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.
When the large scale computers became the rage of the space race, Univac, then Sperry Univac, and Burroughs reigned large on the scene.
Within these companies there almost always was contention as they wrung out ‘bugs’ in the system.
Hardware designers blamed the software engineers; and just as vociferously, the software engineers ‘knew’ in their hearts they were done in by the hardware.
This was the stand-off and the concept of general purpose fast became separated from design specific allowing software design to flourish and blossom into its present state.
Today, even for many application specific integrated circuits, there remains a general purpose involvement to make it easier to alter.
With the growth of interconnectivity, that has morphed into the internet. This has allowed distant upgrades; to processes and manuals, and a convenience that our world has gotten comfortable with.
It is time to re-examine this issue.
Because this very convenience has allowed the implantation of malicious activity, and now threatens the inner support system for society, the question needs to be raised.
This is because, below the applications that are elegant, below the operating systems that allow for the rapid reset of the memory and executables; below even the bit code that continues to underpin the ‘V’ of computational machines, sits the hardware — a derivative of the Turing Computing Machine; a proven flawed basis of support.
Proven time and again to be vulnerable to external resets, it is time to raise the inevitable question, to which the answer is: ‘IT IS THE HARDWARE, STUPID!’
Fixing flawed hardware with software, should have been discarded decades ago.
Why we are still at it, is difficult to discuss in polite company.
Current Situation
Pearl Harbor Day; and yet here we go again, with lot’s of warning, but no innovation to protect America.
We truly need to go back to basics, and ask can this issue be fixed.
Is there a solution that even in its primal state can protect networks from distant hacking?
The answer is yes; restore the rules of systems engineering to understand the output for every input signal.
Construct complex analog circuitry that both mimic and replace currently installed Turing based internet appliances.
The second question would be: is there a pressing need to revert to this solution, (e.g; Analog) to protect society?
With the hue and cry about infrastructure vulnerability, and declarations about evil doers, bank losses, identity theft, invasion and ransacking of credit card databases, and now ransomware; there is but one answer there as well; and that is yes.
While our Nation spends billions in fruitless pursuit of a software fix for a hardware flaw, it has successfully launched the ‘I think you have a problem industry.’
I see this as paying Protection Money to the wrong gang, and we now know that with Ransomware, the Hacking Gang is seeking its payment over and above the Monitoring Gang.
It is time to place responsibility with an accountable agency to commence the difficult task of prioritizing what should be protected, and get on with providing academically proven solutions.
Resolving the great debate that raged in the 1950’s is not a viable way forward, but applying known fixes could be the answer.
In the words of the purported philosopher-Forrest Gump ‘Stupid is as Stupid does’.
After nearly a decade of spending money, now estimated at eighteen billion dollars, researching software to fix a flaw in hardware, isn’t it time to recognize, ‘It is the Hardware, Stupid!’
That eighteen billion would be better spent converting the bit map and the operating systems to work with apps based on hardware that is uncompromising with regard to hacking.
This stops the flow of funds to both the Corporate Patching Community and the Hacking Community, and allows that spend to go to growth opportunities.
Now it is a drag on our economy, and on others around the world.
If our Nation sets a goal to retain as much of the convenience that the present compromised internet contains, our innovators will do just that.
Do we wait for our society to endure an oft forecaseted digital Pearl Harbor?
That is not how the Nation should be protected.
Looking Forward or Avoiding a Digital Pearl Harbor
What then do we need to do?
We need to search through Academic and Governmental research to determine available approaches to correcting the Hardware flaw they have known about since 1934, right after Turing Computing Machines were invented.
With a modest amount of research one can identify providers that never changed from Analog Appliances in the face of the herd mentality that ‘Moore’s Law’ and other advances have produced.
In fact ‘Moore’s Law’ also benefited the Analog Internet Appliances, with its ability to pack more and more capability into a smaller and smaller device, costing far less than predecessors.
Right now, with all of the ‘followers’, we need a thought leader in Government (DHS or DoD) or in Academia (NIST?) to certify the protective capability that the complex frozen analog appliance offers.
To be able to testify, if you will, that using frozen (e.g.; non reprogrammable) complex analog circuitry mimicking and replacing currently installed internet appliances satisfies the pent up desire for a corrective action against hacking; for designed in Cyber Security and Defense.
This would provide the way forward for our industry when the liability gets large, and the insurance companies raise their rates and demand action.
Protecting our society, whether water pumps, Gas Lines, or the electrical grid could fall to being regulated by the Department of Homeland Security to actually get protected.
Infrastructure Owners can be realistically tasked to put in place protected SCADA Systems, with motivation and support from the Department of Homeland Security, which can design and approve frozen analog complex circuitry, which would then replace the currently installed Internet appliance.
Security teams from the agency who routinely monitor security procedures for these assets, can as well advise of security concerns from the internet facing appliances.
Once this breakthrough is underway Internet Service Providers, router designers, and server designers can then look to provide needed support to agencies and public corporations to protect them as vital economic assets.
This could be the new American innovation, where hardware innovation brings our society and the world’s back from a predicted Armageddon Brink.
What better gift to celebrate Pearl Harbor day than to say, we learned to see the signs.
We learned to overcome the biases and got on with it.
We learned to change the outcome of the predicted future, and overcome our collective inaction.
Let’s say it together-‘IT IS THE HARDWARE, STUPID!’ and get on with the fix we are looking for.
“We’d always say ‘if its really a bad air to air (A2A) threat, get some additional jets up there, get some more capability.’
I have no pause or hesitation that this jet will dominate in an A2A environment, would dominate in a strike environment, dominate in a CAS environment, and would also do a very nice job in an electronic warfare realm as well.”
F-35Bs from USMC VX-23, VMFA-211 & VMX-1 line the deck of the USS America (LHA-6) during integrated USN/USMC “proof of concept” exercise November 19, 2016.
Marines. At their mention I suspect most think, “storming the beaches.” Amphibious vehicles first in, troops storm ashore. That capability still exists, but today there is a far greater capability, one that will provide a vexing challenge for any adversary.
Already transformed by the mobility of the Osprey, the F-35B offers a critical upgrade to the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) and amphibious assault. The first wave is no longer limited to the beach or uncontested space, it can effectively reach locations 450 miles from the shipborne base – even in contested airspace.
What once came ashore like a wave, now comes as lightning strikes in a violent storm.
Marines on the beach, Marines from behind, and Marines within the adversary’s territory. Marines striking swiftly with maximum effect to deal with high value targets, including terror cells – all with the stand alone capability to do so.
This is the “Aerial Amphibious Assault” Force, and these are the Marines of the 21st century battlespace.
