Kate Brewer

Background:

Lieutenant General H. R. McMaster, President Trump’s second National Security Advisor, has been replaced by the former American ambassador to the UN, John Bolton.

What has happened:

• Amid speculation of a contentious relationship with the President, LT. Gen H.R. McMaster has been let go.
• John Bolton, who was a recess appointment to the UN under President George W. Bush, was unable to secure a Senate confirmation and resigned from the post 17 months after his appointment.
• On a day that included confirmed tariffs against China and the ousting of another significant advisor at the White House, markets reacted to the instability.

Why it matters:

• Although reports have circulated that LT Gen McMaster has requested to retire from the Army and depart public service, it is not final. There is speculation he could be nominated to command US Forces Korea.
• John Bolton is a known foreign policy hawk; Bolton strongly supported the Iraq war and argues for a preemptive strike against North Korea and Iran. Bolton’s stance on foreign policy is likely to be inflexible.
• John Bolton and new Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are similar in their views on national security and foreign policy; their appointments give rise to the concern that there will be no contrarian voice in the room as policy develops and tensions around the globe escalate.

 “HR McMaster shepherded the United States through a challenging year of major national security threats. A team player, McMaster worked closely with Ambassador Haley and President Trump to bring the North Koreans to the negotiating table. Now, the President appears to be consolidating a hard-line team heading into the North Korean negotiations. One risk with Ambassador Bolton is that he is closely tied to the neocons who led us into the Iraq war. President Trump campaigned against and disagreed with that conflict and Trump will need to privately keep Bolton’s hawkish views in check while publicly using them as a tool for negotiations with North Korea.”

Brigadier General Tata

Market Impact:

The news out of the White House this week might finally show some movement in the market. It appears that President Trump is positioning his team to follow through with some of his more extreme policy stances both on foreign policy and national security. These appointments may also indicate a willingness to ‘draw a line in the sand’ on trade and stick to it – even if it has negative impacts on the stock market.  Markets are finally realizing that protecting intellectual property rights and ‘unfair’ trade practices are not just a talking point or a negotiating point – but something this administration believes in strongly.  The implications for the Treasury market are less clear – as we must balance the ‘flight to safety’ response with the concern that tariffs are inflationary and China still holds over $1 trillion of our debt.

Peter Tchir, Head of Macro Strategy at Academy Securities

Original Post 03/24/2018

• The ten-person delegation led by the Republic’s national security advisor, Chung Eui-yong, held direct talks with Kim.
• Kim Jong Un said that Pyongyang would consider ending its nuclear program and promised not to conduct any nuclear tests while negotiations are ongoing.
• North Korea also signaled that it is ready to engage in direct talks with the United States.

• A freeze on any current nuclear testing and development must be verified by inspectors.
• The US and Republic of Korea should suspend joint military exercises during the period of the North Korean freeze.
• The US should demand North Korea rejoin the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty as a precondition to direct talks.

  “The Trump Administration’s deliberate and forceful application of the elements of national power–Diplomatic, Informational, Military, and Economic–have created the conditions for negotiations. Similarly, this “buying of time” has allowed for enhanced U.S. military preparedness in the region. Whether Kim Jong Un is sincere about negotiating and eliminating his nuclear weapons program remains to be seen, but the outlook for long-term solutions on the Korean Peninsula is more promising than it has been in years.”

On November 9th, Saudi Arabia advised its citizens in Lebanon to leave immediately, as did Kuwait (their neighbor and Gulf ally). This guidance comes on the heels of a contentious power consolidation by the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohamed Bin Salman (MBS), and an attempted missile strike by the Iranian-backed Houthis rebels on the Riyadh Airport. Iran denied supplying the munitions to the rebels and accused Saudi Arabia of trying to escalate tensions. Additionally, the calls for evacuation come five days after the unexpected resignation of the Lebanese Prime Minister, Saad Hariri. Hariri cited fear for his safety and the growing influence of Hezbollah (the extremist Shiite Muslim group with inexorable ties with Iran) as the cause for his decision. 

These developments signal the forthcoming appointment of MBS as the King of Saudi Arabia, as well as the likelihood of military action against Lebanon. Much like its proxy war fought in Yemen, Saudi Arabia will attempt to exert its military strength and undermine Iran’s influence in the region. In a statement addressing Iran’s support for Hezbollah, Saudi Arabia’s Minister of State Affairs re-affirmed that it “won’t accept Lebanon taking part in a war against Saudi Arabia. The Saudis will take all political measures and more to confront Hezbollah.” Unlike in Yemen, geography will not favor or advantage a Saudi military strike in Lebanon. Any military intervention would require if not coordination, at least acknowledgement of Lebanon’s neighbors, Jordan and Israel. Furthermore, the threat in Lebanon is a well-trained and well-equipped professional military unlike the rebel force the Saudi military faced in Yemen. MBS shocked the region with his recent internal political reformations and appears willing to go to extraordinary measures to project his vision of an adaptive and overtly bellicose Saudi Arabia. 

On Saturday, November 5^th, King Salman issued a royal decree establishing a new anti-corruption committee. He appointed his son, Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman (MBS), as the committee’s leader and within a few hours sweeping arrests were made. Acting without support of the senior princes, MBS arrested and detained eleven princes, senior government officials, an undisclosed number of prominent businessmen linked to the royal family, and top military officers. Among those arrested on corruption charges, were Prince al-Waleed bin Talal, the Minister of Economy, and scores of Islamic scholars, judges, and intellectuals, whose views run the gamut from ultra-conservative to liberal. With this consolidation of power, MBS now commands all three hands of the Ministry of Defense.

