In an effort to be in compliance with GDPR we are providing you with the latest documentation about how we collect, use, share and secure your information, we want to make you aware of our updated privacy policy here
Enter your name and email address below to receive our newsletter.
2016-09-30 In late 2015, the French Rafales used the Storm Shadow/SCALP for the first time against the Daesh.
According to a statement from the French Ministry of Defense, the air strike involved ten aircraft from their deployment airfields in the United Arab Emirates and Jordan.
The raid targeted Daesh headquarters, training center and a logistics deposit, including some hardened buildings, in the region of al-Qaim, near the border separating Iraq from Syria.
Scalp EG (Système de Croisière Autonome à Longue Portée – Emploi Général, General Purpose Long Range Standoff Cruise Missile) is the French designation for the MBDA Storm Shadow precision strike missile.
It is a conventional, stealthy, 1.300 kg standoff weapon designed for use against very high value targets in all-weather conditions from a distance of about 250 km.
And according to an article published on September 20, 2016, the French Air Force used this very precise weapon against Daesh sites in support of the coalition in the Mosul area.
The target was identified as a training center for terrorists and an explosives factory.
The planes were identified as flying from a base in Jordan.
With the Charles de Gaulle in the area, the Rafales can strike as well from the carrier.
According to an AFP story published on September 20, 2016, this capability was highlighted.
French fighter jets took off from the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle on Friday for an operation against the ISIL Takfiri group in its Iraqi stronghold of Mosul, an officer said.
Eight jets took off from the carrier in the eastern Mediterranean, an AFP photographer on the flight deck reported.
The Charles de Gaulle is on its third mission since February 2015 in support of the US-led coalition which is allegedly fighting ISIL in Iraq and Syria.
2016-09-20 In this report, the major presentations and discussions at the Williams Foundation seminar on new approaches to air-sea integration held on August 10, 2016 in Canberra, Australia are highlighted along with interviews conducted before, during and after the seminar as well.
Interviews with the Army, Navy, and Air Force have been woven into the evolving narrative of joint integration, as well as inputs from the two major foreign guests to the seminar, Rear Admiral Manazir, the Deputy Chief of US Naval Operations for Warfare Systems, and Captain Nick Walker of the Royal Navy.
Beginning in March 2014, the Williams Foundation began a series of seminars and workshops to examine both conceptually and practically ways to build a 21st century combat force, which can prevail in the extended battlespace.
This can be looked at as a force operating in what the U.S. Chief of Naval Operations as kill webs or what an Australian Army General called building an Australian anti-access anti-denial strategy.
What is unique about what Williams has done is to shape a public discussion of the opportunities and challenges to shaping such a force.
And through the seminars, the conversation has evolved and generated more joint force involvement as well.
The seminar and interviews provide insight into the way ahead to shape an integrated Australian Defence Force. As Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Barrett put it: “We are not building an interoperable navy; we are building an integrated force for the Australian Defence Force.”
He drove home the point that ADF integration was crucial in order for the ADF to support government objectives in the region and beyond and to provide for a force capable of decisive lethality.
By so doing, Australia would have a force equally useful in coalition operations in which distributed lethality was the operational objective.
The Australian military is shaping a transformed military force, one built around new platforms but ones that operate in a joint manner in an extended battlespace. The goal is to extend the defense perimeter of Australia and create, in effect, their own version of an Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) strategy.
They also recognize a key reality of 21st century military evolution in terms of shaping an integrated information-based operating force. Interactive modernization of the force is built around decision-making superiority and that will come with an effective information dominant force.
That makes the Aussies a key partner to the US and other allies in discussing openly a path for force transformation along lines where cutting edge thinking is occurring in the US and allied forces. Put bluntly, they are driving a public discussion of transformation in a way we have not seen in the United States for a long time.
The goal was put clearly in an interview by Craig Heap, commander of the Surveillance and Response Group in the Royal Australian Air Force in an interview.
“We are small but we want to be capable of being a little Tasmanian Devil that you don’t want to play with because if you come at us, were going to give you a seriously hard time that will probably not be worth the effort; deterrence in its purest form.”
Please enter your name and email below and you will then be able to download the report directly.
2016-09-30 In 2015, France joined the NATO Integrated Air and Missile Defence System or NATINAMDS. This meant that NATO had enhanced potential for seamless coverage from Southern to Northern NATO and to the East.
According to a NATO press release on 6/19/15:
After thorough preparation and planning, jointly and effectively coordinated between the French and NATO Headquarters, France agreed to declare its assets eligible for NATO Air Policing duties over the French airspace and neighboring countries as of 01 June 2015.