It is a capability the US Marine Corps (USMC) has patiently and steadfastly build towards, and the pieces are coming together;
Integration with the US Navy LHA Class Amphibious Assault Carrier – The USS America & USS Tripoli (under construction). The LHA class offers enhanced dedicated support for Marine aviation assets.
MV-22B Osprey. The Osprey offers extended range and speed for troop insertion, as well as air to air refueling support.
F-35B Lightning II. The F-35B replaces the AV-8B, F/A-18 Hornet & EA-6B Prowler. The aircraft offers exceptional performance Air to Air (A2A), Air to Ground (A2G), Close Air Support (CAS), Electronic Warfare (EW), Command, Control, Communications and Computers (C4), Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) all with the capability to operate stealthily within contested areas.
CH-53K “King Stallion” When introduced (2019) the CH-53K will provide nearly 3x the heavy lift capability of the CH-53E.
The USS America (LHA-6) a maritime base, provides unrivaled flexibility.
Park it where you want in international waters. Forward deploy it to a region for any contingency, and a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) is at the ready. The LHA platform is ideal for military operations involving troop insertion, (anti-terrorism activities) where the objective is to infiltrate, accomplish the mission and leave no boots behind on the ground.
The LHA offers the flexibility to adjust mix from heavy jet (F-35B) to heavy tiltrotor (MV-22B) or rotor wing. Utilizing the MV-22B and the F-35B, the USMC can effectively insert troops 450 miles from the ship in under 2 hours.
The platform offers the flexibility to work together with additional amphibious assault carriers (LHD) when amphibious vehicles are desired, as well as with the support of the USN Supercarrier.
Not a replacement for either, the LHA provides flexibility for the military to tailor a force most suitable for the mission at hand.
Second Line of Defense and a handful of gathered journalists recently had the opportunity to visit with Lt. General Jon “Dog” Davis, USMC Deputy Commandant for Aviation, and Col. George “Sack” Rowell, Commanding Officer of VMX-1 (Marine Operational Test & Evaluation Squadron).
The visit took place after DT-III, during a “Proof of Concept” demonstration on the USS America, November 18-20, 2016.
General Davis, can you describe the tactical implications of the USS America with F-35B, MV-22B & other Marine aviation assets?
The MV-22 is an incredible platform, it can go a long way at a high rate of speed, it can receive air refueling, and it can be configured to provide air refueling.
It can move Marines, and (configured) it can pass fuel to other MV-22’s or F-35s. That is a tremendous capability for the Marines and the Naval services.
These ships are designed for amphibious operations, MAGTF operations with the standard mix of Marine units that will go out (Marine Expeditionary Units – MEU), but occasionally we need to configure this to be jet heavy or helicopter heavy. In this case, this is a jet heavy deck. We could take up to 20 F-35Bs onboard, we put 12 on this time.
This is a 5th Gen strike capability that the nation does not currently have from a sea base. It is a tremendous capability. We had Vice Admiral Rowden (Vice Admiral Thomas Rowden, Commander Naval Surface Forces) onboard today.
One of the things we did as part of this test was the AEGIS integration with the F-35B. That’s a big deal. That’s a big deal for our Nation, our Navy and our Marine Corps.
The Marine Corps is a force that fights across the range of the military operations, and this could be something that a combatant commander, or a fleet commander decides that we need to be able to do for a time.
Like we did during Operation Iraqi Freedom, where I think we had 4 decks loaded up with Harriers. We sailed over with helicopters on board and then flew Harriers in and flew off those ships because that was the best way for us to operate.
Practically speaking, what is the operational range from ship of the F-35B/MV-22B tandem?
Unrefueled you could do 450 miles, refueled, you could do more. MV-22s are an incredible platform for assault, delivering Marines or for getting Special Operations forces where they need to go. The F-35B is a very nice complement to get that MV-22 into a contested area.
If I was a bad guy I would hate the MV-22. If you hate the MV-22 you want to try and go after it, and the F-35 will create the conditions for the success of the MV-22.
It will sanitize a target area, go after target defenses, provide close air support for the assault force in the objective area and then help bring them back home, utilizing A2A, A2G, situational awareness and electronic warfare.
USMC Lt. General Jon “Dog” Davis, Deputy Commandant for Aviation, aboard the USS America during the F-35B “Proof of Concept” demonstration, November 19, 2016.
We think we have a real winner in the combination of platforms out there, but it is not just about F-35Bs & MV-22s. We have attack helicopters, UH-1Y, AH-1Z, CH-53Es and soon we’ll have the CH-53Ks.
The most important part of all is the young marines that are supported by a ride in those aircraft and get supported by these weapons systems.
The F-35 weaves a lot of things together that we have not had in a long time. EW for our MEUs which we’ve never had before in this kind of capability; a very, very high end air defense and counter air capability; and an all-weather ground attack CAS system that allows us to provide CAS in virtually any environment out there.
We are very pleased with what we are seeing. And this is a beautiful new ship. It’s my first time on the America, and I am very impressed with the ship, and I am really impressed with the sailors, and their attitude. The Marines are beaming, and the sailors are also very happy.
We’re talking about deployments in 2018, would you feel confident if you had to deploy to a CENTCOM AOR Firebase?
I’d do it tomorrow. Tomorrow.
The squadron commander (CO) of VMFA-211 is chomping at the bit, he would deploy them, so would the CO of VMFA-121. They are ready. These airplanes are highly capable and ready to go.
We have a commitment to move to Japan with VMFA-121. As Marines we live up to our promises.
We have promised to take 5th Gen capability to Japan, so we’re doing that. And we are going to do that in January.
We will deploy on timeline with these other capabilities unless something requires us to go sooner or faster. They are ready. They are ready. The Marine Corps is busy right now, so I’m not trying to put anything else on anybody’s plate, nor is anyone else.
But the nation has a 5th Gen capability that can operate from a sea base, and could do it tomorrow if need be.
As you debate how to tackle a contested area, and operate in a multi-domain environment, and highly dispersed units, it sounds as if the F-35 are they key to that, how?
Absolutely.
We are operating on a sea base right now. This is a great platform to operate from. It makes the sea base more powerful, more potent.
However, we can also move to FOBs, continue to operate, then back to the ship. We have Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots out here watching this today, and that was their operational concept when I was an exchange officer with the RAF. Going from a main base to what we call distributed operations all over.
We have done that when in an A2/AD threat condition. That is a tremendous capability for the Marine Corps today.
We bought this airplane so that we could better support the troops on the ground. That means flying from whatever operating base is most advantageous from an operations perspective and threat perspective. It might be the sea base, it might be a base ashore.
The Marine Corp has units called the Marine Wing Support Squadrons (MWSS), they are the Marine Corps carriers ashore. We have the Carrier at sea, and then we have these units that create operating bases ashore.
