Trump, “Shock and Awe” and Europeans

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
01/07/2018

2017-12-30 By Robbin Laird

My wife is French and I have spent a good deal of my professional life dealing with European security and defense issues. 

I have lived through several phases almost ages  of European-American relations and have travelled widely in Europe, and the Soviet Union over the past thirty years.

With Carter, you had Brzezinski and Brown leading the effort to rework a nuclear war fighting strategy against the Soviets.  This was a shock to most European governments which really did not want to think about the nuclear challenges posed by the Soviets.

Next entered Ronald Reagan, an actor who was a life time anti-communist and very much focused on dealing with the Soviet Union and ending its existence as the “evil empire.” The battle of Euromissiles was a key axis of conflict in the early 1980s.  The initial reactions of most Europeans was disdain for Reagan as an intellectual lightweight who did not understand global politics.

I travelled Europe during the Euromissile crisis and argued the case for nuclear modernization against a widespread negative opinion about nuclear weapons held in Germany and elsewhere

With the election if the first President Bush, the reunification of Germany came onto the agenda, an effort on which I worked a great deal.

It was clear that virtually no European leader or many elites supported German unification, in part because of what they expected to be the Soviet backlash.

Next up was George W. Bush and dealing with the 9/11 attack and then invading Iraq. 

Despite significant warnings that taking down Saddam Hussein would leave a power vacuum, George W. Bush went ahead anyway.  The US reaction to Europeans not supporting the invasion was extremely negative with silly things like renaming French fries Freedom Fries.

After the US and the allies involved in the Iraq War worked through several years of dealing with the Afghan situation as well, the defense side was in full engagement for fighting land wars, and reduced significantly the support for air and naval modernization.

Then came President Obama, the “toastmaster in chief” who was lionized throughout his presidency in ways that made him virtually more of a European than an American President. 

He extended the role of the regulatory state, and travelled globally resetting the US image by often apologizing for went before. 

He put in place red lines which he did not enforce, failed to respond to the Crimean crisis and set in motion Putin unleashed. 

He negotiated a deal on Iran nuclear weapons which did little to deal with the increasingly aggressive behavior of Iran and in the words of one senior UAE official: “the agreement became more important to make and protect than dealing with the increasingly aggressive behavior of Iran, which in any case has wide latitude to become a nuclear power down the road.”

Enter President Trump, an event that was not supposed to happen. 

Because this was not to happen, the high priests of strategy in Washington and Brussels did not see a real need to prepare for plan B.

The Trump campaign was of interest simply showing the strange culture the Americans outside of Washington (except for California and New York) seem to pursue.

In part, the election of Trump exposed the general lack of knowledge many Europeans have about the Untied States and about the politics and economics of the United States.  The US is a federal system and one in which in electing its President the role of the electoral college reflects a federal rather than a national system. 

So when Trump won a majority of electoral votes while Mrs. Clinton won a majority of popular vote, there were many articles in the European press that expressed dismay against what was viewed as almost an illegal election.

Then the Russian factor folded in and the various opponents of Trump focused on Russian cyber engagements as  some sort of strategic surprise and launched a continuous and ongoing campaign that somehow Trump is a compromised President simply by some of his folks having dealings with the Russians.

Trump’s style is one of shock and awe with regard to the political system and has without any doubt stunned allies of the Untied States who expect not only a different style but a different handling by the US government of allies.

And in a shocking development, Trump ended up focusing on what he thought was in the US interests, not some vague and amorphous globalization agenda, an agenda which at least one major adversary of the United States, the PRC, is working any way they can to their global advantage.

When one travels in Europe one hears mostly negative comments about the President and his style, but very little focus on what the President might actually be doing and even more to the point, simply neglecting what global adversaries of the liberal democracies are about as they work their interpretation of globalization.

This is a problem because Trump loves to shape a saga via his shock and awe tactics, and play off oft the responses to his shock and awe and then he shapes his real politics. 

He could be a Viking in this sense.

This does not make for an easy interaction with the Administration, but given the significance of both the economy and strategic power the United States provides for the liberal democracies,it is an evolving narrative which needs to be understand, and interactively shaped.

To give one a sense of how the European press works the Trump Administration, the new tax law is interpreted by a number of continental newspapers as being anti-European because it will draw investments into the United States. 

Of course, Brexit plus the new US tax laws might well have a negative impact on European inward investment, but here is a radical idea: how about lowering tax rates in Europe? 

But this is much too Trumpian for a number of European analysts.

I started the year by being in Norway at a conference (ironically at a major Viking settlement) and heard an amazing diatribe passing as analysts of the Trump challenge to Europe. 

Besides being lectured on European values and the long history of Germany democracy, this German speaker decided to argue de facto for the rise of a threatening type of populism in the United States which would undercut liberal democracy. 

Trump would not comply with the rule of law and because Republicans controlled the Congress and most the states, the wave of anti-liberal and anti-democratic populism would wash away the US ally that Europe once knew. 

Trump would attack the EU and rip apart NATO and shape an isolationist US agenda.

It was somewhat difficult to listen to this and my comment to a number of Norwegian officers was that I promised that we would not invade the Sudetenland.

A more measured look at the challenges was provided by the then Norwegian defense minister who is now the foreign minister who underscored the challenges but expected a solid working relationship with both Brexit Britain and Trump America.

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/the-changing-norwegian-strategic-environment-the-perspective-of-the-norwegian-defense-minister/

I am pleased that recent dialogue with, and statements from, the new US administration emphasize US commitment to NATO and transatlantic security. But at the same time, there is still much we do not know about President Trump’s foreign and security policy.

While I don’t think we should exaggerate the significance of Russian influence, we shouldn’t underestimate it either. In any case, we need to pay close attention to what is going on in our own countries now. Because these underlying currents in many countries may also undermine international defense and security cooperation at a time when the need for cooperation is greater than in a very long time.

The security challenges that we are all facing from violent extremism, a more assertive and destabilizing Russia and the consequences of conflict and instability in North Africa and the Middle East, requires more trust and closer collaboration, not the opposite.

And given the current situation, one of my greatest concerns is that our ability to make decisions in NATO or the EU will be challenged.

It is clear that President Trump’s style and some of his statements can give pause, but it remains as always what is the reality of what is going on in the United States which after all is a bigger entity than any one President. 

What bothers me and bothers me deeply is the unwillingness to do analysis rather than simply to justify whatever one’s own particular views are. 