After a short period of time, necessary to update and implement the required operational and tactical baseline documentation, French airspace has been included in the NATO Integrated Air and Missile Defence System (NATINAMDS) as of 10 June, essential to NATO’s air and missile defence policy and the cornerstone to the Alliance’s collective defence.
NATO assumes responsibility for monitoring airspace over the SACEUR’s area of responsibility. For the airspace over France, this responsibility is shared between Allied Air Command’s two Combined Air Operations Centres (CAOCs).
The first, CAOC Uedem, located in Germany monitors all Northern NATO airspace including the north of France; and, likewise, CAOC Torrejon, located in Spain, monitors Southern NATO airspace including the south of France.
This split is unique to NATO allies and demonstrates the special relationships and interoperability shared across the Alliance. This integration across Allied Air Command and the coordination between France and the CAOCs reflects emerging air command control capabilities for the Alliance’s collective defence mission.
“France is now fully integrated into the NATINAMDS”, says Lieutenant-General Dominique de Longvilliers, Deputy Commander of Allied Air Command. “As with every other Ally, French sovereignty is maintained through air policing.
It is an important step forward for the Alliance, which now has the responsibility to monitor and perform peacetime Air Policing mission over a seamless airspace from Spain to Norway and from Western Atlantic coast to Eastern border of Turkey.
We will continue to fine-tune our command and control procedures during the upcoming months to ensure NATO’s high standard of interoperability as well as the Alliance’s security. However, we already know we are on the right track. Indeed, this morning at 11h09 a French Mirage 2000 was requested by CAOC Uedem to takeoff against a military target for exercise. At 11h19, the M 2000 was airborne and at 11h35 the target was successfully intercepted.”
“On September 22, 2016, the Norwegian, UK, French and Spanish Air Forces put their air policing capabilities together to protect their airspace and to intercept and escort two Russian Blackjack bombers” away from areas bordering NATO airspace.
This started with Norway intercepting with their F-16s and then handing over to the UK with its Typhoons and then to French Rafales and then by Spanish F-18s.
Blackjack being escorted. Credit: French Ministry of Defence
The article does not say but that is a route which the Russian bombers take to the Middle East.
The French article highlights the importance of the mission and of shaping capabilities for integrated air defense.
“The French Air Force is at the disposition of the State with its means to oppose those intruding in national airspace, and notably by a possible aggressor.”
The article states that the French Air Force has 414 personnel dedicated specifically to the air policing mission with 211 of those at the air command post at CNOA. This facility operates 7/7 24/24 to “guarantee the sovereignty of the national airspace.
Every day there are 11,000 aircraft of which 1400 are operating simultaneously in our dense air traffic, and transiting French Air Space. Each of these aircraft needs to identified and characterized. Due to 90 civil and military radars, the three ceters of air traffic control, can detect and analyze the aircraft in their zones of responsibility,”
2016-09-30 This French video does a great job of placing the French Air Force and its men and women within the context of serving the nation and its interests.
It is in French but really very well done.
One can understand the reason Americans joined the famous Lafayette Escadrille squadron.
“I came to believe that high end training against the most difficult threat in the most difficult environment is nothing short of a moral obligation, and we had proved it in Desert Storm.”
Clearly, he had in mind the kind of training, which F-35 flight instructors just underwent at Mountain Home AFB.
This training is built from the ground up with key allies who train with the U.S. and in this case, namely the Royal Australian Air Force.
According to an article by Sgt, Timothy Boyer, 56th Wing Public Affairs, F-35 pilots from Luke AFB have flown to Mountain Home and operated there as part of their training.
Seven Luke F-35s were at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, September 10 through 24, 2016, for pilot training.
While this is not the first time Mountain Home AFB has supported F-35s, it is the first time the base has supported Air Education and Training Command pilot training.
“The main objective of this training deployment was to increase our instructor pilots’ proficiency in finding and destroying surface-to-air threats, which is a bread-and-butter mission for the F-35,” said Lt. Col. Michael Gette, 61st Fighter Squadron commander.
“Mountain Home AFB provides a unique opportunity for this training due to their outstanding range complex, which includes several surface-to-air threats we can ‘fight’ in increasingly complex scenarios.”
The success of the Mountain Home AFB training deployment was dependent on many Airmen.
There were approximately 100 personnel participating in the exercise, including 80 maintainers and 15 pilots as well as seven contractors who helped with mission planning and security, according to Gette.