We can move those around as need be to give us the extended reach and play if we don’t have a set base or a road to operate these airplanes. Wherever you have enough road to land a C-130J and offload jet fuel, you can put F-35Bs to go operate for a period of time.
We just did the hot rearm, hot refuel with the F-35Bs. We have been doing that with Harriers 12 years now, and we do it with F/A-18s. We did it at WTI for the F-35Bs. 2 F-35s came in and landed, we never shut them down, we refueled, reloaded them with ordinance and took off in less than 20 mins. That’s a significant capability.
We are not going to hot rearm on the ship during this exercise, but we are hot refueling. We are always looking for ways to make things go a little bit faster.
We did that in Afghanistan with our Harriers, for the Marjah operation. The Harriers took off out of Kandahar, got overhead Marjah, did their CAS.
We built a small FOB called FOB Dwyer with one of the MWSSs very close to Marjah. Once aircraft dropped their ordinance, they landed at FOB Dwyer, rearmed and refueled without shutting down and took off again in about 15 mins. We made 12 Harriers look like 36 Harriers.
Now we are doing it with the F-35s.
I understand the Marines are looking to accelerate full motion video capability. When & Why (I believe it is scheduled for Block 4.3)?
I do believe we found a way to bring it on faster than Block 4.3. It’s one of the things we use (actually we were one of the pioneers for streaming video out of our lightning pods) for our guys on the ground. Our forward air controllers (FACs) love using that.
I think they’ll also like the other capabilities of this airplane too like the Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) map through the clouds. The full motion video does not provide that at all right now, it’s really streaming video (not full motion video). Bottom line, if the customer wants it, we try and provide it. I believe it may be implemented for Block 4.1 or 4.2.
Can we discuss the AEGIS integration & practical effects?
I wish I had my Navy counterpart here, Admiral Rowden was very excited about it. It was a Navy idea. Col. Rowell (Col. George “Sack” Rowell, VMX-1 Commanding Officer) will you address AEGIS integration?
Rowell; The first experience took place 2 months ago with the “AEGIS” at White Sands (Desert Ship). An F-35 targeted a cruise missile surrogate and provided the targeting data to the AEGIS platform. What AEGIS really brings is a weapons payload.
USMC Col. George “Sack” Rowell, Commanding Officer VMX-1 provides F-35B program status during “Proof of Concept” demonstration on USS America (LHA-6), November 18, 2016.
The General just talked about hot loading the aircraft with weapons. AEGIS cruisers bring a weapons payload, that just could not fit on an airplane.
We are talking about dozens and dozens of missiles. SM-6s that can be targeted by airborne platforms at a much greater distance than they could independently target.
Does this fit in with distributed lethality?
Absolutely. The F-35 digitally sent the targeting data through to the AEGIS using multi-function advanced datalink (MADL) and the AEGIS shot – and that was a live shoot, a live SM-6 came out of White Sands and destroyed the target.
Are there any other aircraft that can do that?
No, nothing else (using MADL) can do that. The Navy has AEGIS cruisers all over. We establish data links with local cruisers. DT-III did everything shy of shooting the missile, established the data link, passed the data, and validated the data.
Davis; The F-35 & AEGIS are a great Naval integration story, there is a lot of potential, a lot of excitement. Not a Harrier, or Hornet, this is a totally a new and different capability. The MV-22 was a disruptive technology and it changed our assumptions about how we are going to operate an assault platform from a sea base. It also changed drastically what we do ashore.
This jet will do that for us as well, and I am proud of the Marine Corps for being up front and leading this thing. And if you had enough real estate to put as many aircraft as possible on a ship like this, there are conditions and situations where you would want to do that.
I think its primary mode will be as an amphibious ship loaded with our typical MEU capability. But there are times we would want to load up like this (jet heavy).
This ship would normally carry 1500 Marines, with a surge capacity of 1800. Two battalion of Marines, Americas most potent weapon, the Marine Rifleman.
Can you discuss the big Picture deployment to Japan? How does tomorrows demo fit in with it?
We are investigating the right mix of assets on the ship to support the MEU. Is it 6 or 8 F-35Bs? We want a solid deployment, move out to Japan and establish normal operations as a 5th Gen platform in the Pacific Region. We’ve been planning for this for a long time.
I want to send F-35s to Japan and have them operate as successfully as we do in Yuma, AZ & Beaufort, SC and extend this 5th Gen capability for our forces in the Asia Pacific. I think its tailor made for that region.
It has an incredible capability, it’s got great sensors, great weapons, great radars, great agility, great flexibility, and its tailor made for a dynamic region like the Asia Pacific.
Our Harriers have a set amount of capability, and we’ve been deploying our MEUs with Harriers but the Harrier is not as combat capable as an F-35. I mean for the full range of military operations. We’d always say “if its really a bad air to air (A2A) threat, get some additional jets up there, get some more capability.”
I have no pause or hesitation that this jet will dominate in an A2A environment, would dominate in a strike environment, dominate in a CAS environment, and would also do a very nice job in an electronic warfare realm as well. And I think that we talk about higher threat systems out there.
We do a good job escorting our assault support platforms, with our attack helicopters. But our jets do helicopter escort as well and I think the F-35B is going to be one of those escort platforms that we are going to rely on for MV-22s, certainly for going into contested areas.
Can you provide an overview of the mission tomorrow, and the message it sends?
We are doing MV-22 escort with a six ship F-35B strike. Bottom line going into a contested environment, set the MV-22s down, deliver a notional group of Marines.
Airplanes are dedicated to the escort mission and strikes, some A2A and A2G. So we are practicing what we will perform for the MEU of the future.
With those final comments the interview came to an end, yet the picture was clear;
The integration of the F-35B with the MAGTF changes everything.
The Second Line of Defense wishes to thank Lt. General Jon “Dog” Davis, USMC Deputy Commandant for Aviation; USMC VMX-1 Commanding Officer, Col. George “Sack” Rowell and Sylvia Pierson, Brandi Schiff, JSF/JPO PA; Capt. Sarah Burns and 1st Lt. Maida Zheng, USMC PAOs.
The election of Donald Trump as the next US President surprised most pollsters, political leaders in both major political parties, and the mainstream media. Broadly based political unrest seems to have materialized in the form of a populist revolt against Congress, the President, federal bureaucracy, lobbyists, and leadership of both Republican and Democrat parties.
Donald Trump believes he has achieved the Presidency without being bound by political promises and obligations to large financial supporters.
In other words, Trump will not feel limited by Republican Party orthodoxies, and will likely feel free to intervene in specific business interests and disputes when he sees that as effective.
World financial markets responded to Trump’s unexpected election by embarking on a surprisingly strong US stock market rally.