This power grab foreshadows, albeit not imminent, the likely abdication of King Salman and the impending appointment of MBS as King. Beyond anti-corruption goals, MBS has a vision of Saudi Arabia as a more moderate and modern Islamic society. The regional rivalry and near-constant proxy wars fought by Saudi Arabia and Iran are motivation for many of the proposed reforms. Saudi Arabia must enter the 21st century with a global economy, not exclusively reliant on oil and gas, and seeking to encourage foreign investment and subtle gender equality. Beyond the legalization of women drivers, MBS has proposed the construction of green and smart cities in the country and has hosted investment galas soliciting support and funding for his endeavors. Many of these changes will be at odds with not only the ruling establishment that the arrests seek to marginalize, but also with the views of the average Saudi citizen. These reforms make the royal family vulnerable. Despite these risks, the reliable, albeit controversial, support of the U.S. will help sustain and accelerate modernization efforts by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the region.

As we approach President Trump’s visit to Asia over the next two weeks, global attention remains fixated on the growing strain between the United States and North Korea. Most recently, concern has concentrated on the repositioning of three American aircraft carriers. The USS Roosevelt and the USS Nimitz have found a new station operating in the western Pacific. They join the USS Reagan which maintains a permanent presence in the region conducting combined training with South Korea. While the DOD acknowledges this amassing is unusual, it should not necessarily signal alarm. This posturing is not an indicator that military operations are imminent. It is, however, a prudent move with our President in the Far East to have this “additional firepower” in close proximity. If for no other reason, at least it sends a message to the North Korean regime…“In case you forgot, we’re ready.”

A distinctive outcome of the tension between the U.S. and Pyongyang is a coordinated regional response. China, in a rare move, voted for the U.S. drafted, United Nations initiative bringing unparalleled sanctions against North Korea. Japan is making moves to have an offensive military capability again, and South Korea is lobbying to have operational control over its wartime military, undoing a 60+ year status quo. While the media focuses on North Korea, we should not overlook the rest the President’s journey and the evolving dynamic of our relationships in East Asia.

Philippines: According to police statistics, more than 3,000 suspects have been killed in anti-drug operations since Duterte became president on June 30, 2016. There has been an international condemnation of his so-called war on drugs. However, these human right’s abuses are not likely to affect a century old relationship with a dependable regional ally. The U.S. –  Philippines relationship is too significant to abandon, and the U.S. has a higher chance of influencing positive change within the framework of their existing partnership.

Vietnam: Rapid industrial growth in the 21st century has positioned Vietnam as a potentially important trading partner. Enhanced trade cooperation between the U.S. and Vietnam would prove mutually beneficial.

Japan: Given the vulnerability faced by Japan during Pyongyang’s latest missile launches, North Korea will prove to be a prominent point of discussion. Japan’s recent elections and legislative action to build their military signals a growing concern over the regional threat.

China: A surprising show of solidarity in the face of the North Korean menace might have warmed the relationship between our two nations, but recent statements regarding markets and trade prove to be chilling. President Trump has long been critical of China’s heavy-handed influence over their markets and currency manipulation. Most recently, following the refusal to classify China as a market economy, the U.S. Commerce Department said “The state’s pervasive role in markets and involvement in the private sector causes fundamental distortions in its economy,” exacerbating tension between China and the U.S. before President Trump’s visit. While escalation on the Korean Peninsula is sure to be a topic on which the two powers can find common ground, the discussion of markets and trade will most influence the efficacy of the meeting.

South Korea: Following the Secretary of Defense’s visit to South Korea, the President, the National Security Advisor and Secretary Mattis have all doubled down on the stance that there is no scenario where North Korea has nuclear weapons. This “red line” is a risky one that muddies the water for continued diplomacy. Establishing these absolutes can be precarious as we saw with President Obama concerning Syria’s use of chemical weapons. In general, it’s best to avoid these hardline approaches. Diplomacy is most successful when there are options on the table. This is especially pertinent as the intelligence community has already confirmed North Korea has nuclear weapons and ICBMs. It may impede our continued pursuit of a diplomatic resolution if we have narrowed our options. South Korea, for their part, has pivoted to maintain open dialogue channels with the North. In a nationally televised address, the president of South Korea, Moon Jae-in, stated “Our top priority is to maintain peace on the Korean Peninsula. Thus, armed conflict must be avoided under any circumstance. No military action on the Korean Peninsula shall be taken without prior consent of the Republic of Korea.” The public volatility between President Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jung-un has exacerbated the decades old sense of unease between the U.S. and South Korea. Most recently, Seoul’s first left-leaning government in a decade has asked for an accelerated transfer of the operational control over its military forces in an attempt to publicly separate South Korea and the U.S.’ methods of diplomacy. The administration must resolve this fissure — as a peaceful solution to the North Korean threat depends on a unified front.

Despite all the perceived chaos in the region, there is still plenty of opportunity in the Pacific. Consensus building and a multi-national approach to managing North Korea can help expand on and grow these opportunities. President Trump’s trip abroad is a sign of our continued commitment to our allies and a platform on which to forge new ones.

President Trump’s decision to decertify the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has raised questions and concerns across the globe about the future of the U.S.-brokered, multilateral deal. Many of those questions will have to wait until we see how Congress chooses to respond. In the meantime, it is necessary to acknowledge the impact that the President’s announcement makes today.

Engagements and compromise with Iran have long been criticized. Since its completion, concerns over sunset clauses and inspection protocols in the JCPOA have drawn attention. However, this is our first real engagement with Iran after decades of sanctions and diplomatic isolation. It is better to engage and gather intelligence rather than distance ourselves; leaving information gaps that may lead to uninformed policy decisions and the potential for violent conflict.