In addition to sharpening the pilots’ warfighting skills, aircrew had the opportunity to practice a deployment-style scenario with a partner nation.
“This was the first F-35 training deployment to include partner pilots,” Gette said.
“Being able to deploy and train with our Royal Australian Air Force partners was an important step for the squadron and for the program as we continue to stand-up partner training at Luke AFB.”
Airman 1st Class Nkosi Jones, left, 61st Aircraft Maintenance Unit weapons Airman, secures a panel while Staff Sgt. Martin De La Vara, 61st AMU crew chief, prepares to pull the chocks September 16, 2016, prior to launching an F-35 Lightning II at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho.(U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Timothy
While the RAAF has had F-35s at Luke AFB since December 2014, this mission was an important joint experience.
“The Mountain Home deployment provided an opportunity to improve F-35 operator knowledge and skills while working hand in hand with our U.S. Air Force colleagues,” said Squadron Leader Andrew Jackson, 61st FS RAAF Senior National Representative.
“Opportunities such as these provide invaluable stepping stones in building a solid fifth generation, warfighting capability for the RAAF. As the first partner nation to arrive and train at Luke AFB, the opportunity to deploy to Mountain Home AFB with AETC is an exceptional training opportunity as we work toward our own IOC in 2020.”
The trip to Mountain Home AFB ultimately met the goals they set out to achieve.
“The Mountain Home Range Complex gave us a really unique opportunity to train against multiple surface-to-air threats,” Gette said.
“We appreciate Mountain Home AFB and the support from the community for their very warm welcome. We got everything we needed and the training deployment went very well.”
And on the Naval Aviation side of the house, the Navy has conducted its first live fire NIFC-C tests with the F-35.
According to a press release from White Sands Missile Test Range, New Mescio and dated 9/13/16:
The Navy hosted its first live fire demonstration to successfully test the integration of F-35 with existing Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) architecture, Sept. 12.
During the test, an unmodified U.S. Marine Corps F-35B from the Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron (VMX 1), based in Edwards Air Force Base, acted as an elevated sensor to detect an over-the-horizon threat.
The aircraft then sent data through its Multi-Function Advanced Data Link to a ground station connected to USS Desert Ship (LLS-1), a land-based launch facility designed to simulate a ship at sea.
Using the latest Aegis Weapon System Baseline 9.C1 and a Standard Missile 6, the system successfully detected and engaged the target.
While the goal of this test was to prove the compatibility of these systems within existing NIFC-CA architecture, this future capability will extend the Navy’s engagement range to detect, analyze and intercept targets in operational settings.
Using any variant of the F-35 as a broad area sensor, the aircraft can significantly increase the Aegis capability to detect, track and engage.
“This test was a great opportunity to assess the Navy’s ability to take unrelated technologies and successfully close the fire control loop as well as merge anti-surface and anti-air weapons into a single kill web that shares common sensors, links and weapons,” said Anant Patel, major program manager for future combat systems in the Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems (PEO IWS).
The test was a collaborative effort across the Navy and Marine Corps, White Sands Missile Range and industry partners leveraging a U.S. Marine Corps F-35B and the U.S. Navy’s Aegis Weapon System to support the distributed lethality concept in the Fleet. “
This test represents the start of our exploration into the interoperability of the F-35B with other naval assets,” said Lt. Col. Richard Rusnok, VMX-1 F-35B detachment officer in charge.
“We believe the F-35B will drastically increase the situational awareness and lethality of the naval forces with which it will deploy in the very near future,” he added.
Aegis Baseline 9 delivers a fully open architecture system on U.S. destroyers and is the basis for current and future Aegis Integrated Air and Missile Defense.
Baseline 9 is being fielded on in-service destroyers, new construction destroyers and Aegis Ashore.
The Aegis Common Source Library enabled derivatives are on the Coast Guard cutters, Freedom-variant Littoral Combat Ships and will be included on the upcoming frigate ships.
Clearly, this is what the Navy means when it refers to distributed lethality.
Amazingly, having lost the fighter competition in Denmark, Boeing is back taking on a sovereign state and treating Denmark as if it were the state of Alabama in the tanker competition.
In a Monty Python sketch they brilliantly played off the name of a then powerful American conglomerate, Gulf and Western, by cleverly changing the name to an American firm called “Engulf and Devour.”
There is nothing wrong with mulit-nationals, except those from the state controlled PRC, so it was just a good joke.
But there is a serious side that if an American “Engulf and Devour” firm does make a bad move off shore everyone loses.
