Obama, Boris and “Brexit” (Updated)

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
04/24/2016

2016-04-24 By Kenneth Maxwell

President Barack Obama was in London this week on his way back from a visit to Saudi Arabia.

The visit to Britain was a valedictory visit of sorts.

It will probably his last visit to the United Kingdom as the President of the United States.

On Friday he took his presidential helicopter to Windsor Castle, together with his wife, Michelle, to see Queen Elizabeth II and her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh.

The 95 year-old Prince Phillip drove his wife and the Obamas back to the castle in his range-rover.

It was the day after Queen Elizabeth’s 90th birthday.

President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron at a college basketball game in Ohio in March 2012. Credit: Carolyn Kaster / Associated Press
President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron at a college basketball game in Ohio in March 2012. Credit: Carolyn Kaster / Associated Press

The Obamas then retuned to London for a private dinner with Prince William and Kate Middleton, otherwise known as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, at Kensington Palace.

They also met the young prince George.

The next day, Saturday, Obama went to the Globe Theatre in London, where he saw a brief performance of Hamlet on the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death in 1616.

And he then participated in very well successful meeting and discussion with hundreds of London school children.

But Obama’s main contribution was his declaration about “Brexit” at Downing Street on Friday afternoon, during a news conference with David Cameron, the British Prime Minister.

On June 23, 2016, Britain will vote in a referendum on whether Britain should leave or remain in the European Union. Barack Obama could not have been clearer.

He said that Britain would be weaker and less influential outside the European Community.

And he added that in terms of free trade deal with the US, something those campaigning for Britain to leave the EU are claiming would be an alternative for a post-EU Britain, he could not have been clearer.

He said that in terms of free trade deals wit the United States, Britain would be at “the back of the queue” using British, not American terminology, for Britain having to wait at the back of the line.

Since the ability of the UK to make trade deals outside the European Community has been one of the “Brexiters” main contentions, he undermined one of their principal arguments for a British exit.

The “Brexiters” were predictably furious.

The more so because they are mostly instinctively pro-American “Atlanticists.”

Obama’s point of view was, the “Brexiters” quickly claimed, the posturing of a “lame-duck” president.

Alexander Boris de Pfellel Johnson, better know as Boris Johnson, the outgoing conservative Mayor of London, who is also a highly paid journalist, had already struck a pre-emptive blow against Obama who he called “perverse” and a “hypocrite” in his expected opinion about Britain remaining in the EU.

He had accused Obama of being hostile to Britain because of his “part-Kenyan ancestry” which meant he claimed that Obama had an “ancestral dislike of the British Empire.”

Moreover, Obama had, Boris, claimed “removed the bust of Churchill” from the White House.

But the White House has already said that the story of the removal of Churchill’s bust was “100% untrue.” Churchill’s bust is still in the White House in the residence outside the Treaty Room.

One British reaction to the intervention of the President in UK electoral politics.
One British reaction to the intervention of the President in UK electoral politics.

Obama said that he had placed Martin Luther King’s bust in his office. Obama said that in any case, regarding Winston Churchill, that he “loved the guy.” Churchill’s grandson, the conservative member of parliament, Sir Nicolas Soames, who is in favour of Britain remaining within the EU, said that Boris Johnson’s comments were “deplorable” and were “completely idiotic.”

Ironically, Boris Johnson, was born on the East Side of Manhattan, and has US and well as British citizenship. He was recently involved in a tax dispute with the IRS. But has apparently now paid up.

He has said that he intends to renounce his American citizenship in order to prove his “commitment to Britain.”

He has made no secret of the fact that he is ambitious to succeed David Cameron as prime minister. His supporters think he is entertaining and humorous.

The President visits the Queen but without the right to swoop down in his full helicopter force. Credit: Express
The President visits the Queen but without the right to swoop down in his full helicopter force. Credit: Express

But his detractors think he is lazy, dishonest, and prone to use homophobic and racist language.

The British public can expect much more of this as the June referendum over Britain “in” or “out” of the EU approaches.

President Obama, who is very popular in Britain, has now made it very clear where the US stands on “Brexit.”  He was in fact absolutely right to say what he said. All foreign leaders have said the same thing.