President Donald Trump, Melania Trump, King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud of Saudi Arabia and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi open the World Center for Countering Extremist Thought in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on May 21, 2017. Saudi Press Agency / EPA

Certainly, the President has focused on the North Korean threat directly in a way earlier Administration’s simply ignored.  His work with the Saudi government and the UAE might yield significant breakthroughs in the Middle East. His efforts to refocus US forces on meeting the high end threat are clearly a work in progress, but at least there is a work in progress.

And underlying all this is a clear effort to grow the American economy and to deal with strategic challenges in a broader manner than the last two administrations.

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/preparing-for-2018-implementing-the-trump-administration-national-security-strategy/

With a significant European crisis underway with Brexit, Poland and its dynamics, Spain and its separatist agenda, the absence of a new government in Germany, and general uncertainty about the new phase of European development, having a President like Trump is a useful foil for internal European debates.

Clearly, the shift from Obama to Trump has been a shock to the European system which when coupled with the new Russian threats and Brexit as well as other internal dynamics raise fundamental questions about the shape of Europe over the next decade and what kind of America will be its ally.

One European analyst recently contrasted, the shift from Obama to Trump as follows:

The switch in the US from Nobel laureate and first black president, Obama, to Trump, a billionaire populist who tweets fake news and insults, and defends white supremacists, could hardly have been more extreme.

This analyst started his article with the broad point that a year into the Trump Administration “the foundations of the transatlantic relationship are still intact.”

https://euobserver.com/europe-in-review/139870

One might ask why? 

And the answer has nothing to do with Trump but rather to the forces both within and without his Administration resisting Trumpism.

We learn that NATO is doing well and why?

US military chiefs have repeatedly pledged their commitment to Nato. The US is also leading a Nato battalion in Poland to deter Russian aggression.

In effect, there seems to have been a military coup d’erat in the United States marginalizing the President. 

It could have nothing to do with Trump’s actual policies as opposed to a tweet.

In a way Trump creates this problem for himself, but it is also his still of fomenting change. 

He uses shock and awe as a means to an end — reform of American policies in a fundamental sense.

What remains to be seen will be the results at the end of the day of his efforts.

If the United States and its ability to support allies is enhanced under the Trump Administration as opposed the obvious weaknesses of the United States evident to Americans fostered by the “Nobel laureate,” the challenges will be worth it from the standpoint of many Americans. 

But according to a European diplomat, the effort is not worth focusing upon because the United States is already the “weakest” state in the Western Alliance.

In what could only be labeled as values based analysis, here is what this European diplomat had to say:

Speaking to EUobserver on condition of anonymity, one senior EU diplomat said Trump’s antics were no laughing matter. 

“The biggest danger for Europe is a paralysis with regard to the question of Russia … the US is emerging as the weakest point of the Western alliance,” he said.

To be clear, this is a values based judgment in which the European diplomat sees the US under Trump deviating from the path on which it ought to be following; but as a statement of fact, it is hardly correct, unless one believes that the US economic and military power, let alone the continuing cultural attraction of the United States is of no consequence.

And with the forceful coming of the Second Nuclear Age, Europe like the United States faces some rather unpleasant realities of the return of the nuclear problem. and one not solved by earlier equations of nuclear deterrence.

 

Shaping a 21st Century Deterrence in Depth Strategy: The Role of ADA

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
01/06/2018

2017-12-28 By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake

The shift from engaging in the land wars and the con-ops associated with those land wars to preparing for higher tempo and higher intensity operations are key to the transformation of U.S. and allied forces.

The challenge facing the liberal democracies was well put in a recent presentation by a senior Finnish defense official: “The timeline for early warning is shorter; the threshold for the use of force is lower.”

Shaping a deterrence in depth strategy which address and then mitigate any threats posed by adversaries in their attempt to build anti-access and area denial capabilities is at the heart of this effort.

https://sldinfo.com/allied-pacific-exercises-and-training-shaping-a-deterrence-in-depth-strategy/

The US Army provides a key combat enabler with air defense artillery now engaged in global military operations.

ADA plays an increasingly significant role within joint and coalition forces shaping the US 21st Century offensive-defensive enterprise way of war.

Modern ADA has seen the growing importance of Patriot and THAAD within the joint force, but for the reshaping of the Army’s ground maneuver force, ADA must be built more broadly into its transformation going forward.

https://sldinfo.com/the-north-korean-threat-and-high-intensity-war-shaping-integrated-missile-defense/

Recently, we had a chance to talk with one of the US Army’s leading ADA architects, Brigadier General Randall McIntire. 

The General is the Commandant of the ADA School based at Fort Sill, Oklahoma and in this capacity both trains for the current fight and prepares for success in combat within the future evolution of the US Army, joint services and allied forces as well.

As the US Army prepares its future with the return to a priority on high tempo and high intensity operations, ADA plays a key role, not just as a capability, but a leaven for change as well.

We started the conversation by focusing on how the current Chief of Staff of the US Army, General Mark Milley, looked at the key modernization priorities in the way ahead as well as the key role of ADA in contributing to and shaping the future Army.

Chester Petry, Electromagnetic Railgun lead systems engineer, briefs Army Brig. Gen. Randy McIntire, commandant of the Air Defense Artillery School, on electromagnetic railgun projectiles. McIntire, who is also the Chief of the Army’s Air Defense Artillery, was briefed on Navy railgun and directed energy programs — including high energy lasers — during his tour at Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division. The Air Defense Artillery Center and School provides the Army and combatant commanders with a flexible, adaptive, and tailorable Air Defense Artillery force able to defeat the full range of threats across the spectrum of operations. It’s operational mission is to provide fires to protect the force and selected geopolitical assets from aerial attack, missile attack and surveillance. Credit: USN, July 7, 2017.

BG McIntire: “The Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army has highlighted a number of key priorities for Army modernization.

“The first priority is to fix long-range strike.

“Second, we need the next generation combat vehicle and one which enables the offensive-defensive approach to Large Scale Combat Operations.

“Third, we need a new vertical lift capability. We need a much higher speed helicopter capability and one that can operate effectively in the 21st century multi-domain maneuver space.

“Fourth, we need to have a better open architecture network. We need to work on our C2 and we need a transformation of our mission command system.

“But without effective defense in the maneuver force, you’re not going to be able to survive. Air Defense is a key enabler for the maneuver force.

“Survivability of the maneuver force requires an organic air missile defense as well as extended defense for the integrated battlefield.

“It is not an afterthought; it is a core requirement of mission success.”

BG McInture emphasized that integrated fires are the key to breaking up adversary efforts to shape anti-access and area denial of operational areas.