This is not to say that there are not very real concerns about the destabilizing actions of Iran.  However, these activities should be considered in the context of our shared objectives in the Middle East and the impact they have made in the way of containing ISIS.

Undoubtedly, increased aggression from Pyongyang has impacted President Trump’s reluctance to support JCPOA. International strategic patience has brought the world a nuclear North Korea. So, what now? What is the impact in the region and beyond if America reneges? How will it influence further diplomacy with the ever-increasing threat of North Korea? And importantly, where does it leave America’s credibility to negotiate and influence global policy in an environment where Russia and China are actively vying for an expanded role in the world?

The way ahead resides in Congress. Moving forward, congressional sanctions against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are a wise step to pressure Iran decoupled from the JCPOA. Ultimately, the US stands to benefit from a measured but fulsome engagement with Iran.  We can do both. We should.

Living in an ever changing and volatile world, predicting the future of our geopolitical climate can seem like a futile and nearly impossible task. The election of President Trump, the shocking result of the BREXIT vote, and North Korea’s steady development of intercontinental missiles and nuclear warheads caught many by surprise. During the past year, Academy Securities and its Advisory Board, which includes several former United States military officers, have attempted to make sense of the headlines and the decisions of today’s global leaders. Beginning in July of 2016, Academy has released sixteen essays, ranging from topics such as U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan to the ramifications of the most recent French presidential election. Given the firm’s unique military background, Academy Securities aims to provide its clientele with insights on global events and their potential effects on market dynamics. Listed below are some of the commentaries that Academy has made within the last year.

U.S. Troops in Afghanistan: In a July 7^th, 2016 article titled, “U.S. Presence in Afghanistan,” Academy Securities anticipated that the level of United States troops in Afghanistan would remain in full force for the foreseeable future. The same article also opined that without constant U.S. oversight and heavy military involvement, Afghan host forces would prove ineffective in quelling Taliban expansion throughout the country. Since early July, the current 8,400 U.S. troops authorized by President Obama have remained in the country and are now expected to be augmented by as many as several thousand more troops during this fighting season. In addition, an increased U.S. focus on ISIS in Iraq and Syria has led to reduced attention on the Taliban in Afghanistan. During that time, Taliban control has expanded significantly as Afghan forces have proven unable to operate independently of U.S. leadership. The Taliban’s current control in Afghanistan has not been this widespread since the arrival of U.S. troops in 2001.

U.S. Presence in the South China Sea: In the firm’s second essay, published on August 16^th, 2016, titled “China’s Blue Water Navy… Embrace It,” Academy remarked on the significant growth of the Chinese Navy in the South China Sea within the past several years. The firm argued that the United States should similarly augment its naval presence in the region to contend with its counterpart to the East. The article stated that the United States must “rebuild its withered and weakened capacity and willingness to lead and influence actions internationally.” Within the past year, the South China Sea has become an even greater source of contention, with Beijing increasingly asserting its unilateral control over the contested water. The United States is now periodically demonstrating its military capabilities in the disputed waters through Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPS), despite Chinese grievances that such operations on behalf of the United States infringe on Chinese sovereignty.

U.S. Relations with Turkey: Less than a month after the failed Turkish coup, Academy Securities published an article on August 25^th, 2016, commenting both on the botched coup and on the standing of U.S.-Turkey relations. Author General (Ret.) Marks stated that regardless of the attempted coup, and despite President Erdogan’s alleged human rights abuses and autocratic tendencies, the relationship between the two countries would most likely be too valuable for either nation to sacrifice. While the United States has both remained critical of Erdogan’s domestic policies and maintained support for Syrian rebels whom Erdogan opposes such as the Kurds, the diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Turkey have not faltered. Incirlik Air Base in South-Central Turkey has remained critical to the U.S. offensives against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. In fact, after meeting in May of 2017, Trump and Erdogan proudly declared a “new era” of Turkish-U.S. relations.

North Korea Nuclear Capability: In an article published on September 15^th, 2016, Academy maintained that without more aggressive U.S. policies and enhanced diplomacy with other powerful countries, it is likely that North Korea will soon possess intercontinental nuclear capacity. In the article titled “Opportunity,” author General (Ret.) Marks posits, “time is currently [North Korea’s] only limiting factor. Our behavior must change or theirs never will.” From the time that General Marks’ issued his cautionary declaration to the present, the United States has failed both to act with a strong fist and to garner support from other allied nations. China has remained unwilling to level substantive sanctions against Pyongyang, while Russia has refused to take any punitive measures whatsoever. North Korea now appears to have possession of an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States. Due to inaction and lack of international cooperation, North Korea currently stands as perhaps the greatest threat to the security of the United States. The window is closing on the opportunity to alter Pyongyang’s behavior.

Syria, U.S. Stance on Bashar al-Assad: In September of 2016, Academy contended that despite Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s authoritarian actions and blatant disregard for human rights, the United States ought to stop propagating the Syrian rebels’ fight against Assad. The war has become too bloody, produced far too many refugees, and has taken up too many resources that could have been used in the fight against ISIS. ISIS must be isolated, destroyed, and relentlessly attacked, an effort which requires “total cooperation and coordination among all U.S. allies,” along with other involved nations such as Russia. Throughout the year, Academy remained steadfast in its belief that the United States should sever ties with the rebels. In the piece published on June 27^th, 2017 titled “Storm, No Surprise,” the firm reiterated, “The United States should admit that the Assad regime in Damascus is not going anywhere.” Nearly a month later, President Trump finally announced that the U.S. would no longer be providing support to rebel factions, recognizing that funding the rebel groups is not in line with the United States’ greatest long-term interests.

