Month: June 2017

Asia should be America’s top national security priority. Right now, it isn’t. Even in chaos and uncertainty, the United States exerts unprecedented influence internationally and is cloaked in immense powers. With the snap of a finger, the United States can make a difference. Let’s look at what’s happening in Asia today.

Early Friday, terrorists conducted a well coordinated raid in Manila against a soft target that had every characteristic of an international incendiary action. While the objectives of the attacker(s) are being debated, the attack has all the hallmarks of an ISIS-inspired operation.

The Philippines military has been fighting an Islamic insurgency on the southern Island of Mindanao for decades. Over the past few years, the spread of radical Islam has found favorable support where governance is rare. This is an area for rich and fertile recruiting of the vulnerable to join the ranks of metastasizing radicalism.

The last thing the world needs is growing terrorism in South East Asia (SEA). However, the conditions are aligned for its spread. Philippine President Duterte is a thug. His political agenda has two prongs: kill as many drug users as his administration can (thousands to date) and do his part to further distance Manila from Washington politically.

We should not be surprised by this recent horror in Manila. The United States will always lean in to resist and attack terrorism where it emerges. It now has been overly complicated by our weakened presence in the region.  American law enforcement and intelligence will support the Philippines. However, terrorism won a tactical victory because of the fractured relationship between our two nations.

Not only has radical terrorism become a part of the region but also hosts the struggle between an expanding China and an adventuresome Saudi Arabia.  Specifically, Indonesia is at an inflection point. First, it must embrace the promise of regional support from China or accept the global advantage of a stronger relationship with the United States. Second, Indonesia must strengthen its tradition of a moderate, accepting, and thoughtful brand of Islam or risk aligning with the radical and hardline teachings of Saudi Arabia’s madrasas.

Over many years, America’s time and treasure have been diverted fighting existential terrorism in the middle east. As the United States exercises muscles it hasn’t used in awhile, China, by comparison, has been busy in SEA (especially in Indonesia). China seeks to own Indonesian ports and, as a result, the international flow of commerce through the region.

For obvious reasons Jakarta has a decision to make: embrace Beijing, embrace Washington, or embrace both. The third option is a throw away. Washington has a decision to make as well. In April 2019, Indonesia will hold its next general elections. Let’s hope American leadership makes it clear that Indonesia is more than simply important to our collective national security. It is critical to global peace and stability.

The clash of titans has shifted east. Asia deserves our sincere focus.

As we know, North Korea has nukes. It continues to develop missile technology that with every new missile launch (three in the last two weeks), moves the regime in Pyongyang closer to realizing an ICBM. China and the United States agree that a nuclear Korean peninsula is unacceptable. North Korea must modify its behavior on its own or it must be forced to change.

South Korea has a new President, democratically elected just last month following the arrest of the former President. Apparently, newly elected President Moon Jae-In was not notified about the deployment of additional launchers of the Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) system in the south by the U.S. He was elected to assert Seoul’s independence from Washington. Not a good way to deliver on a fundamental campaign promise. Look, Korean political leaders always reflect Korean pride and strength. Our alliance is not at risk but fissures like this (if true), are avoidable.

Today, the western Pacific has three U.S. carrier battlegroups on station, a prudent strategic move in light of the current uncertainty in the region. What’s clear is that Asia has been a second-tier national security priority for almost two decades. It is only through the vigilance of our regionally deployed military and alliances that we’ve been able to ensure stability. Additionally, we’ve been fortunate. Readiness of our military forces has never been at risk; however, our posture in Asia has been.

America never followed through on its promise many years ago “to pivot to Asia.”  However, Asia pivoted to us. I’m not sure that’s good news or bad news but it is what it is. Let’s not squander it. A young soldier told me years ago, “better to be lucky than good.” Not that I agree that serendipity is a solution, but let’s take advantage of our “luck” and stay focused on Asia.

Russia, Syria, ISIS, and North Korea are capturing the news today, but simmering political and economic unrest in Venezuela and Latin America is potentially a threat to the United States.

The security and economic standing of Central and South American nations are critical to the defense and economic growth of the United States. President Trump’s “America First” foreign policy impacts longstanding formal and informal relationships with many of our southern neighbors.