Sadly the Boeing Corporation did just that in their blind quest to keep their F/A-18 “Hornet” line alive.
To be very fair to Boeing they make world class aircraft, and are a national treasure.
The dilemma of managing such a complex global company is captured by a comment made by the former VP for Embraer Air military North America Bill Buckey. He astutely pointed out that in his experience, often one division of a large U.S. Defense Firm doesn’t connect with another division in their marketing and actual teaming arrangements and can actually work at cross purposes.
The F/A-18 is just another linear derivate from the last century.
And the big company challenge perhaps has impeded Boeing from learning from their involvement in the F-22 or their key role in standing up a P-8/Triton dyad which is no more a linear derivative of the P-3 than the F-35 is a linear derivative of the 4th generation aircraft.
Consequently synergy and unity of purpose for fair global competition in the very demanding combat aircraft market is a very worthy goal but at times missed badly with significant consequences for all American off-shore marketing efforts.
However, to be very fair to the Boeing Corporation sometimes nasty events can also occur beyond the firms control.
The best example in the world is Boeing tragically losing a fighter competition for an F/A-18 down-select that they should have won.
The competition was for modernizing the Brazilian Air Force and right at the height of the selection process it was revealed that NSA was reading then President Dima’s personal e-mails.
Even worse NSA had a management system that even let Edward Snowden read her e-mails.
This NSA stupidity cost America around $ 7-9 Billion in work, especially for our skilled workers in the Boeing, formerly. McDonald plant, in St Louis.
Those skilled workers are building the F/A-18 T/M/S aircraft.
But, that line’s product is rapidly aging out as the next generation fighter F-35 has captured the world’s fighter market.
It is out of their desperation to keep the F/A-18 going that that a division of the Boeing Corporation leadership made a very bad mistake with significant consequences.
They can do whatever they wish but solid analysis can also be brought to the discussion to point out how they are behaving.
“As we said when the decision was announced, we believe the ministry’s evaluation of the competitors was fundamentally flawed and inaccurately assessed the cost and capability of the F/A-18 Super Hornet,” said Debbie Rub, vice president and general manager of Boeing’s global strike division.
“We’re taking this step because there’s too much at stake for Denmark and, potentially, other countries considering the Super Hornet.”
Boeing going directly against a decision made by a sovereign nation, essentially telling them they do not know what they are doing is insulting. It is the worst aspects of “Engulf and Devour.”
It is also the case that it makes little sense to try and intimidate a small nation when Boeing is still trying to sell other small nations, like Finland.
Why would any small nation wish to have a US company play like it is the tanker competition in the United States?
Additionally, while we were presenting at an airpower Conference in Copenhagen, it was during this time that the Russian’s were actually threatening and targeting a nuclear strike on Denmark:
“The Russian ambassador in Copenhagen says Danish warships would become ‘targets for Russian nuclear missiles”
Our presentations were made in the wake of such a threat and was designed to discuss the evolving threat environment with those on the front line defense of Northern Europe:
For a Vice President of Boeing to challenge the wisdom and judgment of an independent nation, reaching out to Danish voters and all political parties to call their defense judgment suspect, crosses a very significant line of alliance comity.
The strategic and tactical decision of the Danish Government in selecting the F-35 was a well thought out choice because there is already a “tron” war going on in the Baltics and across Northern Europe.
The F-35 is at the heart of change for a very simple reason – it is a revolutionary platform, and when considered in terms of its fleet impact even more so.
The F-35, Lightning II, has a revolutionary sensor fusion cockpit that makes it effective in AA, AG and EW.
US and Allied Combat pilots will evolve and share new tactics and training, and over time this will drive changes that leaders must make for effective command and control to fight future battles.
An issue has been that the F-35 has been labeled a “fifth generation” aircraft, a sensible demarcation when the F-22 was being introduced.
But the evolution of the combat systems on the aircraft, the role of the fusion engine, and the impact of a fleet of integrated F-35s operating as a foundational element will make this term obsolete.
The global fleet of F-35s will be the foundation for a fundamental change in the way airpower operates and with it overall combats concepts of operations for the U.S. and allied insertion forces.
Reports are now entering the public debate from the most important people in that debate, fighter pilots of all nations, who are finding out that by strapping-on an F-35 they are really getting ready to engage Russian bad behavior in the sky on land and at sea by engaging with their F/A/E-35, which can fight and win any modern “tron” engagement.
A core partner of Denmark and an anchor to the defense of Northern Europe is Norway.