The 2017 French Presidential Election: Months before the election, on September 15^th, 2016, Academy Securities provided insight on France’s two Presidential frontrunners, Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron, and their starkly opposite views on French immigration and inclusivity. Academy argued it is the United States’ prerogative to intervene in the election on behalf of Emmanuel Macron, to ensure that a future France will no longer be a breeding ground for international terror. As anticipated, the United States did not stay silent as former President Barack Obama gave his unqualified support to the far more liberal Emmanuel Macron. While we are yet to see if Macron’s more inclusive stance will ameliorate tensions between Muslim immigrants and French citizens, he is already promising policies that are far more constructive than his predecessor or presidential opponent.

The Future of Cyberspace: Ever since Russia’s cyber “influence operation” into our Presidential election, it has become increasingly obvious that we need diplomatic resolve to address the menace of cyber terrorism. The internet is a new domain that is largely ungoverned and unprotected. Academy suggested in its December 23^rd, 2016 article “Winter is Coming,” that the only way to make substantive progress in the realm of cybersecurity is for both the United States and Russia to acknowledge that they have everything to lose if they don’t work together to govern actions online. While such a coalition seemed unlikely, President Trump announced in July of 2017 the possible creation of a US-Russian coalition on cybersecurity. Although the risk is significant, the purpose of the coalition is to “create a framework in which we have some capability to judge what is happening in the cyber world and who to hold accountable.” Much work is required for a coalition to take shape, but it is clear this administration has recognized the need for a coordinated effort to focus on global cybersecurity.

Contention over the Baltics: While the United States and other western countries have been focused on thwarting radical Islamic terrorism, Russia has worked restlessly to solidify its place as a world power.  Russia’s annexation of Crimea, their military aggression against Syrian rebels, and their attempt to influence the U.S. election are all examples of Russia’s reach beyond its near abroad. Academy Securities noted in early February of 2017 that it wouldn’t be surprising if we witnessed another antagonistic move by Putin, perhaps even a Crimea-like “soft” invasion of one of the NATO Baltic states such as Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Many pundits now believe that a Russian offensive is entirely possible. Russia has increased its military presence in the region and has a sizeable military exercise, Zapad 2017, planned in the Baltics for this September. In preparation, NATO has augmented the number of troops it has stationed in the region.

We were witness to a chaotic past year. During all the volatility, Academy Securities addressed several diplomatic and political narratives. From U.S. relations with Turkey and Russia, to military action in Syria and the South China Sea, Academy has tried to stay ahead of ever-changing geo-strategic pulses on behalf of its clients. As Academy begins its second year of research and analysis, the firm aims to both remain cognizant of current storylines, such as the rise of North Korea or the fall of Venezuela, and provide observations on emerging geo-political developments.

Major General Spider Marks, US Army retired, is a member of the board of advisors of Academy Securities and a CNN national security and military analyst.

As a nation, we are presently consumed by the latest revelations about Russia’s objective to deepen its influence in our elections through aggressive cyber attack. The media has labeled this as “meddling,” which woefully understates its significance. Theirs was a campaign of computer network attacks designed to weaken our democracy. Our nation will survive and emerge stronger as a result.

Meanwhile, the world remains a dangerous and threatening place. While the ever-challenging political climates in North Korea, China, the South China Sea, the Middle East, and Europe will continue to capture front-page headlines over the coming months, the instability of East Africa (namely countries such as Kenya, Djibouti, Eritrea, Somalia, and South Sudan) cannot be overstated.

Political instability, armed conflict, and extremism, coupled with inadequate infrastructure and resource scarcity make the region of East Africa one of the most volatile in the world. Countries such as Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Kenya all hold similar reputations as unstable and dangerous while Somalia, Sudan, and South Sudan are unremittingly seen as three of the world’s most violent nations. Political, economic, and diplomatic uncertainties in East Africa affect countries both within the region and around the globe. Millions of African lives have been lost, and many more have been displaced, due to regional unrest, civil war, and terrorist activity. Both local and global economies have felt these ripples as well. The Swahili Coast is home to highly sought-after natural resources such as fish and timber, and is host to one of the most popular maritime trade routes in the world. In fact, more than four million barrels of oil travel through Bab al-Mandeb daily, the eleven-mile strait between Djibouti and Yemen.

Kenya: The upcoming Kenyan presidential election, which is scheduled to take place on August 8th, has already begun to capture the attention of the international community. Just a decade ago in 2007, the post-election riots in Kenya and the ensuing police response left greater than a thousand Kenyans dead, while displacing hundreds of thousands in the process. In addition, the mayhem had damaging effects on the East African economy, given Kenya’s longtime reputation as a business, transportation, and trade powerhouse of the region. As August 8^th looms closer, many pundits fear a repeat of that history. The opposition leader, Raila Odinga, and the incumbent, Uhuru Kenyatta, have outwardly vocalized their strong distrust in the Kenyan voting system while Odinga has already been accused of promising violence throughout the county if he loses the race. While it is unlikely we will witness violence on a similar scale as in 2007, the ramifications could be far more severe. Kenya’s capital Nairobi and the port city of Mombasa have become increasingly critical to transportation and trade among fellow East African countries. In addition, over the past decade, the country has become progressively more popular among foreign investors. Kenya is now considered to be one of the top investment destinations throughout the entire continent. Major investors such as the United States, France, UAE, and China are now vulnerable to the effects of Kenya’s election violence. We can only observe if past is prologue.

Djibouti and Eritrea: Djibouti and Eritrea, two countries the size of New Jersey and Ohio respectively, are also under recent international scrutiny. In 2008, the two nations engaged in an armed conflict over their disputed shared border. The feud was short-lived, as peacekeeping troops from Qatar were deployed. However, on June 14^th, almost nine years after the dispute first began, its troops withdrew. While neither of these two countries holds any real international clout, resumption of border conflict would have significant implications on trade through the Bab al-Mandeb. An armed conflict between the two countries on one side of the strait, coupled with the current ruthless Yemeni civil war on the other, would make the Bab al-Mandeb highly precarious for international merchant shipping.

Somalia: Any report on East African security would be incomplete without a brief discussion on Somalia. As reported earlier, Somalia is, and has notoriously been, one of the world’s most violent and unstable countries. While international players have done a remarkable job in thwarting piracy off of the Somali coast over the past half-decade, the country, on the contrary, has become no less violent. In fact, over the past ten years, terrorism within the nation’s borders has spiked, rendering the country one of the most dangerous in the world. This surge can likely be accredited to the rise of the Somali terrorist group Al-Shabaab, which just recently surpassed Boko Haram as the most deadly organization on the continent. Al-Shabaab has launched attacks not only throughout Somalia in attempts to destabilize the incipient national government, but also in neighboring Kenya. The disturbing growth of Al-Shabaab will most likely worsen in the next several years. Host forces in Somalia are ineffective in combat and the United States is reluctant to provide substantive aid. While President Trump announced in mid-April that U.S. troops would be deployed to Somalia (its first deployment to that nation since 1994), the troops would be limited to conducting advisory role missions.

South Sudan: On July 9^th, South Sudan observed its six-year independence anniversary in harrowing silence. President Salva Kiir cancelled the celebration, deeming it inappropriate for the government to spend money on festivities when so many citizens remained in need. South Sudan’s four-year civil war has devastated the country. The seemingly never-ending conflict has rendered their economy hopeless, yielding exorbitantly high inflation rates, while producing a food shortage of incomparable magnitude. Over half of the country’s 11 million person population faces severe food insecurity. To make matters worse, each of these struggles overshadow a cholera outbreak in the country that is now being considered by many as one of the worst in recent history. More than 1.8 million people have fled the country, over-burdening the infrastructures of neighboring countries. Here’s the challenge. Developed nations simply cannot allow further degradation of the South Sudan situation. If unabated, South Sudan will continue to demand more United States assistance (currently over $2 billion in aid) and will undoubtedly threaten the security and stability of an already fragile East Africa. Given the importance of the East African coast to foreign military bases, maritime trade, and oil shipping, western countries like the United States must stay engaged. In a world of competing priorities, this region arguably is among the many global issues that are deserving of our attention.

A mere handful of geopolitical issues continuously dominate presidential attention, media airtime, and newspaper headlines in the United States. While North Korea’s nuclear proliferation, the fight against ISIS in Syria, and the diplomatic dispute between Qatar and its Middle Eastern rivals are undoubtedly important, they mustn’t command our sole attention. Further escalation of conflict in East Africa has the potential to dramatically destabilize oil markets. Nearly all oil transit that departs from the Middle East towards North and South America travels along the East African coast, while a good portion journeys through the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait. Increased conflict in East Africa will have an enormous and permanent impact on the West and oil producing Gulf-states.

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.

We are now several weeks into the new administration and the frenetic pace of executive orders, protests, legal rulings and multiple Presidential meetings with business leaders seems only to be picking up pace.  The National Security Advisor resigned on February 13^th following revelations of his mischaracterization (i.e., lying) regarding his communications with the Russian ambassador.  It’s inarguably a busy time with a decidedly pugilistic feel to it.  The administration is sparring with a host of antagonists and there is a “martial” feel to these first few weeks.

 This situation is not all bad.  Many changes are necessary in our international posture and domestic policies.  If boundaries are not pushed, assumptions challenged, and behaviors modified, stasis will continue to define us.  That is not why Trump was elected.  He must be a change agent…and in change there is uncertainty, volatility, and chaos.  In light of the administration’s rhythm of engagement, I thought it might be a good opportunity to step back and view these critical first few weeks, and, what I certainly a blueprint for the next few years, through a leadership lens.

 This administration is about creating jobs and shoring up our economy in a manner that benefits “America first.”  Without question, there is a strong, sharp-edged, in-your-face feel to this administration.  Accurate or not, both the administration and the media, in these first few weeks, have decided to compete.  We should not be surprised by this characterization of the relationship since many of President Trump’s cabinet leaders and members of his inner circle are business and former military leaders who are trained in the art and science of creating and calming chaos.

 It is quite common to view military leadership through a much broader lens and ascribe its characteristics and principles to business.  It seems to fit.

 The “missions” of business are not dissimilar from the military…defining the purpose, describing the necessary tasks, designing the organization, building the team, and achieving open and precise communications.  The risks are similar as well.  Sadly, but inevitably, soldiers may die in combat and their units may suffer loss; nothing in life is more tragic or permanent.  A business may fail and drag its employees down with it.  Certainly, this does not place anyone at physical risk, but a negative outcome in business is personally damaging and the effects long-lasting.  Families are displaced and careers are ruined.

 The art of war has been practiced and studied for millennia.  Not unlike other theoretical fields of study or practical professions, the art of war is rooted in a doctrine and a set of principles.

 The Principles of War, codified by Carl von Clausewitz, a Prussian who fought in the Imperial Russian Army in the early 19^th century against Napoleon, guides our study of warfare and military leadership in war today.  By comparison, Peter Drucker, the brilliant and prolific author (over 25 books) who studied and established the guiding principles of business, shares many of Clausewitz’s views.

 What Clausewitz did for the study of war, Drucker did for the study of business.  Military and business leadership arguably are two sides of the same coin.

 There are nine Principles of War.  They are: objective, offensive, mass, economy of force, maneuver, unity of command, security, surprise, and simplicity.

