The speaker began by sketching the Conventional Future, an outlook for 15-20 years ahead.  What will the international system look like?  What countries will be on top?

• The US can still be expected to be #1 – and really the only super power since no real rivals are likely in that time frame.
• #2 will still be Europe but it will have its problems.  Although Europe is developing its own identity culturally and economically, rising nationalism will interfere with political integration.
  • Europe will not be a single state with a single outlook
  • European militaries will be lagging behind the US even more
    • Capabilities will increase but even those levels will depend on cooperation with the US
    • Capabilities will not be evenly distributed across the board
  • Countries will be ambivalent about their relations with US
    • Europe can only stay at #2 if it remains allied with US and its military stays strong
• #3 will be China – probably.
  • Only if things continue to move along as they have been
  • Military power is growing but it is still well behind US
  • China has chosen minimal strategic deterrence – a couple dozen ICBMs
  • In 15-20 years China will have enough conventional military power to cause the US problems in any potential confrontation
• #4 will be Japan – at least a likely prospect.
  • Despite its aging population
  • In 15-20 years Japan should be a reasonable regional power, but it might be tempted to go beyond that depending on the behavior of its neighbors
  • Japan is already a proto-nuclear power and would only require months to develop nuclear weapons
    • Space exploration capabilities have been growing
    • Space capabilities could easily be converted to use in ICBMs
• #5 will be India – probably.

The speaker went on to read a passage from the Bible describing Armageddon which, he noted, described horrors that could easily fit the types of threats we currently fear.  Today’s potential equivalent major threats include:

• First: massive wars which could only be fought between the US and Russia or with Russia and China combined    

• Second: regional wars

• Third:  fragmenting local wars involving ethnic conflicts

• Fourth: various national liberation movements

• Fifth: lash out attacks by weak countries against the US which might even be done anonymously

• Sixth: attacks by states that give their WMD or enhanced conventional capabilities to other states, even non-state actors, so that the real attack originators cannot be determined

• Seventh: advanced states could go bad and plunge into chaos

An analysis of the likelihood of such problems must also look at:

• Capabilities to commit such an attack

• Political will to carry out attacks

  • Need to look at the country or conspiratorial groups individually and in combinations

  • Could involve religion and world visions

• These elements could make many countries in the traditional hierarchy of states unstable

There is a more imminent threat to America’s place in the world.  However, perhaps after 9-11 we adopted a strategy based on a historically incorrect understanding of the threat.

• The whole idea of the War on Terror is problematic
  • Lacks substance and context
  • “Terror” is not the enemy
    • Terror is only a technique, like blitzkrieg in World War II
  • War on Terror does not tell:
    • Who the perpetrators are
    • Where they come from
    • Why they are attacking us
    • Knowing the first helps with the second and third
  • If we called it a Middle East war perhaps we might have more support
  • The 9-11 attackers were from a specific background that explains why they became terrorists
    • Grew out of both recent and colonial history which Osama bin Laden and his people explicitly discussed
    • See the book Imperial Hubris by Anonymous (known to be a mid-level CIA analyst) for more dissection of what bin Laden has said

One thing that is making it more difficult for the US to understand this situation is that the current unrest it is part of a larger civil war within Islam.

• There has been an effort to fuse religion with a recognition that there is a need for world change
• Terrorists have a need to express their hatred because of history and their own self image in the world
  • We unintentionally are helping them by identifying only terror as the threat
  • According to the 9-11 Commission Report world support for the US dropped from a high level after 9-11 because of what we did since then
• US choices may not be wrong but they are not integrated into a big picture

What has changed in the world-view of the US?