The most headline grabbing initiative of course is the border wall the administration intends to build along the boundary with Mexico to mitigate the steady stream of illegal immigrants. The Department of Homeland Security estimated nearly 1 million illegal immigrants crossed the Mexican border in 2016, adding to the nearly 11 million currently in the United States. The prospect of more comprehensive border security (including a wall) projects fewer illegal immigrants, lessening state and local tax burdens to cover the education, welfare, and health care expenses of undocumented workers and their families. Importantly for Mexico, President Trump has abandoned his initial position to repeal the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and pledged to renegotiate the terms so that they are more favorable to American workers. Amid softening of the U.S. administration’s stance on trade with Mexico (and Canada), the Mexican economy has seen growth of nearly 3% GDP during this latest quarter. We can anticipate the administration’s border security posture and its NAFTA negotiations will drive much of the Mexican economic and security outlook for the foreseeable future.

Further south, the Venezuelan socialist experiment is imploding, causing violence, mass exodus to Colombia, Brazil and Panama, and an economic and political spiral that threatens the entire region. Former President Hugo Chavez in 1998 nationalized many of the private assets, such as oil and mining companies, to redistribute wealth and create a socialist state. With the severe drop in oil prices, Venezuela finds itself the owner of assets that cannot pay for themselves, much less the services it has promised its citizens. Worse, because of Chavez mandated price controls, Venezuelan farmers and manufacturers saw no upside in producing basic food products and manufactured goods. Therefore, Venezeula must use what little foreign exchange it has to import food to feed its citizens. This is the classic socialist/Latin American dependency story with predictable results.  Venezuela’s GDP has contracted by nearly 19% in 2016 and inflation is predicted to be between 700-2000% going forward. With numbers like those, we can expect chaos to reign in Venezuela. Naturally not a safe investment until President Nicolas Maduro (or a more competent replacement) can attempt to implement market reforms, Venezuela also poses a security threat to the region. The exodus of refugees, mostly into Colombia, Brazil, and Panama, could potentially destabilize those governments and their decelerating economies. Similar to how the Syrian civil war has displaced millions of refugees into Western Europe, the Venezuelan crisis could have a similar, but smaller, impact on the teetering economies of Colombia and Panama. As the chaos continues, we must recognize the significance of the Panama Canal and the logistics and services sector that revolve around that strategic asset. The Venezuelan crisis poses the largest regional security threat to U.S. vital interests, the free passage of trade through shipping lanes. The U.S. Administration should keep a watchful eye on the refugee migration as the situation develops. Just as ISIS has expanded into Afghanistan and other regions where instability reigns, we can expect ISIS to exploit the Venezuelan crisis to potentially disrupt the Panama Canal and move with refugees up the Central American landscape to the border with the United States.

Brazil and Argentina have traditionally been the main drivers of the Latin American economic outlook, especially in relation to the United States. Brazil is emerging from a recession that mirrors what the United States endured from 2008-2013, yet is still seeing flat to marginally increasing GDP growth. Meanwhile, Argentina’s reforms seem to be gaining traction as they claw their way out of recession.

Watch for U.S. policy toward border security with Mexico (and therefore the rest of Latin America), the administration’s positioning on NAFTA, and the U.S. response to the long developing crisis in Venezuela. We have some major strategic interests involved (illegal immigration, drug flow, and the Panama Canal) and while these issues may not receive the same attention as U.S. involvement in Southwest Asia and Afghanistan, they are every bit as critical.

Following the election victory of Emmanuel Macron on Sunday, France will remain a willing, and hopefully, leading member of the European Union (EU).  At least for now, and hopefully into the future, the fracturing of the EU no longer appears inevitable.

Just last week, all evidence gave Marine Le Pen, a full-throated French populist who campaigned on a platform of strength and French assertiveness, a slight edge over her opponent. Her platform essentially was to declare France independent of the burdensome rules associated with EU membership. In her view, continued membership in the EU put France at risk diplomatically, economically, and in terms of its security. These were all seemingly solid reasons to re-assert France’s identity. It was an identity she felt was lost.

A few weeks ago, I attended a national security seminar in New York City that addressed the current and most troublesome global security challenges. Economists, justifiably, seemed to dominate the conference. Of all the elements of power, economics is the most tangible that can influence problems in their infancy or be used punitively in the form of sanctions to punish and hopefully modify bad behavior. At one point in the conference a Wall Street analyst declared rather agnostically (and certainly with a level of confidence that I could not challenge) that he was “the best short seller in the world of banking.” Based on the sounds of murmurs and chatter that erupted from the back of the room, the audience seemed largely unimpressed.

His proclamation, possibly true, was irrelevant. No one cared. Like this banker, Ms. Le Pen might have been the strongest person in France, and, not surprisingly, no one cared. She was irrelevant.

The short seller succeeded by reading the tea leaves of failure and collapse, not by providing remedies to thorny and inherently complex economic and market driven problems. Similarly, Le Pen succeeded by pointing out failures, but did not provide solutions acceptable to the French electorate.

The voters in France’s Presidential election on Sunday agreed. Ms. Le Pen’s bombast and stridency did not convince anyone that they were essential ingredients to building France’s path to its future. In contrast, Mr. Macron’s center left position of moderation might be like eating unsalted peanuts…appealing to some but not many, filling but spectacularly bland.

Look, there were many reasons for the French electorate to align itself with Le Pen and her desire to assert France’s authoritative position as a leader in international politics. Today, France struggles with several major issues that are timeless.

France’s economy is on an anemic growth trajectory. The work week is mandated by law at 35 hours. On average, French workers enjoy 15 hours each day of leisure time (including eating and sleeping). The mandatory retirement age is among the lowest in Europe. Unemployment holds steady at an alarmingly high 10 percent. Youth unemployment is greater than 23 percent, which has remained a chronic problem since the early 1980’s! No solutions exist; the French economic ship of state is potentially robust but remains adrift…still.

France is not safe. Under assault by radical Islam, France’s President, Francois Hollande, has declared terrorist attacks over the past few years as “acts of war.” He is correct.

Since 2015, France has suffered from 23 separate attacks. The most notable of these was the attack on Charlie Hebdo (the satirical magazine), on 7 January 2015 that left 12 dead.

On the evening of 13 November 2015, ISIS-inspired terrorists conducted simultaneous and well-coordinated attacks at various sites including the France-German soccer game and the Bataclan nightclub. In total, 130 were killed and 386 were injured.

On 14 July 2016 in Nice, a driver using his cargo truck as a weapon slammed into the crowds celebrating Bastille Day (France’s national day), killing 86 and injuring over 400. Undisputedly, France is at war against a well-documented and easily recognizable form of radicalized Islam.

Arguably, it is a war many describe as one that France is losing.  France is concerned about its obvious vulnerability to attacks by radicalized Islamists. But France bears responsibility for the isolation of the Muslim community into “pockets” within its borders. The French worry, rightfully so, that their laws have incentivized the failure to integrate its immigrants. A legitimate distance exists among its various demographics. France is faced with victims on all sides of their self-created divide.

France must face its demons but further isolation within France and within Europe as advocated by Ms. Le Pen was not the correct choice. Marine Le Pen was not wrong; she just wasn’t right, right now.  France is like an alcoholic, admitting its weaknesses while declaring its strengths in order to solve its most vexing problems. I suggest this election was a first step toward political sobriety.

Look, Le Pen was right to hold a mirror in front of France and ask if it liked what it saw. Like anyone in therapy, the truth hurt, but her remedy had too many bad side effects.

A France distancing itself from the rest of Europe was absolutely the wrong answer. The citizens of France agreed. Now, the ball’s in the court of the newly elected President to shape France’s future and deliberately take the immediate, tactical next steps. It’s time for the prose of action and less for the poetry of words.

Not surprisingly, Ms. Le Pen in her final debate with Mr. Macron observed that France, regardless of the outcome, would be led by a woman…her or German Chancellor Angela Merkel!

France and the rest of Europe have drafted off Merkel’s brand of leadership for the past twelve years. She is a European nationalist whose policies embrace a united Europe as more secure, more prosperous, and better aligned to shape the future of Europe than a divided one.  Simply stated, a united Europe leans west; a divided Europe will lean east with each separate nation positioning itself favorably with a recidivist Russia. Those deals always end badly; just look at the previous century.

Europe must remain together…with all its warts and ugliness. For now, a French exit from Europe has been avoided. Let’s hope all of Europe saw how close isolationist populism was to becoming a reality. Brexit will happen but Frexit will not…at least not yet. However, sobriety can be fleeting.

Several years ago, a young Army officer asked me to give him a one word answer to a very specific and complex question, arguably deserving more than a single word. He asked, “What is leadership?”  After three seconds, my answer was, “predictability.”

In over 30 plus years in uniform and a decade in business, all in leadership positions, I was frankly unprepared for the question.  My surprise, however, did not prevent me from honoring the question as it was asked…with a single word. Predictable behavior by a leader is THE most important ingredient to organizational success.  When a leader is predictable, good and bad news are embraced similarly. Organizations respond predictably. Calm can be restored more quickly; routine can become routine.

As a newly commissioned lieutenant, my first company commander (a hardened Vietnam vet with little perceived sympathy for any anticipated “newbie” problems) instructed me to run to him with bad news and walk with good. What an insightful and helpful concept.  He wanted me to know with absolute certainty that he was always available regardless of circumstances; that I could count on him…storm or calm.  I did a lot of running! Over time, my commander, a practitioner of the art and science of leadership, became my leadership Yoda.