The market upturn was surprising in 3 respects: Just before the elections, some of the biggest fund managers publicly declared their expectations that stock markets were about to fall.
Instead, a strong, sustained upward breakout materialized.
Second, even though Trump had not presented a specific economic policy agenda, investors assumed that his aim would be to accelerate economic growth and that whatever measures he chose would likely be inflationary.
President Elect Trump delivering his victory speech at the New York Hilton, November 9, 2016.
Third, investors seemed to assume Congress under its emergent Republican majority in both House and Senate would join in unified implementation of whatever Trump proposes.
However, it is unlikely that wide differences among Republicans in Congress will vanish, and that strong Republican aversion to further growth in Federal debt will be easily overcome.
The post-election rally also overlooked the political reality that devising and approving new legislation on taxation, a healthcare substitute for Obamacare, trade, immigration, and regulatory deregulation necessarily would take many months.
It is inevitable that after the White House introduces draft legislation in any of these policy areas a deluge of interest groups would fall upon Washington in efforts to “revise”, neutralize, or nullify proposed legislative changes that would directly affect them.
Republicans in both the House and Senate are still strongly divided. In recent years party “teamwork” fell away and was replaced by aggressive rivalries of power and agendas for action. Previous Speaker of the House John Boehner was rendered powerless by repeated insurrections within his Republican majority. Ultimately this resulted in his resignation and retirement from Congress.
Current Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is distrusted by some of the House Republicans, especially among the House Freedom Caucus. That caucus group only numbers around 40, but enough to halt procedural steps and force the leadership to seek votes among the opposition Democrats.
Ryan has been able to overcome serious party insurrections so far, and the emergence of a new Republican President will likely provide a few months of “honeymoon” cooperation.
Thus, for the next few months Republicans will likely work together in devising legislation.
However, Republican rivalries with each other and with the President will likely resume later in 2017 and definitely will be more disruptive in 2018 as the next round of Congressional elections gains momentum.
Many Republican politicians seem to be assuming that Trump will only seek one term as President, so jockeying for the Presidential nomination for the 2020 Presidential elections has already begun.
Near the end of November, Trump’s Treasury Secretary designate, Steven Mnuchin, began to discuss details about the taxation reforms that would be proposed by the new Administration. Among the proposals under consideration would be significant cuts in corporate rates of taxation, and cuts in personal income taxes for “the middle class.” The middle class was not defined.
Taxation of the wealthiest households would be altered by reducing various “deductions” such as home mortgage interest, in such a way that tax rate cuts would be offset by elimination of tax deductions, leaving the net effect of changes in taxation neutral.
This technical complexity immediately gave rise to an awakening of lobbying activities on behalf of various groups that might be adversely affected, such as mortgage providers and homebuilders.
Credit: Europeans for Trump
Historically, major changes in taxation have always required major revisions to the US Tax Code, which entail thousands of pages of legislative changes. Typically, major tax legislation passed in one Session of Congress has in past years been followed by a second round of new legislation in the following Session of Congress, in the form of a “technical corrections bill.”
As virtually every interest group in the US is potentially affected by tax revisions, lobbying on behalf of all interest groups ranging from charities to corporations and financial institutions is directly involved. This requires each member of Congress to listen to a wide variety of interest groups and balance the different constituent interests one against another.
The process of drafting and approving major tax reform has often in past years taken 18 months. In other words, taxation changes might not be applicable to the US economy until 2018 or possibly 2019.
There would be little impact on the economy during the first half of 2017.
Legislation to cancel Obama’s healthcare insurance reforms might be passed early in the new Congress, but the effective date would likely be set at some future time when a new healthcare insurance program was ready to be proposed for Congressional action.
Trump might take some administrative or enforcement actions on immigration, but a change in immigration law would likely take months, not days.
Trump has already declared that he would not pursue TPP, and that he expected to begin placing greater emphasis on negotiating or renegotiating bilateral trade agreements. The President has authority to make such changes in US trade policy.
However, the President does not have authority to alter present US trade laws.
Article 1 of the Constitution specifically provides that Congress shall regulate foreign commerce. In other words, the President may engage negotiations with other countries. He cannot negotiate Treaties or other agreements that might require alterations in current trade laws without approval of enabling legislation by both House and Senate.
To alter US trade restrictions, the President must propose to Congress changes in US trade law, and only the Congress can then consider and approve or revise present trade law to adapt to Presidential proposals.
The President does not have unilateral authority to alter either access for or restrictions on US imports. There are exceptions for Presidential action in the event that he determines that antidumping action or countervailing duties are required to offset “unfair trade.”
In past years, Presidents have sometimes negotiated “voluntary” export restrictions implemented by other governments in order to relieve competitive stresses on US agricultural or industrial producers, but such voluntary agreements would not fall within the framework of US trade law.
Although Donald Trump has openly criticized past US trade agreements and promised to renegotiate some or all of them, he would need Congressional approval of changes in US laws that have already been made to accommodate past trade agreements.
In the case of the NAFTA agreements with Canada and Mexico, Trump has said he wanted them to be revised. The governments of both Canada and Mexico have already declared willingness to consider renegotiation, but of course they would also likely wish to make revisions of interest to their own economies.
Renegotiations would likely be a multi- year process, entailing revisions by Congress in current trade laws.
Trump has made clear his interest in scaling back Federal regulation of businesses, particularly small businesses and regulation of financial markets. Changes in labor market, environmental, and food safety regulations are likely under his Presidency.
Many regulations could be eliminated by Presidential action, but some would require changes in law, which Congress would have to enact.
President Obama also used Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda signed by him personally to provide authority for regulation and law enforcement changes. It is said that he used these Presidential authorities in thousands of cases.
President Trump could eliminate all or much of this accumulation of unilateral Obama Presidential orders or memoranda by simply cancelling them. This could result in dramatic rollback of environmental regulations, for example.
In other words, Trump clearly will set in motion a new approach and shape his own template for policies and governing.
But the interactivity between Trump and the Congress will shape new outcomes as the President shapes his approach and Congress adjusts to the new reality; and in turn, Congress and its divisions will shape the new realities in the wake of the election of President Trump.
It is in foreign policy where the President will have more freedom to put his stamp on policy from the outset, and he is already in the process of doing so, even before taking office.
If you wish to comment on this article, please see the following:
The Liberal regime needs to be cognizant that Canada will always be a modest sized customer in the world arms market.
As such, unique and irregular Canadian requirements and unorthodox procurement processes will sharply inflate cost and create long term issues of sustainability.
While it is no longer a disqualifier to not do so up front, this demand raises major issues for suppliers.
Requiring a bidder’s a priori disclosure of IP and data to a private company (and potential competitor!) like Irving shipbuilding is highly irregular.
