reach the intended target, Robert Fischer's (Cillian Murphy) noggin.

But it’s not all smooth sailing. Cobb’s ghostly wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard), crashes the party- like a bad idea, popping in like an uninvited relative. Her presence reflects Cobb’s guilt, proving that unresolved issues have a way of showing up at the worst times—like at a family dinner.

As the film flits between dreams and reality, it hilariously juggles big questions about life, memory, and whether you’re really awake or just snoozing through class. By the end, you’ll wonder if your morning coffee is real or just a sweet figment of your sleep-deprived imagination. It’s an interpretive dance on a mental chessboard, where the dancers specialize in access and placement. Sometimes this takes place in the real world; at others, it’s in someone’s mind.

The military departments provide a service to the United States through access and placement- as a design philosophy. If you think about it, it’s a deceptively simple yet interesting way to approach problem-solving for strategic challenges. You are vulnerable if I can get to you and put whatever I want near you. If you are vulnerable in this way, I can convince you to submit to my will. And for the realists among us, in a Sun Tzu and Clausewitzian sense, that’s what it’s all about. The masters have obtained submission without firing a single shot or “going kinetic” at all. It becomes a mental game, making someone think what you want them to, just like Cobb and his team in the movie.

Access their mental chess board and place an idea powerful enough to change the decision calculus.

A few key requirements exist to maintain an advantage in the access and placement trade. The first is surprise, which Sun Tzu called a “tactical device” and Clausewitz described as having a “profound psychological effect.” The second, closely related, is an unexpected act of warfare—we’ll call it shock.

Hollywood might have you convinced otherwise, but not all the elements of warfare are destructive. Many times, the elements are food, supplies, or medicine. Other times, it’s people.

What kind of people are they? First and foremost, they’re airmen—innovators who use gravity to turn surface domains into vulnerable spaces. Second, they’ve received special training for denied, hostile, and politically sensitive environments.

For those who work elsewhere, I’d describe them as quiet professionals with an almost “un-American” brand of intellectual humility; I’d call them remarkable. After all, it takes a remarkable group to emerge from two decades of Counter-Violent Extremist Organization (C-VEO) and Crisis Response (CR) work.

Today, these people are evolving to new threats that, quite frankly, America’s conventional military and political bodies are having a hard time wrapping their bipolar minds around. After Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. is revisiting strategic competition, driving transformational change, and rebalancing toward change management as a capability.

So, what’s the job now? Well, for those in the community, simply put, it’s continuing to do what you’ve been doing- and adapt to advances in technology and, now, potentially equally capable adversaries.

I describe the U.S. as “revisiting” strategic competition because I think the U.S. knows it well. Initially, it was a war between “New France” and “New England” from 1754 to 1763, then again in a fight for independence from Great Britain from 1775 to 1783. America entered strategic competition with Mexico from 1846 to 1848, when it annexed Texas. Then an internal competition over slavery started our civil war from 1861-1865. Next, America ended Spain’s colonialization of the Western world in a strategic competition from 1895-1898. Then, with Japan from 1900-1922 (over China, ironically), competition with Japan and Germany from 1939-1945 during World War II. And finally, Russia during the Cold War from 1948 to 1991.

On the competition-conflict spectrum, the U.S. has used everything from crippling sanctions (competition) to regime change (conflict) to exert its will over others. What used to be a unipolar world, one in which the U.S. was the dominant player, is giving way to multi-polarity.

So then, what can America’s Air Commandos offer a nation that is simultaneously idealistic with its values of freedom and realistic about the power of other competitors?

With the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the curtain fell on nearly fifty years of rivalry, and the United States emerged as the unrivaled power on the global stage. For the first two decades of this new era, U.S. military expenditures dwarfed those of the next ten nations combined, five of which were allies.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis captured this dominance in his 2018 National Defense Strategy, declaring that the United States enjoyed “uncontested or dominant superiority in every operating domain.” With the liberty to deploy forces wherever and whenever needed, the U.S. and its allies expanded NATO, granting Article 5 protections without hesitation, as no substantial threat loomed. America had what appeared to be, at the time, a nearly global access and placement team, brought to bear by a humble team of Air Commandos.

Underpinning it all was a system of global operations, intricate webs of cover stories, and covert support to intelligence agencies and special forces teams to create a labyrinth of confusion for the unsuspecting outsider. These elements intertwined seamlessly at various times and places, leading the unfamiliar astray easily but having the same result for America’s team: global dominance.

An aside on strategic disruption

China presents an asymmetric challenge to U.S. leadership. The hegemonic disruption model emerges from the foundation of realist theory, where power remains central, yet new players have refined their mastery over it. This evolution doesn’t weaken realism; instead, it retools concepts like the balance of power for a global landscape that includes nonstate actors and ideological tensions.

Traditionally, these frameworks spotlight the rivalry among great powers, predicting that emerging forces will counterbalance a dominant state. Yet, realism's narrow focus—viewing nation-states as the sole players and sidelining ideology—falls short in explaining today’s shifting international dynamics. Organizations like Hezbollah harness hard and soft power, influencing the strategic decisions of powerful nations.