And for Norway, the F-35 is a keystone for shaping their way ahead in deterrence in the region and anchoring their NATO engagements.
A recent Smithsonian publication, Air and Space, highlighted the role of the F-35 as a key element in the role of “Guard of NATO’s Northern Gate.”
Projected S-400 range from Kaliningrad. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/russias-buildup-of-s-400-missile-batteries-in-kaliningr-1752792417
And the core significance of the F-35 to Norway and certainly for Denmark as well was highlighted by a Norwegian F-35 pilot:
Major Hanche concluded with this key point:
To me, a compelling argument for how well the F-35 works is evident by what we´re able to do in training.
Three weeks back I was part of a four-ship of F-35s.
Our mission was to overcome an advanced airborne threat, while locating and destroying an equally advanced surface based air defense system.
After neutralizing these threats, we were able to destroy four additional targets.
All this prior to receiving the Block 3F capabilities.
Suffice to say that this mission would have been close to suicide with a four-ship of F-16s alone!
The aviators who fly the F-35 are well trained and the top of the famous Tom Wolfe’s “pyramid” in his book The Right Stuff.
There is a team of engineers – American and Allied — in the defense industry and at the U.S. world famous test centers such as Pax and Edwards, who are equally dedicated and at the top of their profession in giving the warriors the best possible weapon system.
And this is the F-35 not the Super Hornet.
As the US Navy transitions from the kill chain to the kill web, it is the F-35 which is a key enabler of this transition; not the Super Hornet.
Clearly. Denmark faces a direct threat from the Russian actions in the Baltics and Russian defense buildups in Kalingrad.
The Kalingrad enclave has seen the deployment of Russian equipment which covers the Nordic states.
The quote from the Norwegian pilot highlights the threat facing the Nordics, including Denmark; it is not enough to simply replace Danish F-16s with an aircraft that is more like the F-16 than it is like a fifth generation aircraft when facing direct Russian threats.
It is about national survival; not supporting Boeing’s marketing strategy.
This region is facing clear and imminent danger; it is not the time to assume that it is simply a market for exporting equipment.
It is about enhancing the capability of our allies to guard the Northern Gate of NATO.
For a recent Danish governmental publication outlining their current core Alliance engagements and exercises, see the following:
If one looks at the maps in the publication and lays on top of it the F-35 coalition partners and where they will operate, it is not hard to see why Denmark chose the F-35 as well.
For various articles examining the threat facing Denmark and the Nordics from the Russians and the ability to leverage Kaliningrad, see the following:
And one might note, that Kalingrad has kept its Soviet name as well.
Kaliningrad (Russian: Калининград; IPA: [kəlʲɪnʲɪnˈgrat]) (former German name: Königsberg; Russian: Кёнигсберг, tr. Kyonigsberg; Old Prussian: Twangste, Kunnegsgarbs, Knigsberg; Polish: Królewiec; Lithuanian: Karaliaučius) is a seaport city and the administrative center of Kaliningrad Oblast, a Russian exclavebetween Poland and Lithuania on the Baltic Sea.
In the Middle Ages, the locality was the site of the ancient Old Prussian settlement and fort Twangste.
In 1255, during the Northern Crusades, a new fortress was built on the site by the Teutonic Knights and was named Königsberg (König = “king”) in honor of King Ottokar II of Bohemia, who led two crusade expeditions against the pagan Old Prussians.
The town was successively part of the monastic State of the Teutonic Order, enfeoffed to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, then part ofPrussia and Germany (the latter until 1945). The city was heavily damaged during World War II.
Its ruins were occupied by the Red Army on 9 April 1945, and what remained of the German population fled or was later removed by force.
It was renamed Kaliningrad on July 4, 1946,[11] in honor of Soviet luminary Mikhail Kalinin, who died in the previous month.
We can look as well at what USAFE has had to say about the threat and the F-35 as well.
On the one hand, General Frank Gorenc has made it clear that the F-35 is a very new capability.
USAFE View of F-35 from a Joint Air Power Competence Center Briefing, 2016.
His own NATO analytical center has underscored the point as well.
And here is what General Gorenc has said about the threat:
The commander of United States Air Force operations in Europe and Africa expressed “very serious” concern Monday over what he described as big buildups of complex Russian missile defenses that increasingly threaten NATO military access to air space in parts of Europe, including one-third of the skies in Poland.
He also said Russia had started to engage in similar missile buildups in the Crimean Peninsula, which it annexed nearly two years ago from Ukraine, and in war-ravaged Syria, where Russian military forces have been assisting the government by bombing its insurgent foes for more than three months.