The details required are down to specifications for the last nut, bolt and screw, including tools used and part numbers. While the intent may be to deprive the vendor of follow-on revenues for maintenance and upgrades, it is far more damaging to the world shipbuilding industry.
Serious questions arise as to how (if at all) the data can be safeguarded by the contractor and/or the Canadian government, and its leakage to both adversaries and other competitors. While the intent is that provision of this data enables Irving Shipbuilding to walk away from the vendor for future upgrades and maintenance, it has many other consequences.
Sept 01 2002. Top front 3/4 view. Ship Formation in the Gulf of Oman. From right to left HMCS Algonquin,HMCS Protecteur and HMCS St-Johns. The formation took place during a (RAS) Replenishment at sea, followed by manouvers. HMCS ST-JOHNS is operating in and around the Gulf of Oman as part of Operation APOLLO, Canada’s military contribution to the international campaign against terrorism.Photo by: MCpl Michel Durand, Formation Imaging Services, Halifax
The IP requirement means that the prime contractor and Canadian officials will be able to become a competitor to all bidders. Because they will be the only party to see everyone’s IP, Canadians will be able to aggregate the data, cherry pick and reverse engineer IP and designs from all bidders.
This goes beyond depriving vendors of follow-on revenues.
It means that Canada, and particularly Irving Shipbuilding, will have the unfair advantage of seeing the issues, flaws and best features in all bidder’s designs.
Canada would then be in a prime position to offer maintenance and support to not just the CSC, but for all vendor’s products, potentially becoming a competitor to every bidder, not to mention building its own next generation ship from bidders’ designs.
Whether it is the intent of the Government of Canada to facilitate this is not known.
Indisputably it is an unfair competitive advantage handed to anyone who has access to the data set.
It is not clear how far/much the IP requirement will be extended and how it will be enforced given the compromise. If the requirement is only limited to the hull of a ship, for example, it is one thing, but taken to its logical conclusion, it will require the vendor that used, say, an Intel microprocessor in a minor subsystem to hand over the IP behind the product.
Or, tell Irving Shipbuilding and the Canadian government everything they need to know to build a state-of-the art microprocessor for the sake of a handful of CPU sales in one box.
Such a requirement for IP handover, if extended beyond the most basic features of our hull example, will certainly preclude U.S. contractors from competing, as the software and hardware behind key systems like Aegis and every major weapons and sensor systems are some of the most closely held secrets in the world and tightly controlled by the Pentagon.
The US Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Commerce (DoC) are unlikely to permit their crown jewels from being disclosed to any foreign party and they will veto U.S. bidders from participating with U.S. sourced or derived technology without an export license.
The only alternative for U.S. bidders will be to develop new, non-DoD restricted software and systems from the ground up outside of the U.S. for the CSC program —- an expense that will sharply increase program cost, compared to obtaining a licensed version of the “off-the-shelf” US or other software for a handful of units.
The Commercial IP Challenge: Why the Canadian Approach is a Non-Starter
This route is not feasible a priori, however.
Provision of the IP for non-U.S. software and hardware is only possible if the products pre-exist. While rudimentary and basic versions of the software owned by third or lower tier bidders might be available, no top-tier vendor will, up front, pay to develop an all-new software suite and release their source code as a condition for the submission of proposal.
Thus, the only vendors that will accept these terms are vendors with little good IP to lose.
If the requirement is limited to the hull design, there is a major question as to whether a “top drawer” vendor will part with its best technology. For example, many innovations pioneered in the Zumwalt class DDG-1000s, such as coatings, methods and means for signature reduction, automated damage control, resiliency and redundancy, etc. are highly sensitive and closely held technologies. Beyond that, the next generation of vessel designs will likely utilize electronic control systems to actively manage loads and provide envelope protection now commonly used in the aerospace industry, which entails very complex and high value software that dominates added value.
No vendor will turn source code of this nature over for the sake of bidding.
Apart from the IP in the hull, the source code for key systems like sensors and missiles will be unlikely to be released — especially at the proposal stage when it is not subject to stringent licensing terms.
It is a mystery how any bidder from any nation will be able to bid and provide IP up front if any U.S. system is included, be it weapons, sensors, propulsion, communications, etc. Basic data on form factor, power and cooling loads for up and coming systems are closely held for now and certainly not releasable without authorization from the U.S. Government.
The contractual language, as it stands, is impossible for any vendor who intends to use “top drawer” U.S. systems to comply with as part of their proposal. The U.S. Government will likely exercise their veto.
The IP problem becomes impossible once disclosure requirements are extended to the subsystems and components level. There are no CSC candidates that do not use U.S. technology, especially commercial technology, in some way or fashion.
It is flatly impossible to provide the IP “fore and back” for these technologies without compromising the commercial secrets of the firms involved.
Apparently no one at DND or Irving Shipbuilding thought about how they would build a CSC without access to commercial electronics like devices from Xilinx, Intel, IBM, Freescale, Siemens, TSMC, etc. None of these firms will consent to their technology being handed over and if that is a condition, they will likely bar the use of them in the CSC program, causing bidders to find new and, as yet, non-existent sources.
Even if bidders agree to these terms, only one whom will be successful will still have to deal with the likelihood of theft of their IP and the likelihood that their software, intentionally or otherwise, will be compromised. Canadian governmentinstitutions and firms have a sorry record of protecting their intellectual property in this regard.
IP Security and the Threat of Theft from Non-Liberal Regimes
The U.S. was recently victimized by a Canadian subsidiary of United Technologies who illegally handed over to the PRC software intended to be used in their Z-10 military helicopter on the pretext of bidding for a civilian helicopter contract. That incident will weigh heavily on any decision to permit disclosure of sensitive US technologies to Canadian subsidiaries.
The very fact that it is now known that bid documents will contain sensitive IP that can compromise every bidder’s product will make Canada and Irving Shipyards a high priority intelligence target for Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, etc. facing threats from the bidder’s home countries.
Compromise of CSC bidding documents data in Canada will result in the damage not just to CSCs, but also to other operators of the same platform — potentially creating a nightmare for every country foolish enough to authorize their vendor to release the IP.
And a bonanza for Chinese military shipbuilders eager to clone the best designs.
Without access to U.S. IP on stringent license terms, it is not clear that any non-U.S. supplier can provide systems that will be compatible with U.S. systems that Canadian equipment must work with beyond rudimentary levels. That will exclude features like data fusion or cooperative engagement capability beyond Link-16 level.
DoD is almost certain to move to limit Canadian access and participation in systems like BMD when Canadian systems may be one of the weakest links in the chain. To wit: none of the candidate bidders is believed to be proposing an Aegis BMD capable design.
No vendor that develops these leading edge technologies will be willing to part with them for the sake of an order of a handful of units unless Canada paid, up front, the entire development costs plus profit to the vendor. In effect, a one time, worldwide, unlimited, license fee.