Acknowledging the role of nonstate actors and ideologies is not just insightful; it’s imperative for a country like the United States, which ambitions to maintain hegemony and propagate its beliefs. Embracing this broader perspective is key to navigating the intricate web of contemporary power relationships.

The model operates on three pivotal elements. First, blending nonstate actors and ideology into realist perspectives on dominance and rivalry is essential. The idea that nonstate actors are irrelevant in international relations is outdated. Waiting for groups like Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, or Hezbollah to seize state control before addressing them in threat assessments is beyond naive. Their ideological battle competes directly with U.S. hegemonic ideals, reminiscent of the Cold War.

Second, the model of hegemonic disruption illustrates how rogue actors’ strategies reshape the international landscape. Think of a violent extremist organization as a modern-day iteration of the Cold War-era national liberation movement, but without the need for state sponsorship. This loosely knit “global insurgency” rebuffs established political frameworks, thriving on globalization’s gifts—technology, travel, finance, and communication. The nation-state’s monopoly on coercive diplomacy is eroding, allowing these groups to wage influence without traditional backing. TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter can enable ISIS to meet its recruiting goals while the U.S. military services struggle with aid campaigns on network television. In this evolving dynamic, power is shifting, and it’s a game no state can afford to write off.

Third, transnational threats must be addressed. Manifested through the strategic moves of VEOs (violent extremist organizations), a failed-state crisis will undoubtedly pave the way for additional requirements or a next move.

The collective influence of nonstate actors rejecting U.S. hegemony poses a formidable strategic challenge. These actors engage in destabilizing campaigns, insurgencies, and civil wars, often clashing with local or regional U.S. allies. Grounded in neoclassical realist thought, these asymmetric threats underscore that transnational, and nationalist movements are inherently power-seeking. Nonstate actors actively balance against the hegemon, employing proselytizing and violence as forms of asymmetric resistance.

Changes within nations—like shifting demographics, swift industrial and technological expansion, or significant political changes—can empower second-tier states, potentially allowing them to close the gap with a dominant superpower over decades. This evolving balance of power, or even the mere perception of an approaching parity, could ignite a conflict between great powers. Initially, theories positioned dissatisfied challengers as aggressors.

However, many scholars argue that the presence of unipolarity often sparks preventive wars, seeking to neutralize potential threats before they fully form. The lack of a coordinated effort against the United States post-USSR doesn’t undermine this theory; rather, it highlights that these emerging powers simply haven’t reached the same level yet, and the U.S. constantly rebalances to understand and posture for threats.

Understand the Environment

It happened faster than we could understand it. In 1950, the U.S. held nearly half of the world’s GDP. Fast forward to today, and that share has shrunk to just one-seventh. This decline in relative power has limited U.S. policymakers' options significantly. Take the example of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. With nearly $3 trillion in currency reserves, China is set to invest a staggering $1.3 trillion (and growing) in infrastructure across Europe and Asia, reinforcing already successful feedback loops. In contrast, when the U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo proposed to boost U.S. investments in the Indo-Pacific, the sum amounted to a mere $113 million. We’ve gotten better since Pompeo’s time, but the playing field has changed, and the stakes are now higher.

China has emerged as the undeniable frontrunner in this economic shift. Over the last few decades, its GDP has skyrocketed from just 20% of the U.S. level in 1991 to a remarkable 120% today, using purchasing power parity, the standard favored by both the CIA and the IMF. While internal challenges exist, the momentum behind China’s growth appears robust. With a population four times that of the U.S., if Chinese productivity catches up to that of Portugal (which is still around half of America's), we could witness a staggering GDP that surpasses the United States by double. The trend is clear and poised to continue, requiring new thinking and a new strategy.

Understand the Rules

In the dynamic realm of modern warfare, the battlefield is no longer defined only by traditional armies. Shifting tides, tactics, and strategies, revealing how non-state actors, cutting-edge technology, and ideological clashes are rewriting the rules. A new era of conflict, where the landscape is as unpredictable as it is complex, and every move carries monumental implications on the global stage, is here.

The emergence of non-state actors, private military firms, and widespread access to technology has ushered in a transformative era of warfare. This new landscape defies the old confines of conventional units and tactics, blending them into a dynamic and unpredictable battlefield.

In our information age, the technological leaps of the past two decades rival the monumental shifts of the Industrial Revolution two hundred years ago. This transformation aligns with global political uncertainty during the Cold War. However, many militaries seem trapped in the past, believing these new tools will merely enhance traditional approaches instead of redefining them entirely. It's time to rethink that mindset.

The Air Force, renowned for its commitment to massive bombing campaigns, is fascinated with cutting-edge, costly fighter jets. They remain undeterred, despite going a whopping 40 years without losing a single plane to enemy fire. Today, we’ve set our sights on the F-35, with costs soaring into the trillions of dollars. This investment comes at a time when America’s aerial capabilities already outshine the rest of the globe—and will continue to do so for decades.

Over the past two decades of conflict, relentless displays of force have primarily claimed innocent lives and fueled the anger of those left behind. Meanwhile, networked organizations have deftly showcased their ability to evade heavy blows, turning setbacks into striking counterattacks.