At Fort Sill, both offensive fires and defensive fires are co-located. The situation created by the BRAC in the mid-2000s of co-location of offense and defense has provided a foundation for working the kind of integration crucial to develop offensive and defensive integrated fires.

Put another way, a template has been put together – integrating offensive and defensive fires – which lays down the foundation for incorporating the technologies which are entering the force.

But it is clear that is not just about technology.

“Technology is important.

“But we are constantly evolving the organization structures which incorporates the new technologies and looks forward to developing new ways to extend our battle space and increase our ability to sense, control fires and shoot.

“It is definitely a shift in our current culture to ensure that we have the right kind of approach to defense integrated into the maneuver force. We are back to the Future!”

BG McIntire provided an analogy to explain how the two sides of Army fires were working together.

“The way I look at the situation is similar to two boxers sparring and working together to defeat the adversary. One boxer is throwing the offensive punches; the second boxer is providing for the defense of the force. The two boxers working together provide for the striking defense force to defeat the adversary, thus allowing the maneuver force the ability to get into the close fight.”

BG McIntire highlighted the fact that at Fort Sill they were both training for the current fight and preparing for the future fight.

The simulation and training facilities at Fort Sill provide core competencies for the current fight.

As those simulators are folded into live virtual constructive training, they are also available for shaping preparation for the future fight.

https://sldinfo.com/building-in-integration-reshaping-training-and-encompassing-development/

A key missing part of defense in the Army is short-range air defense (SHORAD).

Here he sees the need for the new combat vehicle to be enabled to provide defense as part of the organic maneuver force. The new combat vehicle can incorporate the evolving range of technologies to deliver defensive capability to the battlefield and must be able to keep up the maneuver force.

We discussed the addition of directed energy as part of the maneuver force.

He saw directed energy and the sharing of technologies amongst services in the directed energy area as a key element moving forward. Directed energy will not completely replace other elements in the defense toolbox, but provide new complementary tools.

https://sldinfo.com/shaping-a-way-ahead-to-prepare-for-21st-century-conflicts-payload-utility-capabilities-and-the-kill-web/

The new generation of ADA warriors are comfortable working in the integrated battle space, with other services and allies as well.

In fact, ADA can provide key strategic deterrence, as well as reassurance for our partners and allies, without needing a heavy “boots on the ground” force.  Air Defense is a key enabler for “setting the theater” for all levels and phases of military operations.

It is important however to understand that ADA forces on the ground in an allied situation must be integrated with the air and naval power of the United States to provide for the kind of protection which land warriors on the ground deserve.

It is also the case that ADA is becoming a key part of multi-domain warfare, which is the cutting edge way of looking at where the US and allied forces need to go to reverse engineer the threat.

Rear Adm. Nils Wang, former head of the Danish Navy and now head of the Danish Royal Military Academy recently introduced the reverse engineering approach to deal with anti-access and area denial.

Wang clearly argued that the Russian challenge has little to do with the Cold War Soviet-Warsaw Pact threat to the Nordics. The Soviet-Warsaw threat was one of invasion and occupation, and then using Nordic territory to fight U.S. and allied forces in the North Atlantic. In many ways, this would have been a repeat of how the Nazis seized Norway during a combined arms amphibious operation combined with a land force walk into Denmark.

In that scenario, the Danes and their allies were focused on sea denial through use of mines, with fast patrol boats providing protection for the minelayers.

Aircraft and submarines were part of a defense in depth strategy to deny the ability of the Soviets to occupy the region in time of a general war.

He contrasted this with the current situation in which the Russians are less focused on a general war, and more on building capabilities for a more limited objective, controlling the Baltic States. He highlighted the arms modernization of the Russian military focused on ground-based missile defense and land- and sea-based attack missiles, along with airpower, as the main means to shape a denial-in-depth strategy which would allow the Russians significant freedom of maneuver to achieve their objectives within their zone of strategic maneuver.

A core Russian asset is the Kalibr cruise missile, which can operate off of a variety of platforms. With a dense missile wolf pack, so to speak, the Russians provide a cover for their maneuver forces. They are focused on using land-based mobile missiles in the region as their key strike and defense asset. “The Russian defense plan in the Baltic is all about telling NATO, we can go into the Baltic countries if we decided to do so. And you will not be able to get in and get us out. That is basically the whole idea,” the admiral said.

Wang argued for a reverse engineering approach to the Russian threat. He saw this as combining several key elements: a combined anti-submarine (ASW), F-35 fleet, frigate- and land-based strike capabilities, including from Poland.

https://breakingdefense.com/2017/11/denmark-eyeing-russia-oks-20-spending-boost-what-it-means/

But to get where ADA needs to go and to achieve its full promise of providing core capabilities within an integrated offensive-defensive force, requires shifting acquisition approaches in some fundamental ways.

Most importantly, rather than buying whole systems, and being dependent on prime contractors for the complete integration of those systems, the US Army is looking towards a commodity approach.

What the U.S. Army is looking to do is be able to manage interactions among C2, sensors, and missiles and to plus whichever of these “commodities” needs to be plused up. It is also crucial for the US Army to be able to integrate the defense systems in the maneuver force as well as to focus on what is necessary for the evolving integrated battle space.

It is not simply about after-market integration; it is about building in integration from the ground up as new systems are added as well.

This means that sorting out integration of Patriot and THAAD is necessary for the current fight and for establishing a way ahead for future integration as well.

Rather than looking at a very broad network integrated across at battle space, it makes sense to look at discrete force packages integrated around the effects that they can create.

Clearly it is important that Patriot and THAAD can work together but also provide tools to be integrated with air and naval systems operating to support a particular force insertion mission as well.

By the U.S. Army focusing on its ability to integrate with the services C2 or missiles or sensors as the case needs to be, it will be in a position to shape integrated force packages to support the evolving needs of the integrated battle space.

In other words, one can look back at the last 20 years in which Patriot and THAAD have emerged as important systems and see these as foundations for moving forward to a more integrated approach going forward.

But it is important as well to understand the defense is not simply about force protection; is about enabling the maneuver force to reverse engineer the threats that are adversaries are posing to us and to our allies.

Brigadier General Randall McIntire

Brigadier General Randall McIntire is currently serving as the 41st Commandant of the U.S. Army Air Defense Artillery School and as the Chief of Air Defense Artillery.

He entered the active Army in 1988 after graduating from Western Illinois University with a Bachelor of Science degree and receiving a commission through the Reserve Officer Training Corps.

He also holds a Master of Science degree from Central Michigan University in Administration and Master of Arts in National Security and Strategic Studies from the Naval War College.