The commander, Gen. Frank Gorenc, whose responsibilities include Air Force operations covering 104 countries in Europe, Africa, Asia and parts of the Middle East, said the Russian strategy, known as anti-access/area denial, or A2/AD in military shorthand, was among the most worrisome trends he had seen.
Some of the heaviest concentrations of A2/AD deployments, General Gorenc said in an interview with The New York Times editorial board, are in Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania on the Baltic coast. The surface-to-air missile systems there, he said, are “layered in a way that makes access to that area difficult,” with a spillover effect in parts of Poland and the Baltics, should NATO jets have reason to operate there.
So you are the Danish government and know what the F-35 pilots are telling you, including the Norwegian one quoted above, and you are listening to the NATO and American air commander in Europe about the threat, what would you do?
Not really a tough decision, except for those marketing the Super Hornet.
Perhaps the best comment came from Leanne Caret, executive vice president of Boeing and president and CEO of the BDS unit:
“If I told you that I am and want to be a market leader in the fighter business, you all would tell me that I’m an idiot.”
“Let’s be real clear: we lost JSF.”
She added: “We need to stop defining Boeing’s future based on a single program or two programs, and we have been doing that with the fighter story.
It doesn’t mean it was wrong or right, I just don’t think it represents the great diversity of the Boeing Defense portfolio.”
Lieutenant-General Robert Baden-Powell (1857-1941), the founder of the “Boys Scouts” movement, was a British army officer who had served in India and was a veteran of the second Boar War, one of the less glorious, though ultimately successful, imperial interventions by the British in South Africa.
The young Winston Churchill enhanced his reputation as a result of his imprisonment and escape and miscellaneous adventures during that colonial conflict. Robert Baden-Powell become famous for his defence of Mafeking during a 217 day siege.
He had employed subterfuge he had learnt in India and in Africa against an enemy where the British were outnumbered by seven to one. He became a British national hero as a result.
In 1910 he retired from the army and formed the Boy Scouts association.
He adopted for the boy scouts the motto: “Be Prepared.”
I was a “cub” scout many years ago. I learnt all sorts of (fairly useless) skills, like the ability to tie various types of knots, how to go “tracking” in the “outback” (there was in fact no “outback” where I grew up), and how to go about pitching tents (which I did when I saved up my pocket money and bought a very small tent for myself which l pitched during the summer months on the front lawn of my parents house.)
But it was all great fun. I enjoyed it all immensely.
Baden-Powell ‘s motto “be prepared” stuck with me.
The international foreign policy elites, who have so unanimously and contemptuously dismissed the thought of a Trump presidency, however, should begin thinking seriously about what a Trump presidency might mean.
Since it could well happen after the November presidential election.
Even though they have, almost unanimously, rejected the thought.
The same “experts” of course also rejected the thought of Brexit, before the British voters decided otherwise. American voters may well also vote for Trump, despite (or in many cases because) of the advise of the “experts.”
In fact, Trump has said he regards the opposition of the foreign policy establishment to him as a “badge of honour.”
In Britain the more the “experts” warned against Brexit (and they included the British Treasury, the Bank of England, the IMF, and the OECD, as well as Janet Yellen, chair of the Federal Reserve, as well as President Obama), the stronger the support of Brexit became.
Which may well prove to be true as well in the USA about the dire warnings of assorted “experts” about the consequences of a Trump victory in November.
In fact it is high time Baden-Powell’s scout motto was taken seriously again, and some serious thought was given to the real dilemmas a President Trump would face in 2017 and to recognize that several key questions he has raised are clearly part of the period of historical transition which we face, with or without President Trump.
Shifting Tectonic Plates
Firstly: It is evident that the world is at a moment undergoing a profound shift of the tectonic plates of the past seventy years, not only Post-WW2, but also post-Cold War.
It is not yet at all clear where, or how, the new world order (or disorder) will crystallise.
But what is clear is that profound shifts are underway, and that many of the the old formulae for dealing with these challenges are in urgent need of reevaluation, especially for the USA, as well as for the “west” more generally.
Russia has shown that a combination of the use of raw hard power ( in Syria and in the Crimea), combined with a skilful use of clandestine, unconventional, indirect “soft-power” and cyber-power, can promote Russian national interests.
China has expanded its ambitions in the South China Sea. North Korea continues with its nuclear ambitions regardless of international condemnation.