What those terms resulted in for the Canadian Ranger Rifle procurement was a unit cost of CAD $4,810 for 6,820 bolt action rifles when Walmart COTS rifles retail for $300.
The Fighter Case in the Broader Context
The larger question is whether such IP giveaway for the privilege of bidding will be replicated in other government procurements like the replacement Fighter program.
If so, the U.S. can make it difficult simply by refusing to allow release of APIs and other interfaces, resulting in a low level of integration into U.S. systems, making the CSC and F/A-18 Super Hornets effectively unintegrated “one off” pieces in the age of network centric warfare.
Upgrading the systems ex post to U.S. standards for security to enable them to work closely together will likely be costly (if permissible at all) and be subject to stringent licensing terms — frustrating the original IP “hand over” requirement.
The U.S. may limit Canada’s access to compiled modules and ban Canada from updating mission data files altogether.
Beyond security considerations, the Trump Administration will likely take a dim view of a Canadian military procurement process that places U.S. defense contractors at a serious disadvantage (or rule them out altogether) as is presently done in the CSC RFP.
The IP handover requirements under CSC are more onerous than demands by the PRC on foreign firms that resulted in China being singled out by the Office of the US Trade Representative in the 2016 Special 301 Report.
Particularly, the Trump Administration will examine how Canada’s refusal and/or failure to go through their commitment to buy the F-35 impairs the competitiveness of Lockheed Martin’s ability to offer benefits to buyers with signed contracts. Offset contracts that may be awarded to heavily subsidized conglomerates that nearly went bankrupt will be reviewed carefully for evidence of de facto hidden commercial subsidies stashed in the Canadian defense budget, already famous for Enron like accounting.
Over and above the assessment of benefits to the U.S., if Canadian Requirements for handing over IP in the CSC program undermine U.S. national security interests, and if terms that compromise commercial secrets are replicated in other programs like the “interim” fighter buy or other government procurements, it will likely result in US DoD vetoing the F/A-18 Super Hornet procurement even if Boeing secured the deal as a Direct Commercial Sale.
The Liberal regime cannot assume that their deal with Boeing under typical Canadian terms will be routinely approved by the U.S.
Questions will be raised by both the Administration and Congress as to how the deal benefits the U.S.
Indeed, the “interim” fighter deal will likely to be seen as another example of Canadian free riding to delay meeting NORAD and NATO commitments by a decade or more.
The Trump Administration and Congress will raise major questions such as why Boeing should not receive as “credit” the CAD $1billion in contracts issued by Lockheed Martin (LM) under the JSF program to Canadian firms that to date, have resulted in no orders.
Conditions for approval of the “interim” fighter buy may include full compensation and interest to LM for F-35 contracts awarded and not rescinded.
Or, alternatively, Boeing to receive “offset” credit with interest for the amount Lockheed Martin is presently committed to, with incremental “offset” awarded to US firms.
Alternatively, the Trump Administration may simply demand Canada do away with the offset requirement altogether as a non-tariff barrier when a new trade deal to replace NAFTA is negotiated.
Canada is not presently targeted as a high priority for unfair trade practices by the Trump Administration besides currency issues and a few minor irritants. Though Canada is indisputably regarded by the Obama and incoming Trump Administration as a defense free rider.
These issues generated by recent Canadian government procurement directly damages the U.S. are economic and defense interests.
They cost Americans thousands of well-paying jobs. It will be difficult to keep them isolated when Trump negotiates a new bilateral trade agreement to replace NAFTA with Canada.
Trudeau’s legacy may be defeat in a bruising trade war with the United States.
Danny Lam is an independent analyst based in Calgary.
Editor’s Note: As the U.S. and core allies shift their platforms to a software defined and upgradeable focal point, the Canadian government’s proposed policies clearly run against this trend line in which apps based software will provide transient advantage.
No platform developer in the U.S. or Europe will wish to hand over its core software code; it would be akin to asking Apple to hand over the core source code to the I Phone and let the Canadian government and a local producer have it and run with it.
And the focus on shaping integrated force structures such as discussed by core Commonwealth partners, the UK, and Australia, is not about handing core software code to every country which desires to have it; it is about custody of the core code for tight configuration control, shaping a middleware on top of that and then allowing for apps based development, the latter certainly being an area where Canadian firms could make significant contributions to the allied forces.
It is not just about the U.S.; it is about the trend line of platform development for the 21st century.
2016-12-02 The Royal Navy is in need of new ships and more of them than can be generated by the normal construction process.
A virtually untold story about the building of the new carrier in the UK is how industry –commercial and defense – were mobilized in a very innovative modular construction process to deliver two large deck carriers in a very innovative manner.
In part based on that experience, the UK MoD is looking for new ways to address ship construction in the UK. The report delivered on November 29, 2016 by Sir John Parker is an input to that rethinking process.
In addition for a call to diversity the shipyards involved in delivering the final product, the report calls for a modular construction process to deliver ships to the Royal Navy, which are less complex and more easily configured for exports.
Parker, who is currently chairman of mining company Anglo American, added that the Type 31 frigates should be built quickly to boost navy fleet numbers but also to have a competitive export product that could be designated as Type 31e.
“The new Type 31e should not set out to be a complex and sophisticated warship based on traditional design approaches. It should be a modern and innovative design on a standard platform, which should provide a menu of choice to support exports and beat the competition. It should be termed Type 31e. The ‘e’ means that export flexibility is inbuilt, not a variant,” Parker said.
According to a recent story on the UK Ministry of Defence website, the report was described in the following terms:
Sir John Parker’s Independent Report into naval shipbuilding published today (29 November) sets out far-reaching recommendations to transform the United Kingdom’s shipbuilding industry and boost the prosperity of shipyards and supply chains across the country.
Based on extensive consultation with government, industry, and trades unions, it will inform the government’s National Shipbuilding Strategy to be published in the spring.
Sir John’s report is a fundamental reappraisal of how we undertake naval shipbuilding in the UK with the aim of placing it on a sustainable long-term footing.
It enables the foundations to be laid for a modern, efficient, and competitive sector capable of meeting the country’s future defence and security needs.
The report identifies key areas where government and industry must invest in order for UK shipbuilding to thrive:
Modern digital engineering
Industrial innovation
Competitiveness
Focus on apprenticeships and jobs
Export-focus
Sir John Parker said:
Should Government, Industry and the Trade Unions rise to the challenges I have set, I believe we can establish a new era of collaboration and success across the ‘Total Enterprise’.
It will create savings over the coming years for MOD, renew the Royal Navy fleet, position the UK for new export opportunities and create regional prosperity and highly skilled jobs across the UK in the Shipyards and supply chain.