His military education includes: the Air Defense Artillery Officer Basic Course, the Armor Officer Advance Course, the U. S. Army Command and General Staff College, and the U.S. Naval War College.

http://sill-www.army.mil/ADASchool/team.html

Spanish Air Force Update on A400M

Posted on | by Robbin Laird

2018-01-06 The Spanish Air Force has received its second A400M as well as having recently refueled six Spanish Air Force F-18 fighters in a single mission as part of certification flight.

According to a Spanish Air Force article published on December 29, 2017, the Spanish Air Force has taken delivery of its second operational A400M.

The 31st Air Wing is based at Zaragoza Air Base located 16 kilometres (10 mi) west of Zaragoza, 270 km (168 mi) west of Barcelona, and 262 km (163 mi) northeast of Madrid.

“The new aircraft has the ability of in-flight refuelling through the installation of POD’s under the wings.

“It is expected that the third A400M will join the 31 Wing in April 2018 and by 2022 the A400Ms will have replaced the 10 C-130s currently operating at the base.”

http://www.ejercitodelaire.mde.es/EA/ejercitodelaire/es/detalle-noticia/Aterriza-en-la-Base-Aerea-de-Zaragoza-el-segundo-A400M/

And on December 21, 2017, a press release highlighted the certification test.

“An Airbus A400M has successfully refuelled six Spanish Air Force F-18 fighters in a single mission as part of an air-to-air refuelling (AAR) human factors certification flight.

“The 13 December mission featured a complex series of AAR scenarios such as changes of area, receivers with unknown priorities, and unexpected increases in numbers of receivers. Through multiple contacts the six aircraft simulated a fleet of eight.

“The F-18s included the first Spanish operational fighters to be refuelled by the A400M and belonged to the Spanish Air Force Test Centre (CLAEX) and the 12th Operational Wing based at Torrejón.

“A total of 11.4 tonnes of fuel was dispensed using both the underwing pods and the centre hose refuelling unit.

“Certification authorities on board confirmed good results and the flight validated the A400M two-crew cockpit concept for tanker mission.”

With regard to the Air Transport Wing 31:

The history of ATW 31 starts with the formation of Squadron 301 on 26 April 1973 at Zaragoza Air Base.

In September 1978, Squadron 301 was disbanded and ATW 31was established. It maintained name and location until today.

The wing comprises two squadrons: Transportation Squadron 311 and Air-to-Air Refuelling Squadron 312.

On 18 December 1973, the first C-130H “Hercules” aircraft from the United States arrived at Zaragoza Airbase; the fleet was completed with twelve aircraft which were delivered one after the other until early 1980. In January 1976, the first three AAR aircraft (KC 130H) were added, thus allowing the wing to expand its capabilities by conducting AAR-missions.

In the late 90´s, a modernization program was successfully conducted, aiming to actualize and upgrade the fleet in order to extend the service life of the aircraft. Under this program several aircraft systems were upgraded including the avionics- and navigational system, the radio system, self-protection suite, the fuel system and the system of the in-flight refueling pods as well as the digital autopilot.

Since its establishment, ATW 31 has carried out all kinds of AT missions, both life operations and exercises as well as humanitarian aid missions.

Those missions include operations in theatres such as Afghanistan and Iraq, support operations in disaster areas and regions of conflict, UN missions as well as operations to support the Red Cross and in the framework of international cooperation.

In 2014, the ATW 31 finished its operation in Afghanistan were it has had a permanent detachment for the last twelve years.

Since then, the wing has turned its principal focus of operation to Africa with detachments in Libreville (Gabon) and currently in Dakar (Senegal).

Air Transport Wing 31 accomplishes Strategic (international, mission theatre) Transport as well as Tactical Transport (within the mission theatre) all of which include the following types of activities:
–    Deployment of Air Force units
–    Air-to-Air Refuelling (AAR)
–    Air logistic support
–    Airborne operations
–    Unconventional warfare
–    Medical evacuation flights
–    SAR support
–    Humanitarian aid missions

The wing is equipped with C-130H, C-130 H30 and KC 130H “Hercules” aircraft – Spanish designation T.10/TK.10, which are commonly named as the “Dumbos” because of the elephants in the squadrons’ coat of arms; the unit’s motto is: “Whatever, wherever and whenever!”

http://eatc-mil.com/165/Air-Transport-Wing-31-

French Air Force Leverages AWACS for Maritime Operations

Posted on | by Robbin Laird

2018-01-06  According to an article published by the French Air Force on January 4, 2018, a FAF AWACS was deployed from December 9-15 2017 in support of operations in French Guiana, which is located on the northeast coast of South America.

The mission was in support of providing a protective air bubble for the launch of an Ariane rocket.

The AWACS radar was used to monitor the coastline of Guiana. Working with the Navy the French force was able to provide “a precise map” of the operational area.

The AWACS with refueling support was able to provide wide area coverage during the operation.

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/air/actus-air/nouvelle-demonstration-de-l-integralite-des-capacites-de-l-e3f-awacs

The FAF has provided integrated force packages throughout its history, and is one of the key allied air forces which has continued to build out comprehensive strike and support forces.  France like other key allied militaries is facing significant ops tempo and financial pressures to be able to maintain balanced force capabilities.

Japanese Defense Budget 2018: Shaping Integrated C2 and Enhanced Allied Integration

Posted on | by Robbin Laird

2018-01-06  On December 22, 2017, the Japanese government published their new defense budget on the MoD website.

Japanese Defense Budget, 2018

With an enhanced threat from North Korea and China and the continuing challenges posed by Russia, the Japanese have been strengthening their perimeter defense and are looking to more effectively integrate their defense capabilities with their closest defense partners, which increasingly includes Australia as well.

For example, Japan and Australia are in talks to establish a first-ever visiting forces agreement with an ally other than the United States.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-closes-in-on-joint-defence-force-deal-with-japan-20171225-h0a12s.html

One of the more interesting features of the priority on defense modernization is shaping a more effective integrated C2 system to replace stovepiped service C2 systems.

Strengthening information and communications capability, which is a prerequisite for supporting nation-wide operations

Gradually introduce cloud technology to integrate the command systems that were developed individually by each SDF service. The integration will increase the system’s operational flexibility and resiliency, and at the same time, reduce the costs associated with development and maintenance of the system

  1. Replacement of the central command system (Design process from FY2017 will continue in FY2018) (¥400 million)
  2. Establishment/Development of common cloud computing infrastructure, etc. (¥600 million)
  3. Establishment/Development of cloud computing infrastructure for the GSDF (¥3.8 billion)
  4. Enhancement of the network surveillance function of the Defense Information Infrastructure (DII*), etc. (¥7.4 billion)
  5. Significantly increase equipment for network surveillance in order to strengthen the security of DII * Defense Information Infrastructure

http://www.mod.go.jp/e/d_budget/pdf/291222.pdf

 

Shaping New Combat Con-Ops: F-35 and F-22 Cross Learning

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
01/04/2018

2017-12-29 As we end 2017, the team at Second Line of Defense would like to note that we have focused for MANY years on the re-norming of airpower associated with the coming of the fifth generation aircraft.