The US ambitions to “nation build” in Iraq and in Afghanistan have both produced dubious results and at very great cost.
Not to mention the continuing disastrous situations in Syria where the US faltered in its red line policy and in Libya where the US “led from behind” letting France and the UK take the lead in removing colonel Gaddafi, but then doing virtually nothing to deal with the consequences of producing a failed state, and a open gateway for tens of thousands of migrants to attempt to cross the Mediterranean into Europe.
Financial and Commercial Policy Consensus Collapsing
Secondly: The consensus which has dominated financial and commercial policy is under challenge, particularly over the merits of free trade and protectionism.
The anti-Nafta and pro-Brexit voters, post-industrialised, previously unionised industrial workers, who have seen their factories closed, and moved from the old rust belt cities of the upper midwest to Mexico, while they see undocumented immigrants flood in to the country.
And in the UK similar patterns have taken place over the last two decades in the north and northeast of England and in Scotland where many rightly or wrongly blame uncontrolled European immigration for their problems.
The consequences have been the almost total collapse of the Labour Party in Scotland where deindustrialization has devastated old Labour Party bailiwicks, and seen the rise of the Scottish nationalists (SNP), and in England the rise of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and of Nigel Farage.
In France similar impacts of globalisation and deindustrialization has seen the rise of support for the National Front, and in Germany of the right wing Alternative for Germany party (AfD) and the deep opposition within the CDU and its sister Bavarian CSU to chancellor Angela Merkel’s open door immigration policy.
Lack of Accountability
Thirdly: The failure of the ruling elites to punish or hold accountable anyone involved in the speculative orgy which led to the financial collapse of 2008/2009 and the sharpest collapse of world trade since the 1930s. The banks were bailed out, but the taxpayers footed the bill, and paid the price with deep austerity measures which continue. A new “Great Depression” was avoided to be sure.
But the costs for the credibility of the world financial and trade system are now becoming evident.
For the first time since the network of international trade tariff agreements were made on 1948, though the treaty of Rome in 1956, through the establishment of the World Trade Organisation in 1984-94, though the North America free trade area agreement of 1994, there is now major opposition to the US-EU trade deal, as well as to the Transpacific partnership been to US, Japan and 10 other pacific nations, which is opposed by both Trump and (now) by Hilary Clinton.
Domestic Threats
Fourth: domestic tranquility is now seen as under threat by substantial segments of the population, and this treat is linked to the question of immigration and to citizenship to disenchanted voters throughout the west.
This has been a concern in the US since 9/11.
But it has been enhanced since the threat Islamic terrorism has been manifested on the streets of Paris, Nice, and in Belgium and in Germany.
It is true that Europe there have long been complaints about the “democratic deficit” of EU institutions.
People were bemoaning the “democratic deficit” as long ago as a meeting I attended on Berlin two months before the Berlin Wall came down, and long before the EU expanded to incorporate what was then communist dominated nations of Eastern Europe.
The concern at the time was to incorporate post dictatorship Spain, Portugal and Greece into the European community.
But the problems have only become worse since.
Never Underestimate Your Political Opponent
Fifth: “Political correctness,” the “under-decided,” and the “disreputables.”
It is never a good idea to underestimate your opponents.
Much less to insult them.
But this is precisely what the Labour Party did in Scotland in the run up to the independence referendum where although the unionists won the day, the voter turn out was one of highest on British electoral history.
And the three leaders of the Westminster political parties who signed a pledge to give Scotland more powers (Cameron, Clegg, Miliband) in the run up to the vote have all been deposed since.
The referendum on Brexit also produced a similar high level of voter participation. And the result also cofounded the experts, even those who had campaigned for exit from the European Union, who had not prepared at all for the success of the exit result.
It is hard to be a strategic elite guiding the future of your society with your Ostrich head in the sand.
Even Nigel Farage, who had campaigned for over 20 years for Britain to leave the EU, was surprised by the result. It was in fact “a very British coup” which brought Theresa May in as prime minister (although she bad been an anti-brexiter), and three leading bexiters (Boris Johnson, Liam Fox and David Davies, but not Michael Gove who had attempted to stab his old friend Boris on the back during his own leadership attempt and had been defenestrated when he failed) into the cabinet charged with making “Brexit” work.
The problem with Brexit was those you led the campaign to exit the European community never planned for what a victory would actually mean.
But what is already abundantly clear is that the “under decided” had decided to vote.
And that these alienated, but now mobilised and galvanised, “disreputables,” made their views very clear indeed on the day.