• In March 2002 the US gave up trying to be even-handed in dealing with Israel and the Palestinians.  Instead there was an effort to support Israel and its efforts to punish the Palestinians.
• In March 2003 the US actions in Iraq destroyed the remainder of world support
  • The US was originally welcomed by Iraq, but occupation has become a burden on the people, rather like colonial rule
• Over the occupation our terms have changed:
  • First we talked about terrorists
• Now we talk about insurgents meaning those resisting external power
• Iraq is only part of an area in which US involvement is growing beyond the Mid-East, reaching from Suez to the whole area south of the Russian border
  • The US is indirectly present in many places where civil war within Islam is happening
  • This area contains 550 million people but they are very diverse
  • Religious issues have aroused the huge social underclasses
  • We are largely there alone
  • Most Americans have no idea of the scale of the area or the problems

In the past when the US helped Europe in its struggles, the leadership (Wilson, Roosevelt, Churchill, etc.) talked to the people a great deal to explain the situation.  Therefore, the public understood the need for the actions taken. There have been no real speeches outlining what needs to be done and why.  Few people even within government have a good grasp of why we should be there, perhaps only the US ambassador to Afghanistan, but no one in Iraq.  This brings up the issue of what did our decision-makers know about the region before they chose to go to war.  This has left the US with only a handful of allies (UK, Poland, Italy.)

Essentials Requirements

We need to recognize that we cannot confuse our great capabilities with omnipotence.

• Military power must be global, versatile, and flexible.  We would have a major problem if another crisis area occurred.  It might require reinstituting the draft.
• Good intelligence, not suspicions, are needed for preemptive action.  The President was said to have been misled, but it is not clear who misled him.  Perhaps his advisors especially in the National Security Council were not discriminating enough about what they were told.  Perhaps they should have warned the President that not everything was merely black or white. 
• Motivations of allies. Given the complexity of future relations we need to be wary of countries that want to be our allies immediately.  What are the real motives of Pakistan, Indian, China, and others?  They may have their own agendas.  We need to share basic values and concerns with our true allies.  Therefore, we are really only talking about Europe which has as great a need for stability as we do.
• Economic vitality.  We have problems that will limit what we can do with the military:
  • Little spare oil production capacity
  • Budget deficit getting serious
  • Social Security problem threatening
• Domestic security. We cannot afford to protect everything in the country since there is so much of it.  Instead we need good intelligence about intentions, but the answer is not conversion or defeat.
   

Question and Answer Session

We need a better understanding of the world, especially the parts of the world which now cause us concern. This requires a great deal more human intelligence (Humint) which is the only way to tell what people are planning.  We also need our allies to provide us with different avenues, capabilities, options.

What of the Unconventional Future?  What we are doing now may be bringing on what we do not want to happen.

Counterterrorism efforts need to be centralized in a single organization outside the State or Defense Department.  There needs to be a construct to deal with the diversity and cultural areas not usually handled by either State or DoD.  Warfare using military, diplomatic, and unconventional means needs its own nexus.

Was the Global War On Terrorism (GWOT) used as a euphemism so that we did not upset our Arab or Islamic allies?  Should we have used a more direct term?

There were probably many reasons that the Administration used the term GWOT.  They could have used “Middle-Eastern Terrorists” which would provide the where and the who and could lead to something about the why.  We would not have to call them Islamic terrorists since we do not call IRA members Catholic terrorists.  The major problem is not only terrorism, which is only an aspect of the problem.  It is really the total of the seven threats discussed previously.  Large parts of the world are in turmoil for their own reasons.  Terror is only one aspect and is only a means to push ahead their needs.  Of more concern might be potential manipulations of world alliances, or cyberattacks or attacks on our economic structure. Terror will only fade when other conditions improve.

Our enemies will be helped by using simplistic terminology and thinking. (Attacks carried out by evil-doers!) 

We must remember that we are not the only country that has been hurt by terror over the years.  None of the others severely attacked “went bananas” over those attacks.  Japan, the UK and Italy all suffered.  Italy had over 2000 terrorist incidents in 1978.  We need to build a sense of proportion about such attacks.  Instead we need to look at the Middle East with its political and religious disputes.  Then we must carefully define the problem and permit an end to external domination of all kinds in the area.  We also need:

• To find an end to the Israeli-Palestinian problem
• To get the US out from the middle of the local problems since we cannot transform them.  The countries there must do it themselves.  Germany and Japan became stable after World War II because they built on what they themselves had:
  • Germany had a history of democracy
  • Japan had a symbol of its own unity in its Emperor
• If we had free elections in Saudi Arabia today with the reformer Prince Abdullah against Osama bin Laden, who would win?
• We cannot force these changes from the outside

The nuclear threat? Any entity that acquires nuclear weapons in the next 10-15 years can still not hope to devastate the US even if they could cause a lot of damage.  However, they would know that they were committing suicide by instituting an attack on the US.  Nuclear weapons still require a large support group to launch a missile and enough would realize that attacking a US city would result in a retaliation that would destroy their country.  However, North Korea’s efforts may upset the current balances.