There have been many opponents along the way, and many of these folks still do not get it.

And when Secretary Gates and Senator McCain were in high attack mode on the F-35B we not only defended the aircraft but highlighted how significant the aircraft could become in rethinking combat capabilities and concepts of operations.

Notably, both South Korea and Japan are looking to the possibility of adding F-35Bs to their naval forces, something that would not be happening if Secretary Gates and Senator McCain’s barrage of criticism had led to the F-35 becoming another F-22 in terms of contract termination.

If you are going to do high tempo and high intensity operations, and your are a liberal democracy, you need to operate rapidly in response and with as much joint and coalition combat power as you can.

This is what the fifth generation combat capability enables.

It is a work in progress and affects the entire combat process, including the integration of offensive and defense systems in the kind of integration which Aegis with F-35 allows, or which the integration of Army ADA systems with fifth generation airpower will allow as well.

Four U.S. Air Force fighter jets practice the inauguration flyover at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va., Jan. 19, 2017. The formation is comprised of two, fourth generation fighters (F-15 and F-16) along with two, fifth generation fighters (F-22 and F-35). (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Tristan Biese) (Photo by Airman 1st Class Tristan Biese)

The shaping, crafting and creation of integrated offensive and defensive forces is part of what are calling F-35 2.0.

Acquiring and operating the aircraft are not enough.

It is about working through how to reshape C2 and force integration overall with the F-35 as a key lever for change.

In an interview this Fall while in Copenhagen the new chief of staff of the Royal Danish Air Force put it particularly well:

To be blunt: to leverage every aspect out of the F-35 as a common coalition aircraft will be essential to defense in the Nordic region and the transformation of their forces to deal with the direct Russian threat.

This means leveraging common pilot training, leveraging pilots across the enterprise in case of shortages within a national air force, common logistics stores in the region, common maintenance regimes, common data sharing, and shared combat learning.

This clearly is a work in progress and what one might call F-35 2.0.

F-35 1.0 is getting the plane and operating it in squadrons; F-35 2.0 is leveraging the aircraft as part of an overall transformation process.

In my discussion during a visit to Copenhagen in October 2017, I had a chance to talk again with ERA (his call sign).

And he was clearly focusing on F-35 2.0, probably in part because the new Danish defense agreement in process if clearly focused on countering the Russian A2/AD strategy in the region.

“When I talk with F-35 pilots, the same message is drilled into me – this is not a replacement aircraft; this is not like any aircraft you have flown before.

“The aircraft enables our air combat forces to play a whole new ballgame.

“And from my discussions with Australians, the Norwegians, the Dutch and the Brits, it is clear that the common drive is to shape a fifth generation combat force, not simply fly the current 256 F-35s as cool, new jets.”

He clearly had in mind working on F-35 2.0 to trigger a broader transformation.

And this makes sense, because in large part the F-35 is not simply a fighter which you define but what it does by itself organically, but, rather by what it can trigger in the overall combat fleet, whether lethal or non-lethal payloads.

“We need to focus on the management of big data generated by the F-35 and other assets that will come into the force.

“How do we do the right kind of command and control within a rich information battlespace?

“We need to build self-learning systems as well.

“The F-35 is a revolutionary man-machine system and sets in motion not only the challenge of new approaches to working information and C2, but new approaches to combat learning.

“How do we get there?

“That is what generating a fifth generation combat force is all about.”

It is clear that the F-35 is part of a significant culture change.

“We need to be open to significant culture change.

“Many Danish F-35 pilots will be converted from 16s and will learn the new ways of operating.

“At the same time, s new generation of pilots will have F-35 as their first combat aircraft and have no operational experience on legacy aircraft and are open to radical changes in how the jet can be used and in working with the other combat assets.

“We need to facilitate and channel such open ended learning as well as we build out or force transformation with those pilots with F-16 experience and the new F-35 pilots as well.

“Part of that is captured by the notion of integrating legacy aircraft with the F-35, but that is too narrow of a concept.

“We are really looking at shaping a different kind of force, F-35-enabled but which incorporates the old which remains valuable and adds new systems which can expand the combat effectiveness of the evolving fifth generation force.”

“How do we make sure that we don’t settle with the reality that the F-35 is better than anything out there and it makes the fourth gen better?

“That will not get us to a fifth generation combat force.

“We need to leverage it to drive continuous transformation to ensure that we have the kind of capabilities which our demanding strategic environment requires.”

The cross learning between the F-22 and the Fp-35 is a key bedrock of such change being able to occur in the next five years among the allies as well as the U.S. joint forces.

A very good article by John Tirpak published in the Air Force Magazine provides a very good overview of how cross learning has unfolded and its significance for the way ahead for the combat force. We have excerpted from the article below but recommend reading the complete article.

A dozen years after the F-22’s operational debut and two years after the F-35 was declared ready for combat, the flow of lessons learned is running both ways. The two fifth generation fighter programs are working together to reduce costs and make both systems more effective.

The F-22 has been a pathfinder for the F-35: Its formations and methods of employment are a model for the junior fighter. In return, the small F-22 fleet is gaining economy-of-scale benefits by getting in on parts buys with the far larger—and growing—F-35 fleet. More advanced and hardier stealth features on the F-35 are working their way back to the F-22, the two aircraft share radar features, and operational and manufacturing experience with the F-35 are helping define upgrades for the Raptor.

“The F-35 and F-22 were always meant to operate alongside one another, so it makes a lot of sense to apply that same logic to the programmatic side of both platforms,” said Lockheed Martin F-35 program manager Jeff A. Babione. “We’re constantly taking advantage of newer, more advanced technologies and processes. If we can apply the same advances to the F-35 and F-22, we drive costs down and pull schedules to the left on both programs.”

The F-22 pioneered fifth generation tactics and those are being applied straight to the F-35, according to Col. Paul “Max” Moga, commander of the 33rd Fighter Wing at Eglin AFB, Fla. The 33rd trains new F-35 pilots, but Moga spent years in the F-22, as an instructor and demonstration pilot and later as a squadron commander, after starting out in F-15s.