The old political and economic establishments are at loss to explain the rise of Trump.
They bemoan how he “refuses to be educated.”
But he may well know the key problems to address for the new strategic environment; he may not want to be educated on how to repeat the past.
In any case, it is hard to be a strategic elite guiding the future of your society with your Ostrich head in the sand.
How would they deal with the widespread discontent and disconnection between the political elites and the population?
Brexit showed this.
The America presidential election may well confirm the trend.
France and Germany may follow.
It is high time, as Baden-Powell advised, to “be prepared.”
Dr. Kenneth Maxwell is a regular contributor to Second Line of Defense and now has returned to live in the United Kingdom after living and working for many years in the United States.
From 1989 to 2004 he was Director of the Latin America Program at the Council on Foreign Relations, and in 1995 became the first holder of the Nelson and David Rockefeller Chair in Inter-American Studies. He served as Vice President and Director of Studies of the Council in 1996. Maxwell previously taught at Yale, Princeton, Columbia, and the University of Kansas.
He founded and was Director of the Camões Center for the Portuguese-speaking World at Columbia and was the Program Director of the Tinker Foundation, Inc. From 1993 to 2004, he was the Western Hemisphere book reviewer for Foreign Affairs. He has been a regular contributor to the New York Review of Books and is a weekly columnist since 2007 for Folha de São Paulo.
Maxwell was the Herodotus Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, and a Guggenheim Fellow. He served on the Board of Directors of The Tinker Foundation, Inc., and the Consultative Council of the Luso-American Foundation. He is also a member of the Advisory Boards of the Brazil Foundation and Human Rights Watch/Americas. Maxwell received his B.A. and M.A. from St. John’s College, Cambridge University, and his M.A. and Ph.D. from Princeton University.
We have started a series on the Second Line of Defense Forum, which is looking at the coming Administration, its approach and its impact.
We welcome contributions to the Forum discussion from our readers.
Whether it is Hillary Clinton or Donald J. Trump who is the next President, Canada’s current defense capabilities will come into the cross hairs.
Post-election, an incoming President or Prime Minister will “settle in” as campaign rhetoric and realities collide on inauguration. Abrupt shifts in policy, like incoming US House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich reversing course to help pass NAFTA after being briefed, are common.
While Canadians can take comfort in the second largest bi-lateral trading relation in the world with the US, in defense, storm clouds are gathering as Canada and the US have taken sharply divergent paths in elections a year apart.
He must simultaneously improve defense capabilities and create new, well paying jobs for Americans. Those priorities change the traditional dominance of trade and border security and elevate the importance of Canada carrying a fair share of the defense burden.
There will be continuity between Trump or Clinton and Obama in as US leaders share a view dictated by American interests with Canada.
The difference will be in tone and volume, but not substance.
Any solution sets shaped by the Canadians will have significant impact on American defense and security. Credit Image: Bigstock
Canada was not publicly singled out by President Obama in March, 2016 to be a free rider like Saudi Arabia and European allies despite being privately reminded of commitments made by the Harper government and since broken.
While Donald Trump has not spoken of this issue, when he is briefed about Canada’s desultory defense spending of 0.9% GDP, he will note that Canada is perhaps the most egregious free rider in NATO, comparable in scale to Germany and Japan.
Why would not either President Hillary Clinton or President Trump demand at least the Australian level of effort from Canada, notably because Canada’s defensive weakness enhances direct threats to the United States as well?
Trump (or Clinton) will almost certainly insist that lopsided security deals like Canada’s have to be renegotiated.
Will he will renegotiate en mass with NATO all at once, bilaterally in updating agreements like NORAD, or act unilaterally?
Canada should anticipate an end to free riding on US defense expenditures and make plans to benefit from the changes coming.
A new US Administration will likely not tolerate an alliance that “does not work and is far from working” for long.
Canadians need to make a choice as to whether our sovereignty, freedom, democracy and values are worth defending.
And do what it takes to provide for an adequate defense.
Dr Danny Lam is an independent analyst based in Calgary.
Views expressed are his own and do not represent any organizations he is affiliated with.
Editor’s Note: With the enhanced direct threats to North America discussed by Admiral Gortney when he was NORTHCOM/NORAD Commander, it is not so much a question of a “free ride” for Canadian defense, it is the inability to defend North America caused in part by the gaps opened by missing capabilities within Canada for its OWN defense.
Although Trump has raised the allied issue most directly, this defense gap is not going to go away by simply by ignoring it.
For an earlier piece by Danny Lam, see the following:
