Threats and Challenges: Next Administration

The Real World: Obama, (USA Today)…Ralph Peters, Nov 12, 2008.
…Utterly unexpected events could blindside us, but the following are a few of the looming challenges the Obama administration will face as it seeks its footing: Iraq. Afghanistan and Pakistan. Israel, Syria and Lebanon. Iran. Russia. Our military.

 Foreign policy promises will quickly bump up against circumstances

By Ralph Peters

On Nov. 4, the American people spoke. In the coming months, our enemies will speak. During this transition period and immediately after our new president’s inauguration, hostile actors around the globe will test a leader they view as untried and naive.

As president, Barack Obama will have to establish a strong identity quickly. Expectations, at home and abroad, are diffuse and contradictory. Just as American voters projected their own convictions onto both candidates, so allies and enemies overseas have constructed their own preferred images of Obama. Wishful thinking will have to be dispelled as our new president puts our interests first.

Utterly unexpected events could blindside us, but the following are a few of the looming challenges the Obama administration will face as it seeks its footing:

Iraq.

The president-elect has pledged prompt troop withdrawals, and his base expects him to act. But he won’t want to be seen as the “man who lost Iraq” and who reversed al-Qaeda’s strategic catastrophe. Obama is fortunate that the improved security situation will, indeed, allow substantial withdrawals. Even so, troops in significant numbers will need to remain for years to guarantee gains.

Even if President Obama ordered an immediate, total withdrawal, dismantling our effort and moving out of Iraq would be a huge logistical undertaking: It will take years to dismantle what it took years to build up. And our actions must be calculated to guarantee the gains made at such great cost.

Afghanistan and Pakistan.

During his presidential campaign, Obama made ambitious claims about this region, vowing to capture Osama bin Laden. Should the arch-terrorist be killed or captured, it will result from an intelligence break, not a campaign promise. Obama also has vowed to do a better job at winning in Afghanistan than President Bush has. But Afghanistan presents even deeper problems than did Iraq: It will take a generational commitment to ameliorate them, and they’ll never be fully solved. You don’t win in Afghanistan — you just make sure your enemies don’t win, either. Although engagement in Afghanistan and Pakistan remains essential, the key is to have realistic expectations of what can be achieved.

Israel, Syria and Lebanon.

However incorrectly, Arab radicals and regimes perceive the president-elect as more favorable to their cause and less friendly to Israel. This is a formula for provocations by Hezbollah and Syrian machinations in Lebanon that could precipitate war as soon as next year. As president, Obama will need to be explicit in his commitments. He can no longer seek to be all things to all people.

Iran.

The most complex culture in the region is also the most difficult to deal with. The regime in Tehran faces internal disappointment with its performance, but it views nuclear weapons as an all-purpose answer. As for negotiations, Tehran consistently uses them to buy time. Possessed of nuclear weapons, Iran would dominate the Persian Gulf and the world’s key oil reserves — as well as threaten Israel. And concepts such as mutually assured destruction might not deter religious extremists. Again, there’s no good solution.

Russia.

One day after the U.S. election, President Dmitry Medvedev made a bellicose speech aimed at Obama. Announcing the intention to deploy a new generation of mid-range missiles to the Kaliningrad exclave — behind NATO lines — Medvedev explicitly threatened the U.S. missile-defense system to be deployed on Polish soil, and Poland itself.

With Russia’s economy in a far more fragile state than outsiders realize, the regime of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin might exploit this period of transition in Washington both to further its ambitions in neighboring states — such as Ukraine — and to divert attention from domestic problems by exciting nationalist passions.

Our military.

Obama has promised to strengthen our armed forces. He won’t be able to do it. Facing massive debts and decreased revenues, his budget staff will look for places to cut. Unable to trim entitlement programs — and with vast campaign promises to fulfill before 2012 — Obama almost inevitably will turn to the Pentagon as a source of savings.

The Obama administration will begin by trying to kill Cold War legacy systems of marginal utility, but he will run into bipartisan opposition in Congress. Legislators love to praise our troops, but they vote to preserve defense contracts. Our soldiers have no lobbying clout comparable to that of defense-industry giants. Budget advisers will fall back on cutting people and benefits, while an influential minority of political activists will be delighted to punish the military.

The long list of challenges runs from a crisis of shattered expectations in China, to the antics of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. Somalia is lawless, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo is drenched in blood. Even Mexico — the state most vital to our security — faces a disintegrative level of lawlessness. For all the global goodwill toward our next president, additional troop commitments from our allies will be few, while their expectations will be high. Obama, too, will find that there are times when a U.S. president must act because no one else will.

The potential tragedy of our charismatic next president is that he could repeat the patterns of his Democratic predecessors — Johnson, Carter and Clinton — in coming to the White House with a strong domestic agenda, only to be beleaguered by foreign policy.

Ralph Peters is a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors and the author, most recently, of Looking For Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World.

Iraq: Kurdistan Model

Kurdistan Is A Model For Iraq, (Wall Street Journal)…Masoud Barzani, Nov 12, 2008.

Iraq’s Kurds have consistently been America’s closest allies in Iraq. Our Peshmerga forces fought alongside the U.S. military to liberate the country, suffering more casualties than any other U.S. ally.

Mr. Barzani is the president of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

First Female Four Star General

Dunwoody To Be First Female Four-Star General, (Washingtonpost.com)…Robert Burns, Associated Press, Nov 14, 2008.

The recognition makes her a little bit uncomfortable from the standpoint of the gender aspect–that we’re making a big deal (that) she is the first female general officer,” Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said Thursday in announcing that Defense Secretary Robert Gates would attend her promotion ceremony.

Systems of Systems: Govt and Financial Crisis

The Business Model, By Brian Friel, Government Executive Magazine, November 5, 2008

The economy is one giant system of systems with complex interconnections among all of them. Problems can travel easily across those connections from system to system. As those problems multiply, solutions become more difficult because the law of unintended consequences is so powerful in complex systems.

That fact seems obvious when you look at the snowballing financial crisis.

The government is, of course, one system in the economy’s system of systems. Its revenues represent roughly one-fifth of the nation’s gross domestic product. The system of government is extremely complex since it is subject not only to the rules of the economy but also to the rules of politics. Just witness the difficulty Congress and the executive branch had in crafting ways to deal with the economic crisis.

Outstanding points and insight regarding the systems of systems perspective.

A system can be defined as a collection of processes with a common aim. A process is the action taken to achieve a result. Everything is done via a process.

First time I can recall seeing the term “system of systems” used outside a military context.  The intent of DoD’s Joint Guidance on Effect Based Operations (EBO) is to assess an adversary’s “system of systems” to identify and exploit vulnerabilities.

In a non-military application, same approach can be/is applied to improve capabilities.  The systems perspective is what W. Edwards Deming  introduced to the Japanese after WWII and has been successfully applied by companies such as Toyota.

A systems of systems assessment on the financial system would have easily identified the vulnerabilities. Would likely have also been fairly accurate on the time.

Systems thinking is also referred to as strategic thinking, horizontal thinking and/or macro-level thinking as opposed to vertical or stove-piped thinking. Vertical thinking incorporates a “process” or more of a micro-level perspective.

Thomas Barnett, author of the Pentagons New Map and the forthcoming book, Great Powers, contrasted the two perspectives:

There are types of people in the world: those who believe there are two types of people  in the world and those who don’t. I fall into the first camp.

I believe the world is divided between vertical thinkers, or those who specialize deeply in certain skills and subject matters, and horizontal thinkers, or those whose essential skill lies in connecting the dots across various subjects and synthesizing new combinations.

The challenge for what I refer to as Quality Leadership, includes leveraging the two perspectives to achieve the highest levels of quality.

Pentagon’s Pay for Performance System (NSPS) – Potential Revision/Repeal

High Hopes For A New Friend In The White House, (Washington Post)…Joe Davidson, Nov 6, 2008.

…Gage released a series of letters from Obama that outline his positions on various federal labor related issues. The Pentagon’s pay for performance system: Obama said he was concerned about a disconnect between pay and performance, forced distribution of performance ratings and suppression of wages in the National Security Personnel System. As president, he said, he would substantially revise the system’s regulations “and strongly consider a complete repeal.”

Good news on the possible changes to NSPS.  I have over 30 years in the federal civil service including 17 years at the Department  of Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) in Indianapolis, IN.  One of the better performance appraisal systems I’ve experienced at DFAS was in the early 1990s when we used a pass/fail option.  Our performance standards identified shared goals and objectives in four areas: customer satisfaction, results, process improvements, and employee satisfaction.  The bonus system was separate from the individual performance review.

W. Edwards Deming, whose work with the Japanese after WWII was recognized by the editors of Fortune magazine as one of the best calls in business history, classified most individual performance systems (to include grades in school) as deadly diseases. Rationale provided at SuccessThroughQuality.com where you can test your knowledge of variation. 

A better understanding of the variation principle would help minimize and/or avoid many of the costs associated with NSPS.

 Additional articles on the subject published in Quality Progress and DFAS magazine.

Our early efforts to introduce the variation principle within DFAS provided in the article:  Measuring Performance in the Department of Defense (DFAS). Published in Quality Progress Magazine, American Society for Quality, January 2002.

A Transformation to Quality Government. Published in Quality Progress Magazine, American Society for Quality, May 2000.

Doing the right things, right. Article that summarize quality ‘s common ground.  Published in the Department of Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) newsletter, December 1995.

Success through Quality Choices.  Article that illustrates the basic principles of numerical literacy.  Published in the Department of Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) newsletter, December 1995. 

  

Winning the Peace

Stability Operations and State Building: Continuities and Contingencies. Edited by Colonel Greg Kaufmann, U.S.A., Ret, September, 2008. Strategic Studies Institute, Army War College Carlisle Barracks, PA.

The Strategic Studies Institute and Austin Peay State University conducted an academic colloquium titled, “Stability Operations
and State-Building: Continuities and Contingencies.” The purpose was to identify principles and supporting policies of state-building that will enhance America’s ability “to win the peace” while stabilizing chaotic regions. The approved list of “Principles to Win the Peace” were:

1. Ensure rule of law
2. Seek security: civil, military, economic
3. Pursue legitimacy
4. Encourage development
5. Foster self-empowerment and self-sufficiency
6. Foster communications

Thomas Barnett was one of the presenters. His session titled: How America Realigns Itself to the Current Geostrategic Landscape,  identifed the following points of emphasis:

• Leave the place more connected than you found it, across all networks possible.
•  romote industries that link the economy into existing and emergent production chains; any niche will do.
• Give the regime the technical and training wherewithal to secure its borders.
• Rehabilitate and/or build up air- and seaport security to meet American entry/fastpass standards, so that direct connections can be forged, giving transitioning states the software and hardware if necessary.
• Go slowly on elections and demands for democracy; most countries can only connect as single-party regimes because of the social and economic challenges involved with opening up to the global economy.
• Realize most societies have democracy within tribes and among tribal leaders, but that the decision point preference is consensus, not majority vote.
• Go with whatever traditional social hierarchal structure exists; build from that instead of transplanting.
• Do not push women’s rights so much as women’s education—especially for girls. (Remember how long it took for women to get the vote in the United States.)
• Do not feed people except for short durations and when extreme need arises; it is better to encourage agricultural development.
• Build police, not militaries.

In a previous posting, Economics, Political Change, Prediction Markets, I reference Barnett’s work in expanding economic connectivity through gloablization. His points of emphasis above reinforce the need for “phased-in variability” regarding  change … go slowly on elections, concensus vs. majority vote, focus on women’s education vs women rights, build on existing instead of transplanting.

Testing the Next President: Scenarios

A Test That’s Sure To Come, (Washington Post)…Jackson Diehl, Nov 3, 2008.

…There almost always is. In April 2001 — long before Sept. 11 — George W. Bush had to react when a U.S. military surveillance aircraft was forced down in China and its crew detained for 11 days. The episode started as an accident, but Beijing used it to measure a new executive with scant international experience. In 1993 Bill Clinton was blindsided by the “Blackhawk Down” firefight in Mogadishu. After 18 U.S. soldiers were killed in an ambush, he abruptly withdrew U.S. forces from Somalia — and taught Osama bin Laden not to fear American power.