One of the opportunities that Sir John identifies is the way Scotland’s cutting edge technology can allow for Modular Construction, in which ship components are produced across the UK before being assembled at a central Hub.
The build of the Royal Navy’s largest ever warships, the Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers, has already demonstrated the success of such an approach, with multiple shipyards and hundreds of companies across the UK working together and benefiting from the aircraft carrier build.
Welcoming the report on behalf of the government, Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said:
I would like to thank Sir John for providing an ambitious vision of naval shipbuilding in the UK based on a new era of cooperation as part of our modern industrial strategy.
This report will inform our National Shipbuilding Strategy to match the needs of the Royal Navy with the ability to design and build efficiently, maintain skills, and maximise export opportunities.
This will ensure a strong naval shipbuilding sector and help deliver an economy that works for everyone.
The government will publish a full response, and implementation plan, in spring 2017. This response will be the National Shipbuilding Strategy and a vital part of the government’s industrial strategy that focuses on increasing economic growth across the country and investing in a more skilled workforce.
Sir John’s vision means maintaining Britain’s naval prowess to ensure its role in the world. It also means using the opportunities of Britain’s shipbuilding expertise to become a leading producer of ships for export.
There is already a vibrant shipbuilding and marine engineering sector across the UK. Around 15,000 people are directly employed in UK shipbuilding and repair, with an additional 10,000 jobs indirectly supported through the wider supply chain in the UK. The government is committed to seeing that grow even stronger, with a new focus on exports.
Backed by a rising defence budget, the government is investing billions in a growing Royal Navy building two new aircraft carriers, new Type 26 Global Combat Ships, Dreadnought and Astute class submarines, and offshore patrol vessels. We are also developing a new class of General Purpose Frigate so that by the 2030s we can grow the size of the fleet. This major programme of investment will increase the power and reach of our Royal Navy.
2016-12-02 According to a story written by Sang-Yun Kim and published on the South Korean Ministry of Defence website, the 10th Fighter Wing participated in a recent exercise for rapid response in a crisis.
10th Air Force Fighter Wing (hereinafter referred to as 10th FW) had a Practice Generation for the rapid sortie of F-5 fighter during times of war as part of the Operation Readiness Exercise (ORE) held on November 22.
The training was conducted urgently under the assumption of an enemy air raid.
An armed mechanic, a group of four, rapidly equipped an F-5 fighter with the maximum number of arms, such as air-to-air missiles, air-to-ground bombs, etc., within the given time limit.
The Practice Generation is a training program to equip the maximum number of operable arms to fighters rapidly and accurately in the case of an emergency combat sortie.
In particular, the 10th FW, as a part of the core air force group responsible for airspace protection over the capital city, has been executing practice generations regularly in order to assure a rapid sortie in times of war.
Lieutenant Yun Ju-hoe, 207 maintenance company commander, said, “Our rapid sally back when an enemy makes an air raid is a key to the success of operation. Through repetitive training of armed soldiers, we will raise the degree of completion of reaction posture.“
2016-11-28 By Albert Santoli, President, Asia America Initiative
The Philippine archipelago of 7,000 islands and water passages of trade, defense and communications form a strategic crossroad vital to the security to the entire Pacific Region and the West Coast of the United States.
The strategic relationship between the United States and the Philippines is currently sliding into jeopardy due to political faux pas by both sides, aided by the clever manipulation of China.
A solution to maintaining people-to-people alliances is a citizen diplomacy approach. This includes anti-poverty and community-based good governance programs unrelated to political influence or funding by the US government.
Map of Philippines highlights key sea transit routes from Asia.
A modest-sized Virginia-based organization, Asia America Initiative, has devoted more than a decade of citizen diplomacy relationships with both Muslim and Christian communities in the Philippines. The tri-border area [with Malaysia and Indonesia] of Sulu is where AAI has based its most dynamic friendship programs.
We have a partnership of trust with local civic leaders and educators.
Among one of the most significant areas of the Philippines is the southern 125 islands of the Sulu archipelago, a fiercely independent-minded Muslim region dominated by the Tausug and Yakkan tribes [largely on Basilan island] that forms a scorpions tail between the former Spanish capitol of the Philippines, Zamboanga and the narrow Malacca Strait between Indonesia and Malaysia.
All maritime traffic between East and West Asia [including the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf] must transit this narrow passageway into the South China Sea, where China is building artificial islands to serve as naval stations and air force runways capable of threatening all of its neighbors from Southeast Asia to Japan and South Korea.
An estimated $5 trillion worth of goods are transported through South China Sea shipping lanes each year. This includes more than half the world’s annual merchant fleet tonnage and a third of all maritime traffic worldwide.
The alternative to the Malacca Straits is a seldom-used passage through Sulu Archipelago that transits the Celebes Sea toward the Pacific Ocean.
While Beijing has been steadily building an aggressive hegemonic presence to dominate the region, extremist Muslim organizations have entered the Muslim Mindanao region seeking to exploit intensive poverty – considered by the United Nations to rival the poorest nations in Africa – and strive for an independent caliphate.
During the past decade, US special operations forces made a variety of mistakes that enhanced corruption by local warlords. Diplomats and colonels in the US embassy traded permission to create barbed-wire mini-forts in Mindanao in exchange for ignoring the smuggling of meth-amphetamines “made in” China.
The meth trade, controlled largely by political bosses, created a plague of criminal violence that can divide communities through the fear of ruthless kidnap gangs. In 2016, this led to hostility toward the US by the new Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, the long-time mayor of Davao City in Mindanao where he was born.
In a familiar story related to the US “war on terror,” billions of dollars has been spent by USAID, the US State Department and the US military’s “soft power” programs.
However, corruption, mismanagement and the gap between rich and poor has dramatically grown.
This has provided a populist pulpit for President Duterte to blame all the country’s problems on US neo-colonialism.
He has visited China and Russia where he railed against the US and voiced the desire for a “strategic partnership” with Moscow, Beijing and Manila “against the world.”
Throughout this period, Asia America Initiative has maintained constructive relationships with the communities we assist, with full respect for their own dignity.
Our coordination teams consist of local teachers, nurses and community leaders who understand our stringent accountability procedures. Because we accept no US or Philippine government funds we are not obligated to play any game which reinforces corruption.
Even when the situation has grown closer to another full-scale war, I travel to our program areas to reinforce our message to residents that they are not alone and that progress is possible.
On September 6, 2016, one week after a terror bombing in the night market in Davao killed and wounded scores of people I arrived in Sulu on a crowded ferryboat. Across the Philippines, a fierce drug war has taken 3,000 lives.
I was the lone Westerner among 500 Muslim Filipino Moro people on a 5 hour ferry boat ride from Zamboanga. The province of 125 islands is arguably the most feared place in Southeast Asia.
The region was on edge with a new President and former “vigilante” Mayor of Davao, Roddy Duterte, swearing revenge against those who took credit for the Davao attack.
Planeload after planeload of hard-edged Filipino soldiers with heavy weapons was being rushed into the forests and hills surrounding the city of Jolo.
The echoing explosions of artillery could be heard day and night.
In the urban area kidnappings was a daily threat, with children as young as 5 years old victimized and the principal of the city’s largest elementary school receiving an anonymous text message death threat.
The Philippines as seen from a global perspective.
Some 4,000 families were internally displaced from the homes in the combat zones. They were given refuge in some of the 30 public schools – from pre-kindergarten nursery to college grad schools — that Asia America Initiative supports.
Practicing “Citizen Diplomacy,” we take no funds from either the US or Filipino government. It was my personal choice to provide assistance to displaced families and moral support to communities under siege to create “Child Friendly” Peace Zones.
Our main events in four days of non-stop activities were an open air “Education Fiesta” in the District of Indanan, and a “Health Fiesta” in the large open schoolyard of Mohammad Tulawie Central School where the principal had received the threat.
We could not have achieved these events without three trucks of local paramilitary police who secured our safety and also the shadowy presence of law-abiding Moro National Liberation Front guerillas who protected our flanks and made their presence known to back-off any potential Abu Sayyaf Group meth-head assassins.
The events were conducted without interruption. This is the Tausug tribal way.
We thank God and appreciate the teamwork of many groups who created our spontaneous “peace zones.”
Citizen Diplomacy, as Asia America Initiative conducts, is based on mutual respect, friendship proven over time. The key component is trust between those communities who cannot escape and their friends from abroad who choose to be with them and share the same risks.
Across the world, as politics, economics and bloody cultural feuds continue to fester, Great Power rivalries are playing out in proxy wars. Bilateral political and military relations can easily break down.
This is when modest-sized private organizations that have personal relationships built on years of trust within front-line communities can perform tremendous good.
On a humid afternoon at Sahaya Elementary School while I inspected the school’s garden and tool shed, artillery echoed from nearby mountains where many of the schools children live into the valley where we were chatting.
A faculty member, Ms. Jenny, asked if I regretted coming because no ferry would be departing the island for at least 20 hours.
“Can you leave?” I asked.
“No, Sir,” she responded.
“This our home and we have 200 school children too poor to buy a ticket, including my own son, who depend on us teachers.”
I looked at Jenny and her colleagues and said, “You are my friends. When times are difficult that is when I should be here. Not only when it is easy.”
Politics is never stable, but bonds of friendship built from these experiences cannot be broken.
As the strategic equation grows more complex in the Asia Pacific region the need for people to people relations grows more significant by each passing day. To achieve trust untainted by politics, private groups involved require independent private funding sources to expand their work.
At this critical time, such efforts are especially needed.
In 2017, Asia America Initiative hopes to double the number of communities and schools where we are having a positive impact with citizen diplomacy.
The strategic dislocation of the Middle East, the Putin Russian revival, the Brexit dynamic, the Euro crisis, the German migrant opening at the middle of Europe, the Chinese power grab, the Chinese economic malaise, the Japanese power reset and one could go on.
The point is that several trends are underway at the same time and they add up to a significant redefinition of the global scene, power and policy priorities.
We will probably see an Italian government fall next week after losing a key referendum which will Italy’s future role in Europe.
A French conservative is likely to become President next year who has an opportunity to shape a de Gaulle type moment as Europe and the Trans-Atlantic community enter a very different phase of development than the past 20 years.
The next decade will be QUITE different from the past two.
Donald Trump will become President in the midst of a significant period of global change and will have his own impact upon it.
He did not invent this decade; but he is coming to power within it.
It is a decade of disruptive change with or without Donald Trump.
It is not Trump who is challenging history; it is history which has challenged the United States.
President elect Trump is appointing new faces who are not simply camp followers. A case in point is the South Carolina governor to the post of US UN Ambassador.
It is no wonder that the American voters wanted a President who sees the need for fundamental change rather than continuity with the past four presidencies.
The “globalization” template shaped in the post Cold War period is becoming part of the historical past more rapidly than might have been expected.
President Obama stated in Europe that he hoped that President Trump would not revert to realpolitik, but that is clearly what is needed for the free world facing very active and pro-active non-liberal regimes and significant crises of legitimacy at home.
Historical change is a complicated process whereby when one enters a new era, new questions are posed and answers sought, rather than simply seeking new answers to former defining questions.
It is about shaping “order within chaos,” which was the title of my PhD dissertation.
In shaping a new structure for order, new templates are forged and new consensus shaped. It is an art; not a science.
It is clear that Trump has been elected precisely to lead an effort to shape something different from the regimes which preceded him in the post-Cold War order.
Nothing less than a redefinition of American power is in process.
This is coming in the wake of the clear arrival of a multi-power competitive world with an ongoing fight against terrorism which simply does not accept liberal societies, with a small l.
It is surprising then that the vast bulk of writing about Trump shaping a new team seems to be measuring him against the past 20 years when clearly he is trying to put together a team which can shape the next decade.
If he succeeds or fails is a reasonable question; but it is clear that America has elected its first information age war president and with it a team which follow in the path which he is shaping.
As Conrad Black put it well:
Mr. Trump was running against the Bush-McCain-Romney traditional Republicans, the Cruz far-right Republicans, the Clinton-Obama long-term management of the Democrats and the quasi-Marxist Sanders left of the Democrats, and almost all the press and polling organizations.
These were impossible odds against him, except that he won.
Now the same press, which got it wrong and was an attack dog during the campaign, is now pushing out a constant stream of “interpretations” of what Trump is doing or not doing.
The point is that he is trying to move America in a different direction and is trying to forge a team that can do so.
This means that rather than measuring him against the “Bush-McCain-Romney traditional Republicans, the Cruz far-right Republicans, the Clinton-Obama long-term management of the Democrats and the quasi-Marxist Sanders left of the Democrats,” analysis needs to be generated from the challenge of managing a strategic shift.
He has set a different objective for himself and his Administration: to set in motion a strategic shift for America where industry can thrive again, America defends its interests, agreements are transparent and not buried in the obscure language of multi-lateral agreements with no clear enforcement mechanism against non-liberal societies, and a defense team appointed designed to actually win a war against ISIS.
Again, he may succeed or fail; but it is against the template of change he will be judged not on how close he comes to the style, objectives, and criticisms of the “Bush-McCain-Romney traditional Republicans, the Cruz far-right Republicans, the Clinton-Obama long-term management of the Democrats and the quasi-Marxist Sanders left of the Democrats.