 I think it’s helpful to provide a brief description of each.

 Objective: This is the ultimate purpose of war, to destroy the enemy’s ability and will to fight, by directing every military operation toward a clearly defined, decisive and attainable end.

 Offensive: Seize, retain, and exploit the initiative.  Offensive action is the most effective and decisive way to attain a clearly defined common objective while maintaining freedom of action and achieving decisive results.

 Mass: By synchronizing the effects of overwhelming combat power, rather than concentrating forces, at the decisive place and time, a numerically inferior force can achieve decisive results, while limiting exposure to enemy fire.

 Economy of Force: This is the opposite of mass.  Economy of force is the realization that one must employ all combat power in the most effective and judicious way possible.  Every part of the force must have purpose.

 Maneuver: Maneuver is the deliberate movement of forces in relation to the enemy to gain an advantage.  It is used to exploit your successes and to preserve your freedom of action.  Maneuver is a demonstration of initiative.

 Unity of Command: For every objective, you must seek unity of command and unity of effort.  Unity of command means that all the forces are under one responsible commander.

 Security: You should never permit the enemy to acquire unexpected advantage.  Security enhances freedom of action by reducing vulnerability to hostile acts, influence, or surprise.  Security results from knowledge of your enemy and solid planning.

 Surprise: You must strike the enemy at a time, place, and manner for which he is unprepared.  Surprise can decisively shift the balance of combat power and momentum.

 Simplicity: Prepare clear, uncomplicated plans and concise orders to ensure their understanding.  Everything in was is very simple, but the simple thing is difficult.  Other factors being equal, straightforwardness is to be preferred.

By cross-walking each principle of war to business, it’s not surprising to see the similarities overlap.

 Objective: No business has ever emerged from infancy of a notion to realization of growth without a clear and decisive statement of purpose.  An example: Amazon’s vision is to be “earth’s most customer centric company; to build a place where people can come to find and discover anything they might want to buy online.”

 Offensive: This demands disruption.  You should be first to market by establishing the bar.  Of course, you’d prefer to have market share and defend against newcomers that try to break in with possibly nothing more than a knock off.  If you want to own the high ground, take it.  You should want to be there first.

 Mass of Economy and Force: These two principles keep us in balance.  You must focus on what supports and advances the core delivery and get behind that effort with every resource.  Simultaneously, you must be mindful of exposure that this priority effort requires.  Where are you most weak when strong elsewhere?  Answer that question to identify and mitigate risk.

 Maneuver: If you’re stagnant in business, you’re irrelevant, at risk, and ultimately dead.  Stay focused on the core of your business and invest (maneuver) in new markets and additional revenue channels.  Think disruption but don’t grab at every shiny object.  Have a plan to get to where you are not.

 Unity of Command: There’s always someone who’s in charge.  However, in companies with a matrix design of teaming to attack opportunities, leadership often is never declared or, more importantly, resourced.  Set your teams up for success and clearly establish the authority and responsibility lines at the beginning.  Remove any doubt about who’s in charge.

 Security and Surprise: Protect your organization from competitors and yourself.  If you can accomplish that, you’ll never be completely surprised.  The best security is a greater understanding of the market environment and competitors.  Mostly, competitors (your enemy) are outside your organization; however, increasingly and troubling, your worst enemy may be “inside the wire” in the form of an insider threat.  Have a program to monitor the environment and yourself.  If you know yourself, and you know the environment, you’ll win.  At the end of the day, it is about winning.

 Simplicity: We know the KISS rule: keep it simple, stupid.  Possibly a less insulting description is to use Occam’s Razor, the principle of parsimony, economy, and succinctness.  Among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.  Of course!  We should never deviate from this rule.  As Steve Jobs said, “That’s been one of my mantras – focus and simplicity.  Simple can be harder than complex.  You have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple.  But it’s worth it in the end because once you get there, you can move mountains.”

The basics of leadership are to influence a team to get the job done by providing purpose, direction, and motivation.  It’s fair to say that when the principles of war are applied to business and our Presidential administration, successful outcomes are more likely.

 Additionally, an organization will evolve that knows its people and promotes their welfare, develops leadership, demand openness in communications, trains its members, and grows as a team.  There can be no better outcome.  I’d say Clausewitz and Drucker would agree, as would our President.  Let’s hope that everyone else on either side do as well.

The administration of President Trump is picking up speed in its First 100 Days and, as advertised, campaigned, and promised, a lot is happening by way of executive order and legislative policy  priority. The top priority issues are not a surprise: create an energy plan, focus on foreign policy, create job growth, strengthen our military, support law enforcement, and establish trade deals favorable to America.

In the past ten days, the White House has issued executive orders in each of these areas to create the necessary momentum to affect the change the President has said he needs in order to “make America great again.” Campaign promises and election results should be adhered to I think we would all agree to that. The American people elected a candidate who indicated that he’d alter the course of our country domestically and internationally. It’s a tall order, but it’s how he was elected and we should not be surprised by his swift and decisive actions.

Not surprisingly, America has spoken as there are unintended consequences to each. Not only are American citizens nervous and, in some cases, boisterous about these executive declarations, there are reactions that we must be prepared for internationally. Inconceivable as it may seem, consider the following: Could we have another ground war in Europe?

Since the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), we’ve prepared for the eventuality of ground combat in Europe. Why shouldn’t we? In the arc of less than 30 years, Germany’s adventurism, exploitation, and butchery of its neighbors were the norm. Europe planned for the best and was unprepared for the worst. Two generations of European youth suffered unimaginable horrors and lost faith in their neighbor’s intentions.

After World War II, NATO provided for the common defense of Europe. This effort was led by American values, goodwill, and extreme military capacity to counter the Soviet threat of military and economic intrusion and coercion. It worked. For the next 67 years following the end of World War II, Europe had been at peace. The Balkan crisis of the mid 90’s revealed the worst case of European recidivism, but total collapse of a united Europe was averted.

What’s next for Europe? International attention, resources, and commitment for the past 20 years have been laser focused on challenges of radical Islamic terrorism. It’s a scourge that has its roots in the Middle East but affects all geographies with its ideology of barbarism and loose interpretation of the Koran to suit extremist views. It’s cynical yet effective.

While the world has paid almost exclusive attention to attacking radical Islam, trying to deal with the aftershocks of missed opportunities and an inability to abort or limit its reach, cracks in our common defense have surfaced.

An open and free Europe Union (EU) is rightfully challenged. BREXIT, the United Kingdom’s populist decision to exit the EU, was the first step of many that will follow. What has been an open Europe defined by a common history and currency is now at risk. Gates have replaced bridges. Refugees wait for months or longer for admission to the EU. Camps in northern Greece grow in
size and squalor. Syria’s largest export is its people.

The chaos in the Middle East and North Africa has propelled refugee migration levels to numbers not seen since the end of World War II. Not unlike the period following World War II, tolerance and understanding for the human condition of the displaced and disadvantaged are in short supply. Europe is a mess; BREXIT was the logical result of an island nation tired of dealing with the in-exactitude of policies not aligned with their national best interest.

The Russian Federation, meanwhile, is taking a century’s-long view and behaves not dissimilarly to Czarist Russia.  Crises elsewhere distract the world’s attention while Russia marches forward to ensure its place as a world power. The Romanovs have been replaced by Vladimir Putin, but he won’t suffer a similar fate.

Most assuredly, Russia has its host of problems, including a fledgling economy, but its national prestige has never been more robust and its leader more revered. A bare-chested Putin rides a horse and it’s followed by fireworks, a national celebration, and a media campaign. Putin knows exactly who and what he’s feeding: the nationalistic pride of the Russian people and the fears of Russia’s neighbors, both near and afar (i.e., the EU).

The EU and the United States have been distracted. We’ve been fighting extreme Islamic radicals who have a singular mission to destroy western modernism. It doesn’t matter what we do; these radicals want us dead. Hence, we’ve been busy. The window of opportunity was opened. Russia walked through.

Russia annexed Crimea with ground troops and we watched. Russia attacked the Syrian resistance with fighter aircraft and we watched. Russia attacked our Presidential election via cyber-tactics and we watched. Russia says it’s acting in its own national self-interest, but Moscow’s bad behavior is reinforced by our acquiescence. Russia can and will do what it wants while will watch.

Maybe not. Russian adventurism may be stopped. The Trump administration wants to improve relations with Russia, but we cannot tolerate this behavior. President Putin does not have a preexisting relationship with President Trump, so the choreography of their diplomatic dance has not yet been set in determining acceptable standards of conduct.

Who leads and who follows? Who tests the limits of tolerable behavior? These are unknowns with these two international leaders. It’s not outside the realm of the possible to see a provocative move by Russia in the Baltics or an increase in military undertaking in Syria to spark a series of events on the ground that neither the U.S. nor Russia are in a position to modify or mitigate.

It’s not unrealistic to assume Russian intervention in the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Kaliningrad is a port city in Russia, but it is cut off and geographically isolated from the rest of the federation by Lithuania and Poland. The Baltic states have the largest Russian-speaking populations of all NATO countries and share a common border with Russia. Direct land access to Kaliningrad is governed by treaty, but remains a clear and present irritant to Moscow.

We should not be surprised to see another “Crimealike” “soft invasion” by Russia in order to protect “ethnic Russians” outside the federation. Soldiers and special operators dressed in mufti one day, could suddenly appear in uniform the next once across the border into the Baltic states. That is exactly how Putin invaded Crimea three years ago.

The difference between what happened in the Ukraine and this possible scenario is stark. Unlike the Ukraine, the Baltic states are members of NATO. Article V of the NATO charter stipulates that an attack, regardless of how it’s executed, on one NATO member is an attack on all. The taking of Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, is the equivalent of an attack on Munich or Tampa or Milan. NATO would immediately be involved to forcibly remove Russian troops.

I’ve been trained my entire life to rely little on hope and to plan for the worst possible outcome. This would be the worst possible outcome, but I sure would be looking for a nice inventory of hope. Russia would claim sovereign rights to protect its “citizens” on its near border. Their actions would be swift, precise, and, very possibly, virtually nonlethal.  It would be over before the first alert of an incursion or a demand to invoke Article V of the NATO charter could be executed.

So, what happens then? Article V would guide and govern NATO’s actions. The treaty’s teeth have never really been stressed; this would stress every aspect of NATO and European solidarity. Most assuredly, military action would follow. Europe would be at war again, and America would be involved deeply, inexorably, and making the necessary sacrifices that our international partners expect of American leadership.

No one wants this. All would lose…a provocative Russia, a European Union struggling with its identity, and a NATO alliance exhausted after 15 years of combat in the Middle East. It is, however, a real possibility.

Our new administration, we must assume, is no doubt engaged in the necessary planning to anticipate this possibility and is creating the engagement steps to build trust among the Russian Federation, our European allies, and ourselves. We should all ask to know what those steps are. How can we contribute to them? How can we measure their success?

Hope, most assuredly, is not a methodology to achieve success. We can hope that Russia will not use “ethnic minority” grievances in the Baltics as a pretext to an invasion, but we will plan otherwise. In this case, we will conduct exhaustive, pressure-tested planning, but hope must be present as well and in equal supply.