The real danger comes from a nation that chooses to share its nuclear weapons with terrorists so that they could remain anonymous.  In such a case the US might be hurt very badly but it would not be able to strike back since it could not identify the attacker.  What reduces the possibility that this could happen is that most countries are really much more interested in their neighbors than they are in the US. The destabilizing threat is really more a threat of redirection of existing nuclear weapons rather than any threat coming from countries with newly acquired nuclear powers.

What does is say about the Afghan president to see that he is surrounded by only US body guards?  He cannot even trust his own people.

Can we win in Iraq? We cannot possibly win in Iraq without getting other nations involved over the next year.  The first group must be Europeans and then the Arab states.  The longer we stay in Iraq, the worse the situation will become.  But how do we get others to join us?

• It may not even be possible
• We must show them that we have a broader strategy than the War on Terror; it must include solving the Mid-East disputes
• Without some movement on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute there could be no Pakistani troops available to help

Are there any second generation terrorists in Europe?  The leaders of the terrorist groups are largely from collapsing traditional societies who have gone abroad perhaps to study and then recognize the great need for change in their homelands.  Once they go home they are willing and trained to use more radical means to make the changes.  Historically, this has been the case with other revolutionary leaders, many of whom have studied in Paris.

Should we be negotiating with terrorists?  No, but we do need to address the conditions that create them.  We cannot ferret out the terrorists ourselves.  We need targeting information from Iraqis, but they may have their own reasons for giving faulty intelligence.  Maybe over time the intelligence will get better when the Iraqis see that the truth can help make things better for themselves.  We need sensitivity to the complexities that motivate the people there.  This was also true in Afghanistan which had very ugly relations among its various peoples.

What will happen after the US election? The US is a fairly pragmatic country with pragmatic leaders.  No matter who wins, the Administration might eventually proclaim partial success especially if no other country joins in.  This might make for a tricky and uncomfortable period while we try to pull out, but it can be done.  Any Iraqi government that develops will have to be both Anti-US and Anti-Israel to survive in its own environment. We will need to look at the political/ diplomatic costs involved in such a pull out.

The realities about Iraq we see on television are not necessarily the complete reality of the country.  Dangers in some major locations do not let journalists get to the 50 or more areas that are and have been quiet.  However, there is no great cry yet from the American public to get out of Iraq.  If there were, the presidential challenger would announce “I will get you out,” rather than what we do hear, “I will prevail!”

What could we have done differently over the last few years to avoid where we are?

• Work to get beyond the Camp David Accords
• Maybe there could have been something in 1991 either before or immediately after Desert Storm
• We could have truly changed energy policy back in the 1970s making the changes much more far reaching, but people were not ready then and still are not ready.
  • Nothing is likely to alter American views about their high use of fuel
  • Even if US policies changed drastically, it would not alter the problems that Europe, India, and China have and will have with energy needs

Threats to Israel?

• Syria is not a major threat
• Iraq was a threat but is no longer
• Iran’s threat is mostly which country can claim local superiority, but this is not an immediate threat.  It could be in two to three years.  Iran has not yet deployed any nuclear weapons and it must be aware that any attacks on Israel would result in a much more destructive retaliation for them.  This should give us some time to work out a solution.
  • Already a younger generation wants greater modernization in the society
  • This younger generation is more nationalistic than religious, and they want to play a role in the government.
    • They want nuclear weapons if Israel has them and that is not an illegitimate view
    • Iran is now a serious country with a serious role and it does not have a record of irrational aggression

 Mid-East Problems? There are conflated problems with all the countries of the Mid-East, and these problems cannot be handled individually.  We will have a choice to either “bug-out” or act alone against Iran. That could lead to a situation in which the real threat comes from a Global Balkanization process.