Regarding employment techniques on the F-22 and F-35, “I would describe them as a direct transfer,” Moga said. In the F-22, the key to employment is “managing signature, sensor, and what we refer to as ‘flow,’ ” which he explained is how the plane and pilot sense the battlespace, steer between threats, and get into the optimum position to engage. That same concept applies to the F-35, he said.

Though fourth generation aircraft pilots have to manage visual and infrared signatures, “it’s not until you get in the fifth gen world that you really concern yourselves with radar signature management. … That is a core competency of any fifth gen platform, and that is a direct transfer over from the F-22 to the F-35.” Pilots of both jets must “manage our signature as we employ the aircraft and optimize our survivability and lethality,” Moga said.

The F-22 was a “generational leap” over fourth gen fighters such as the F-15 and F-16, and it took a conscious shift in culture to shed old tactics that were no longer relevant when the F-22 came online, he noted.

In a fourth generation jet, a wingman must provide “mutual support” within visual range, “welded” to the flight lead just a few miles away. But “pretty early on in Raptor tactics development, we realized that, based on the capabilities of the airplane, we didn’t need visual mutual support. We needed a mutual support by presence, which, for us, can be upward of 10, 15, 20 nautical miles away from one another,” said Moga.

For a former fourth gen pilot who has always depended on someone close by having his back, “it takes a while to get used to that,” Moga said…..

The F-22 has been a success story in Operation Inherent Resolve, Moga asserted. Though its high-end dogfight capabilities have never been tested in combat, “I think the F-22 has performed tactically better than most people thought it was going to in theater.” When not “gainfully employed,” dropping bombs or escorting packages of other aircraft, the F-22 has proved stellar in other ways, putting together “the electronic order of battle, … the airborne order of battle,” and then conveying that information “back to the platforms it may be more applicable to.”

A lesson learned—and one certainly being applied on the F-35—is “the importance of maintaining accurate and up-to-date mission data files,” Moga noted. This is another area where exhaustive information on regional threats is applicable to both airplanes. The software facility that loads both aircrafts’ mission data files is at Eglin. USAF and partner nations collaborate to populate the databases with every threat known to intelligence.

“There’s a lot of work to be done, and it’s a fast-moving ball game, but we’re making a lot of progress,” he said. Still, “we’ve got a little ways to go before we can raise the flag and say we’re where we want to be,” Moga added.

In short, 2018 will see further evolution of the combat capabilities for the combat force driven by the renorming airpower and we will certainly be reporting on those developments throughout the year.

Editor’s Note: For our earlier articles published in 2011, 2012 and 2015 which focused on both Gates and McCain and made the strategic case for the F-35B, see the following:

The F-35B: From ‘Probation’ To Transformation

McCain Misfires on F-35: Rushes Towards the Past

The Impact of the F-35B: Strategic Deterrence with Tactical Flexibility

Adding New Digital Capabilities to the F-35 Line

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
12/31/2017

2017-12-31 One of the advantages of having built a digital thread manufacturing line for the F-35 at Fort Worth is the capability which the system allows to add evolving digital capabilities to that line.

A recent example was highlighted in a story published on exectuvebiz.com on December 7, 2017:

Lockheed Martin has licensed an industrial internet-of-things platform from Ubisense as part of efforts to increase F-35manufacturing efficiency at Lockheed’s Fort Worth, Texas, facility.

Ubisense said Wednesday it designed the SmartSpace system to help manufacturers address schedule, budget requirements for aircraft production, as well as boost transparency on the manufacturing process with location technology.

SmartSpace employs an indoor radar built to tracks tools and assets to mitigate potential production delays as well as helps stage and schedule assets ahead of future production tasks, Ubisense noted.

The system also works to electronically audit tools and assets, generate detailed reports on the whereabouts of customers’ furnished equipment and help users comply with potential spot checks.

Richard Petti, Ubisense CEO, said the company aims to help Lockheed obtain visibility of its Fort Worth aircraft manufacturing process with the SmartSpace platform.

Earlier this Fall, we discussed the nature of the digital thread manufacturing approach and its capability to import digital advances as they unfold with Don Kinard.

2017-11-10 By Robbin Laird

The F-35 undergoes final assembly and checkout at three plants around the world – in Italy, in Japan and in Fort Worth, Texas.

The Italian and Japanese lines are low rate production lines whereas the Fort Worth line is the high rate production facility.

The Fort Worth line is truly a unique manufacturing facility, which highlights why the aircraft can be built in high volume and why innovation can continue in the future as the line evolves.

The line is based on a digital thread manufacturing model and as such can embrace evolving capabilities in the domains of automation as well as the various dynamics of change within the broader digital domain, whether commercial or military.

The current plan is to fill out the current manufacturing facility in Fort Worth by 2021 when full rate production is achieved at about 150 aircraft for the year.

I last visited the FAL in 2015 and a lot has changed with the ramp up in the past two years.

During my visit on September 25, 2017, I had a chance to tour the factory with Don Kinard, an F-35 manufacturing expert.

He has been my guide on previous factory visits.

I had a chance to interview Kinard after the visit.

And in that interview, he highlighted the ramp up process.

Question: What is the production rate this year?

Don Kinard: “There are more than 250 production aircraft in the field currently; there are 160 in assembly production across the globe, and the production rate at the Fort Worth facility this year is roughly five a month.

“The plan is 66 aircraft this year; more than 90 aircraft next year; and over 130 in 2019.

“And over the next 10 years about 50% of those planes are being produced for the partners.

Question: During the ramp up you are adding new staff.

What is planned during that period?

Don Kinard: “We have about 1,500 mechanics right now.

“We will roughly double that over the next three years.

“The mechanics are the touch labor personnel and we will increase the support labor by a few hundred people as well.

“During your tour of the training facility, you saw how we are augmenting training.

“The key in adding workers is to bring them up to speed prior to entering the assembly line to reduce downtime impact of integrating new workers onto the line.

“The mechanics are the main hire, and they’ll be going through three to six weeks’ worth of training on realistic components prior to going to the floor to do the jobs for which they are being trained for.

“Finding those mechanics has been something we’ve been working on now for years.

“We’ve had several hiring events all over the country.

“And we’re even starting to get people who have worked F-35 in the field.

“They’re now becoming available.

“They’re retiring from the military or leaving the service, and we’re now able to get people who actually worked F-35’s out in the bases as well as mechanics new to the program”.

Question: During the training facility tour, you highlighted ways the mechanics are being trained realistically prior to going to the final assembly line. How would you describe that process?