The lesson of predictability is in my DNA, my culture. I passed it on because it works. It’s a timeless virtue of leadership.

Above all else, it helped me get beyond the exigencies of the moment and encouraged me to get ahead of events and try to shape them. There was predictability in how I engaged with my team, my requirements, the linear sequencing of time and the physics of pushing things to be accomplished to the top of the stack of competing demands. It got me out of the “now.”

Today, our President has told the world that he wants to be unpredictable. But what does my leadership journey have in common with the President’s?  Frankly, a lot.

I suggest that unpredictability is not what our President really wants.  Sure, the President wants to keep his cards close and not telegraph every decision at a tactical, specific, and minimally bounded level.  The decision to deploy forces to strike ISIS targets in Syria is best shared with our Congress in a classified setting to seek their approval (not socialized with the media…or ISIS). The only thing ISIS needs to know is that the United States will do everything in our power to crush them. Now that’s predictable; anything else is foolish.

Similarly, our friends and allies should be equally confident knowing where we stand together and where we diverge.  This is the basic foundation of all relationships. Private discussions lead to public agreements.  We hold hands in public and throw fists in private. That’s how partners are emboldened and trust flourishes.

The opposite does not work. I do not want my friends or enemies to be confused about how I may interact with them. Predictability and certainty must guide our relationships. There’s too much at stake. Markets hate uncertainty. Guess what? So does every aspect of human endeavor.

The world is volatile, uncertain, complex, and with social media, increasingly transparent.  Everybody knows everything.  These circumstances, which by the way will never abate, scream for predictability. How the United States, the world’s surviving super power, will react must be known a priori crisis.

Here’s the challenge. Absent facts, people make stuff up. That’s not a good thing when existential threats have assumed many forms…a nuclear North Korea, ISIS, Russian adventurism in Europe and the Middle East, or an expanding Chinese Navy. Every nation, every non-state actor, and every potential threat must be cautioned by a clear understanding of how the United States will react to their adventures.

America’s unpredictability unnecessarily adds an ingredient to an already toxic brew. Most of the world’s challenges seem to be isolated and have achieved their own momentum, marching to their own drumbeat. In other words, what our President says has little to no bearing on the current projected international challenges that we face. By contrast, what our President may choose to do is highly relevant.

And those strategic choices must be predictable.  Leadership among nations (and non-nations) is all about a philosophy of leadership that is at its core predictable.

Our media slams the President for “stirring the pot” of North Korea with his tweets. Here’s the real news. The North Korean pot is in a continual state of self-stirring.  Our President’s tweets are irrelevant; actions are huge.  The actions of the United States and South Korean alliance are predictable. Nothing is aberrant or unpredictable or new to the North Korean intelligence collection efforts. We are predictable.

Today, the last thing the world needs is for the North Korean leader to think that the US presence on the peninsula is unwilling to act to keep the regime from acquiring a fully functioning nuclear capability. We’ve been on the peninsula for over 70 years. We have no current plans to go anywhere. Although President Jimmy Carter naively put that offer on the table, it was wisely removed quickly. The United States remains a predictable presence on the peninsula.

President Assad used chemical weapons on his people again just a few weeks ago. The United States responded proportionally by striking the air base that launched the attack with cruise missiles. That’s a predictable and proportional use of force to punish a murderous regime that continues to ignore internationally recognized protocols banning the use of chemical weapons.

China continues to be a “community of one” in its economic and political support for the North Korean regime.  That is changing. Following President Xi Jingping’s visit with President Trump, China abruptly ceased accepting coal from North Korea, choosing to impose economic sanctions on the regime. Albeit, unprecedented, China is creating a new relationship with the North Korean regime. This is inevitable and, not surprisingly, predictable.  North Korean nuclear ambitions have gone unchecked for decades. The world is running out of time and patience. Predictably, China will be on the right side of history by helping to eliminate this threat and stabilizing the regime.

In these first 100 days of this new administration, it’s fair to suggest that our President’s preference for unpredictability has failed on the international stage.  He’s actually quite predictable. He admires the Andrew Jackson, no nonsense leadership style and sits beneath the seventh President’s portrait in the Oval Office. Like Jackson, President Trump is certain, bombastic, and controversial…if comparisons are even worth making at such an early stage in a President’s administration.

Not unlike Jackson’s epoch, today’s world is experiencing undiminished volatility and uncertainty. Possibly, our President’s form of unpredictability is the new predictable. Everything we can nail down and remove from our “to do” list of crises, provides some rare calm and certainty.

Chaos, not calm, is the new normal; it’s predictable. How we handle it going forward needs to be equally predictable.