The most significant problem conventional militaries face today is that they are designed to fight big wars. Unfortunately, conflict is not trending toward large-scale combat. Suffering from a chronic “scaling problem,” the U.S. military would better organize itself into many smaller action units.

These smaller action units are poised to respond to the “hider-finder” dynamic in networked warfare. As wars shrink, future enemies will likely have to be found before they can be fought. What once was a U.S. military that prided itself on being a shooter’s organization will have to pull one out of the cybernetics book and become a sensing organization. To do so, smaller units will be required.

Understand the Role

Today, America’s special operations forces stand at a pivotal crossroads, grappling with the evolving nature of global competition. Two critical questions loom large: How has the landscape of geopolitical rivalry shifted? And what does this mean for SOF’s future roles and structures from the 2020s through the 2050s? As the nation transitions from two decades of counterterrorism and fighting violent extremist groups to confronting the challenges posed by Great Powers, SOF must adapt. The future demands a recalibrated approach, and tomorrow’s warriors are ready to rise to the occasion.

During the 20th century, the U.S. and its allies learned a crucial lesson: keeping the Cold War from escalating into a hot conflict was vital in the epic clash between totalitarianism and democracy. They navigated this strategic rivalry adeptly, fulfilling their geostrategic interests without directly confronting the Soviet Union on the battlefield. As we step into the 21st century, that same principle holds true. We can continue to engage, compete, and safeguard our values without resorting to open war, utilizing diplomacy and strategy to secure victory.

Special Operations Forces (SOF) must assert their presence in the information domain, ensuring they don’t yield ground to adversaries. In today’s complex security landscape, SOF will navigate remote, contested environments under constant surveillance, facing high-level threats, including sophisticated weaponry and cyber challenges. It's time to embrace the core principles of special operations, showcasing SOF as vigilant Sentinels—the frontline ambassadors of the joint force, ready to engage in any competition or conflict. We prepare the battlefield with unwavering confidence, knowing we are the crucial first step in every encounter.

The new National Security Strategic Guidance addresses the complexities of our modern world, highlighting a web of “compounded security threats” and a fresh challenge: the compound security dilemma. This dilemma demands we blur the lines between traditional defense and nontraditional security, navigating the often artificial boundaries we've erected.

In this intricate landscape, Special Operations Forces (SOF) are invaluable. They thrive in gray zones, adapting and overcoming with precision. As we forge ahead alongside our joint force, interagency partners, and international allies, SOF must reclaim its influence and strategic advantage—whether in the physical realm, the digital space, or the cognitive battlefield. The mission is clear: protect our nation's interests without resorting to armed conflict yet be poised to engage decisively when necessary. Here, they play the role of Cobb and his crew.

For SOF leaders today and tomorrow, choosing the right tools for the right challenges is not only important but imperative.

SOF's value isn't just in transactions; it's in transformation. We must rethink how we gauge return on investment, integrating our allies' interests and capabilities into our force strategies. This is what comprehensive joint-combined readiness is all about. Traditionally, this idea is understood by most of America’s consulting firms. In the 90s, they capitalized on the tech boom; today, they are pervasive in the military organization transformation space. This isn’t a dig- just an acknowledgment that they live at the intersection of profit and transformation.

As we move forward, the structure and capabilities of SOF will need to evolve significantly in this new era. The role of geography, once understated (or dismissed entirely) by the Air Force, is now making a comeback in international relations, bringing positional advantage back to a discussion about power projection. This is critical; garnering strategic influence from key regions is essential for disruptors, especially China, to leverage geography to challenge U.S. interests globally. China and Russia operate outside established international norms, urging us to adapt and respond decisively.

Execute the play

The future of special operations is clear and unwavering: to be exceptional, forward-looking, and strategically adept at complex problem-solving. Be an evolving team of inceptors- persistently navigating the complex gray areas between competition, conflict, and war, collaborating seamlessly with allies and partners. Inception before it’s needed. This is the enduring mission, and it will remain a guiding principle.

Chess is the pinnacle of mind sports, a cerebral battlefield where players are compelled to dissect positions, weigh countless possibilities, and strategize multiple moves into the future. This game is not just a pastime; it is a rigorous intellectual exercise that requires mental acumen, a laser-like focus, and the ability to strategize even amid the most intense pressures.

Whether one engages in leisurely matches or contests of fierce competition, chess offers an unparalleled mental workout, elevating the experience to that of an art form. For those who seek intellectual stimulation and a means to refine their strategic prowess, chess reigns supreme as a cherished pursuit, inviting players into its intricate world where every move counts.

Here, tactical thinking is not merely beneficial but essential. A well-crafted strategy's impact can dramatically shape a contest's outcome. By grasping the significance of strategic thought and the nuances of the decision-making process, athletes position themselves to compete and triumph.

So, the next time you find yourself a spectator watching the news or witnessing a dramatic shift in the geopolitical environment, take a moment to acknowledge that this is a game requiring another level of understanding and ways to think—one where collective intelligence and skill are drivers of victory. And just like Cobb and his team, all it takes is a well-placed idea to interrupt another's decision-making theorem.