Don Kinard: “We are using a number of assembly simulators to provide hands on training necessary to ensure that the mechanics are receiving realistic experience prior to joining the assembly line team.

“We are working to make the transition from training to the real plane as seamless as possible.

“First of all, we hire trained aerospace mechanics.

“Secondly, we train them to be F-35 mechanics on realistic components, and then they go to the floor and get teamed up with people that have been on the floor a while, and that is the on-the-job, or OJT, phase of the hiring and training process.

“What we’ve seen so far with some of the classes that are complete is a tremendous improvement in quality on the mechanics first forays onto the floor.”

Question: In addition to adding mechanics and support labor, you are ramping up automation throughout the assembly line as well. What has been that impact?

 Don Kinard: “We have had a touch labor reduction of 75% over the last five years on the airplane.

“There are a couple of advantages we have with regard to modernization of the final assembly line.

“First, we are building a significant number of F-35s looking out into the future, so we’ve been able to invest, as a company, in technology to do more automation, something we didn’t have the opportunity to do in past programs.

“Second, the technology behind the digital thread has exploded in the past five years, meaning that, we started out with 3D solid models years and years ago and we planned for a certain amount of automation. Since program inception automation has gotten a lot better and less expensive.

“The ability to put the digital thread in the hands of the mechanics is something that’s evolved over the last five or six years, and now we are able to actually take 3D scans to compare the as-built aircraft directly to the as-designed aircraft.

“This capability has only been around for three or four years.

“There has been an explosion of digital thread technologies– augmented reality, laser projection, optical projection, the scanning white lights, scanning lasers–that we can leverage and work into the assembly line.

“We’re able to do that because we have 2,500+ more aircraft to go.

“So there’s a big economic incentive for us and our customers to make those investments through capital investments and the Blueprint for Affordability Program.

“And, by the way, digital technologies continue to evolve rapidly, and because we have a digital thread line and a Manufacturing Technology organization we can incorporate those technologies as appropriate.

“We’ve only started with augmented reality, but I almost guarantee you that in the next five years that’ll change everything. All of the Internet of Things, IToT, Industry 4.0, will be incorporated as appropriate. We will have the ability to automate a lot of reporting, automate a lot of data gathering, automate a lot of things today we do manually.

“Because of our digital thread approach we can incorporate innovations from the commercial space, which creates opportunities to improve quality and reduce costs.

“Our digital thread manufacturing process provides us with the opportunity to do so on an open-ended basis.

“This aspect of innovation built into the F-35 program is not widely appreciated.

“We’re able to harness the power of the major digital companies out there developing technologies in the commercial space, and spending enormous amounts of money, and all of a sudden those innovations are flowing our way.

“Having the three variants on the same assembly line has allowed the F-35Cs and Bs to benefit enormously from the evolutions of the largest production run of the three, the F-35A.

“The avionics and the software are the same across all three aircraft, which is a huge learning, and maintenance advantage.”

Question: Because of the digital thread approach, the changes on the manufacturing line are informed by and can inform the stand up of the global sustainment effort as well.

How would you describe this process?

Don Kinard: “One needs to look at sustainment much like you look at manufacturing learning.

“We’ve done a lot of learning over the past five years.

“We know how to build the aircraft now.

“That mystery is gone.

“Now, we’re learning how to sustain that aircraft, and that data will be captured by systems like ALIS (advanced logistics information system).

“We can then shape a global database as flight data accumulated so that everybody gets better.

“Everybody who has an F-35 gets better.

“With more than 250 planes out in the field, we are getting data from these aircraft and incorporating lessons learned into changes on the FAL itself.

“This is the advantage of having a digital data stream to work with from design to manufacturing to sustainment and back again.

“This allows for a digital learning curve, which enables both quality and performance to be enhanced.

“If customers take full advantage of the process, sustainment will be enhanced and sortie generation rates ramped up for the global F-35 fleet.

“In addition, many of the manufacturing technologies developed for Production have applications with our Sustainment business, additive manufacturing of tools and augmented reality delivery of maintenance instructions being a couple of good examples.”

During the factory tour, it was clear that ramp up was ongoing and that a number of changes and upgrades had occurred since my last visit in 2015.

First, throughout the factory there are a large number of overhead RFID panels which monitor the parts and tools throughout the factory so we can track by the use of digital devices where parts are and how they are being consumed, and also using our integrated business systems what the current manufacturing state status of each aircraft is at every production station.

According to Kinard: “The focus is upon providing data to those who use it on the floor, as well as to provide a data dashboard overview for management on aircraft status and performance.

“Much of this capability is currently available on our phones by use of an app called Plane-Site developed by our Production Control an IT departments and more capability is being added every year.”

Kinard emphasized during the tour that the 4th industrial revolution which revolves around leveraging data to get enhanced understanding of production processes to improve continuously the production process was a core focus of the overall data management effort.

During the tour we saw a new automated wing-drilling machine, which provides a significant improvement in how it operates, including waste material reduction, automated hole measurement, enhanced accuracy and improved speed.

According to Kinard: “Lockheed Martin is developing with the US Government a number of technologies to enhance performance and lower cost for the supply chain as well. One example in the factory was a new titanium cryogenic machining system.

“This cryogenic system was being tested to determine its effectiveness in cutting titanium and faster while increasing tool life. The Cryogenic machine tool uses a liquid nitrogen tank, which feeds liquid nitrogen to the cutter tip

“Given that 25-30% of the plane uses titanium, any reductions in tooling costs are significant for suppliers who are the targets of this machining technology.

“More generally, given the significant investments in machine tools to build a modern fighter aircraft, improvement in efficiency is a major plus.

“Enhanced use of robots could be seen throughout the factory.

“One example was Thor, a robot used in the finishing shop to inject coatings onto the airplane in the finishes area.

“The robot along with automated 3D scanning technologies is designed to manage the thickness of the coatings, which is part of building a low observable aircraft.

“This development leads to reduction of time and improvement in accuracy as well.

“One result of the use of automation and associated accuracy improvements can be seen in the significantly low defect rate. 80+% of F-35s from the FAL go to the Radar Cross Section (RCS) facilities with zero defects.

“Scanning technologies are clearly going to be leveraged for improvements in accuracy and speed as well.

“The basic approach is to use scanning technologies, which scan the plane as-built and then directly to the plane compare it to as-designed in the CATIA models. This process can identify any final adjustments needed. The goal is to use this more broadly to reduce the need for manual labor to perform these tasks.

“One example in testing is using scanning technology to 3D scan the bomb weapons bay as opposed to a manual fit check of simulated weapons.

“This is a work in progress but clearly one which can provide for further manufacturing improvements.”

“The broader point is simply because the FAL is built on a digital thread line it is possible to have open ended innovations and production learning, which can also be applied to the Sustainment process going forward, as well as learning from the performance of operational aircraft integrated with production process itself.”

For an overview on digital thread manufacturing, see the following:

http://www.industryweek.com/systems-integration/demystifying-digital-thread-and-digital-twin-concepts

https://www.dodmantech.com/ManTechPrograms/Files/AirForce/Cleared_DT_for_Website.pdf

Editor’s Note: The past discussions with Don Kinard can be found here:

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/the-maturing-of-f-35-manufacturing-and-crafting-synergy-among-suppliers-the-final-assembly-line-and-maintainers-an-update-with-don-kinard/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/shaping-f-35-production-maturity-a-dialogue-with-dr-don-kinard/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/building-wings-for-the-f-35-israel-italy-and-fort-worth-shape-a-21st-century-capability/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/visiting-the-f-35-final-assembly-line-fort-worth/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/an-update-on-f-35-manufacturing-the-case-of-wing-assembly/

The photo above can be found here:

http://www.defesaaereanaval.com.br/lockheed-esta-perto-de-fechar-venda-de-jatos-f-35-de-mais-de-us-37-bilhoes/

 

Preparing for 2018: Implementing the Trump Administration National Security Strategy

Posted on | by Robbin Laird | Leave a Comment on Preparing for 2018: Implementing the Trump Administration National Security Strategy
12/28/2017

2017-12-28 By Stephen Blank

The Trump Administration’s new National Security Strategy (NSS) received a flood of public scrutiny even before it was announced.

Not surprisingly this flood morphed into a tidal wave once it appeared.

But virtually all of this commentary focused on the tone and major themes observers claimed to find in it at the expense of some of the more original aspects of this document that were expressed in the NSS’ discussion of regional security in certain areas. 

Specifically, commentators either missed or omitted the sections on Latin America and Central Asia.  These areas may not be priorities like Europe, Northeast Asia, and the Middle East but they are increasingly important arenas  due to mounting challenges,  not only from terrorists, but also from Russia and China.

The NSS cited not only enhanced use of trade and financial tools to advance U.S. interests in Latin America, it also cited examples of glaring misrule like Venezuela and the expanding presence and interests of China and Russia there.

President Trump announcing the new national security strategy.

This, though commentators overlooked it, represents an original and positive development.

The Obama Administration was essentially uninterested in the Russian presence in Latin America, which is particularly sinister.  Whereas China’s presence is primarily expressed through huge trade relationships, Russia not only supports states like Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua in their anti-Americanism it also seeks to expand its political,  intelligence, and military footprint in Latin America and to undermine American allies like Colombia.

Indeed, there are even concerns about a potential Russian effort to undermine  the integrity of Mexico’s forthcoming  2018 elections.

In 2008 Moscow actively solicited intelligence coordination among anti-American states in the region and  shipped weapons to Venezuela to undermine our ally Colombia.  Although those actions failed; they displayed Russia’s growing interest in striking at the U.S. through Latin America.

NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905-2

Today Moscow has not only enhanced security cooperation with Nicaragua, it is seeking air and naval bases in Latin America.  Venezuela proves to be a case in point.  The dictatorial Madero regime has not only brought Venezuela to the point of utter immiseration and destitution, Venezuela is on the verge of bankruptcy thanks to the regime’s corruption and misrule.  Moscow has capitalized on this to lend Venezuela several billion dollars in return for an enhanced stake in its oil and gas fields.

In this regard it is swapping debt for equity as it has done throughout Eurasia. But we should not be surprised if Moscow repeats the subsequent phases of its debt for equity swaps in Eurasia.

Namely when the time comes for Venezuela to declare itself unable to pay its debts that Moscow will use this equity or convert it into air and/or naval bases there in accordance with its longstanding designs.

This is on top of Russia’s well-established security cooperation with Nicaragua.  That cooperation takes the form of permanent bilateral consultations between each country’s security council, joint drills among troops, arms sales, Russia’s alleged training of Nicaraguan forces in anti-drug actions, and a Russian satellite station there to track U.S. aerial and naval movements among other things.

Since Moscow has also expressed its interest in access to Nicaraguan ports and airfields it too could become an object of Russian solicitations in the future for basing rights.

Therefore the NSS is right on target in singling out this penetration as something that we should both monitor and  oppose.

In Central Asia we are fighting in Afghanistan and allegedly making progress. But whereas the Obama Administration for the most part, i.e. till 2015, had no Central Asia policy other than the war in Afghanistan, that area was neglected.

Even Secretary of State Kerry’s initiative of a regular 5+1 format with his Central Asian opposite numbers is only a small part of what is needed.  Here too the NSS was much more forthright with its explicit message of opposition to Russian attempts to corner those states’ energy supplies and to undermine their sovereignty.

Not only do we oppose terrorism, the NSS also invoked upgraded trade and financial relationships with Central Asian governments and built upon its predecessors by championing India’s role as a facilitator for the more general process of South and Central Asian integration.

To show that these statements in the NSS are not merely words, President Trump also spoke to Uzbekistan’s President, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, in support of his efforts to reform Uzbekistan and to solicit grater U.S. foreign investment in his country.

These two examples show not only the global sweep of the Administration’s policy but also its increased sensitivity to challenges to America that do not receive a lot of publicity but which nonetheless materially affect our interests and security. 

Furthermore these indicators of a vigorous global policy using trade, economics, and all the other capabilities accruing to the government signify a growing resistance to challenges that might, in previous administrations, have escaped notice or presidential attention.

Therefore we would do well to watch the Administration for the balance of Trump’s term to see whether or not it can sustain the enhanced attention to these areas that often are laggards in the race for presidential attention.

These may not be the challenges we see in Europe, the Middle East, and Northeast Asia, but to ignore them only abets the  efforts of our regional adversaries like China and Russia to multiply the threats to us so that they can continue to promote their interests at our expense and create more problems than we can handle.

By recognizing this project of our adversaries the Administration actually marks an advance over its predecessors.

However, now it has to make good on its ambitions to act on a global scale.  And that will be a real test of its ability and capacity.

Dr. Stephen Blank is a Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council. He is the author of numerous foreign policy-related articles, white papers and monographs, specifically focused on the geopolitics and geostrategy of the former Soviet Union, Russia and Eurasia. He is a former MacArthur Fellow at the U.S. Army War College.

If you wish to comment on this article, please see the following:

A Different Take on Trump’s National Security Strategy