Let’s start with what we know.  Russia hacked into both the Democratic and Republican National Committees before the U.S. Presidential election.  We can safely assume that it’s still happening.  How and what Russia specifically accomplished are unknown, but Russian cyber capabilities are without a doubt well-advanced and U.S. intelligence analysts were not surprised.  There is ample speculation as to why Russia did what they did and it leads to the same conclusion…to influence the U.S. election in favor of President-elect Donald Trump.

 This as a Russian “influence operation” – an effort to send information or disinformation to a target audience, in this case U.S. voters, to cause doubt or worry about the resilience and legitimacy of the U.S. electoral system.

 The argument that now dominates the analysis is whether Russia was actually able to produce their desired outcome…to help get Donald Trump elected.  If the premise is that Russia preferred a Donald Trump presidency to a Hillary Clinton presidency, then the conclusion can be easily if not accurately validated.  Russia’s hacking helped give us President-elect Trump.  However, we will never be able to draw that conclusion, albeit many have already proclaimed it the new “slam dunk.”  President-elect Trump’s victory is not in question, but the fact that we are talking about its legitimacy means Russia’s influence operation was a success.  Russia gets a win here.

 Taking a step back, the broader strategic is not the legitimacy of the outcome of our election or Russian intrusion into it via the internet.  The issue with the internet is that it is a new domain of competition that remains largely ungoverned.  In military terms, cyber is the new domain of war.  The law of war is a legal term describing and legitimizing war and the justifications for it.  These laws address how wars are declared, military necessity and proportionality, and prohibitions on certain weapons.  From these, we’ve derived the laws of land warfare, armed conflict at sea, and air war legitimacy.  By contrast, there are no similar rules prescribing behavior in cyberspace.  There should be.

 Anyone can do just about anything online.  We know that.  Cyber presence affords an anonymity that sadly, but predictably, encourages bad behavior.  Its prevalence and routine make the risks of misuse personal.  Currently, the misuse by Russia is political and we are right to be outraged.  However, the risk of a directed cyber operation to create an outcome has a consequence far greater than personal or political.  The risks are existential.  If not addressed, 300 years of U.S. history are at risk and this experiment of democracy teeters.

 After the Soviet’s successful nuclear test in 1949, nuclear competition with the U.S. created a coerced (thank goodness!) and cooperative understanding between Moscow and Washington that unchecked nuclear development was both limitless and pointless.  Mutually assured destruction, or “MAD”, convinced us both that something had to be done to reduce the threat of complete annihilation.

 Capabilities online to conduct both offensive and defensive computer operations put us at risk not dissimilar to a cyber MAD.  As we’ve witnessed, there is an increasingly precise capability to have a persistent presence online, to move anywhere, to linger anywhere, to peer over the shoulder, and to gather intelligence.

 This can be done by the voyeuristic or the trained.  The tools and skills are available to either.  Not surprisingly, we respond only to pain…far more than pleasure.  The pain right now is political meddling by the Russians in our Presidential election through a very prescribed computer operation.  It’s bold, intrusive, disruptive, and many have labeled it an “act of war.”  That may be a stretch, but it is where we are.

 Russia and many other nations and non-state actors use the internet to conduct their business…whatever that business is – legal, illegal or illicit.  The skills of these cyber warriors persistently grow asymptomatically, yet the competition is undefined.  There are no lanes, no finish line, no prescribed number of participants, no rules.  It’s time we create some.

 Unchecked cyber operations can and have gotten well beyond individual criminal malfeasance or political influence operations.  We are on the edge of a “cyber winter” where financial systems are at risk.  Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems that use computers and networked data communications to interface with machinery like electric grids, power plants, dams, traffic lights and emergency communications are at risk.  We don’t have enough hand pumps to draw water from underground wells.  We don’t even use underground wells anymore!  Traffic pile ups will occur; there will be a rush for gas; food on store shelves will spoil.  What access there is to the internet will be tightly controlled.  We won’t be able to stay in simple communications with each other.

 We will be out of touch and we will panic.

 This is a nightmare scenario, but it’s our next reality if we choose the easier wrong and not the harder right.  The harder right requires us (in this case the U.S. and Russia) to acknowledge the enormous cost of inaction.  The United States and Russia must cooperate and agree that we have everything to lose if we don’t govern our actions online.

 In 1929, the USSR and the U.S. agreed that the threat of nuclear war was existential and real.  Left unchecked, the effects were irreversible.  The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I and II) were followed by the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START I and II).  Signed in 2011, New START governs the nuclear “relationship” between the U.S. and the Russian Federation.

 Today, we need to have the same diplomatic resolve to recognize and proclaim the menace of cyber terrorism and the existential threat of coordinated cyber-attacks.  Forty years ago, a nuclear winter was a shared picture of a real threat.  A similar “winter is coming” if not interrupted now.

 We used to call cooperation with the Soviet Union détente.  No panacea but détente provided codified and accepted rules to govern behavior…even bad behavior.  There were limits.  We need limits today.

 A new administration will establish new norms in our relationship with Russia.  There are many areas where trust-building measures can be prescribed and tested.  Syria is not one of those.  There’s too much at immediate risk by trying to coordinate tactical military operations with the Russian military in a hot war in the Middle East with no previous experience of cooperating on even the simplest of military tasks.  Not a good idea.

 However, the U.S. and Russia can and should embrace the chaos and real danger of ungoverned cyber activity.  This is our shared burden, a place to start our new relationship.  We can work our way through the protocols and construct an agreement that minimally sets some boundaries.  Forty years ago, we were equally incentivized to control the risk of a nuclear world that was a miscalculation away from disaster.  We need to find the incentive to do the same today.

 The threat is no less significant.