But Boris Johnson and his pals have also made it clear where they stand.

And the tone of Boris’s response to President Obama’s intervention means that the debate has only one path ahead now. And that is down hill very fast.

Editor’s Note: The cartoon is from the following:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/22/europe/obama-british-reaction/

Editor’s Note: Three additional points can be added to the original article by Kenneth Maxwell.

The first is that the President learned that it is not a good idea to tick off a 90 old woman, particularly when she is the Queen of England.

Having long memories of what the President’s security air flotilla did to her lawn, she made it clear to the President that he was allowed only three helicopters on his return visit and would comply with her security requirements when eating at his and not imposing his own.

According to the Express:

Her majesty called the US president’s bevy of choppers “over the top”, meaning the Secret Service had to rethink their plans to land about six aircraft in the 300-year-old gardens of her main residence during his tour of the UK this week.

The Queen put her foot down and said there was no chance his extensive security backup would be accompanying him to Windsor Castle.

She said only three helicopters, including the president’s personal aircraft Marine One, could land on the lawn when Mr Obama, 54, and his wife, Michelle, 52, came for dinner with the Queen and Prince Philip to celebrate her 90th birthday.

Her insistence came after the president’s helicopters damaged the grass when half a dozen of them landed during his last visit in 2011.

The engines’ heat scorched the grounds and the wheels left divots in one of the UK’s oldest lawns, planted during the reign of Queen Anne in the early 1700s.

One royal source told the Daily Star Sunday: “It was a write-off and the Queen was not amused.”

An insider said US aides refused to change their plans on security grounds but came around to the Queen’s wishes eventually

How nice of the “US aides” to remember to recognize that they were not visiting an off-site American facility!

“She rarely imposes her will but when she does people listen – it just took the US Secret Service agents a little time to realise that.”

 http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/663896/Queen-banned-Obama-helicopters-Windsor-Castle

Obviously, these people have never had grandmothers!

But then it got even more amusing, when the 94 year old Prince Philip insisted on picking up the President and driving in his own Land Rover.

And behind was the President Limo anxiously following the 90 plus Prince consort! 

Prince Phillip playing host.
Prince Philip playing host.

 

The second is that always be wary of the political analogy which can be bounced off of your words.

Did some of the key Brexit supporters really put in front of the British public that the glorious opportunity to pursue and Albanian model could be theirs?

According to Maxwell, Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary in Cameron’s government, and another leading “Brexiteer”, said earlier in the week in a major speech that outside the EU Britain “would thrive.” He said that The “UK would join Bosnia, Serbia, Albania and the Ukraine” in a European free trade zone.

His critics were quick to point out the “Albanian model” for a post-EU Britain.

It is surprising that he (or Boris Johnson) did not also revive the memory of Ahmet Huhtar Zogolli, King Zog, the self proclaimed King of Albania from 1928-1939, who settled into the “Ritz Hotel” in London during the Second World War before leaving for exile in Egypt (at the time of King Farouk) and died in France in 1961.

The third is that when is a referendum not really the final word? When it is a British referendum.

The British constitution has a very long history and it is about the role of Parliament in making laws, not about direct election of the Prime Minister or of laws which will govern the realm.

This means that even if the British public or more accurately some percentage of the British voting republic does vote for the Bretex option, that is merely the beginning of sorting out what really will happen. Although David Cameron would be gone, and most likely elections held, the next Parliament and government would sort out the way ahead with the recommendation from the referendum as a key data point.

Does this mean Britain leaves the Commission and stays in the Council of Ministers? Does it mean both? IF Britain remains as part of the Council of Ministers it could be in Europe but out of the Commission, which might be more than enough to satisfy the way ahead and perhaps act as a jolt to the rest of the Commission member countries.

After all, what is really at stake is how well the Commission have served the citizens of the European nations and whether the Commission has outlived its usefulness in its current form in any case.

 

 

 

Boeing, Denmark and Reaching Out to Danish Voters: An Unprecedented Ad Campaign

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
04/23/2016

2016-04-23 Unless you read and speak Danish or have friends in Denmark, you might have missed this one.

Boeing is reinventing itself in Denmark using its American approach in Nordic country.

Instead of the Vikings invading Anglo-Saxon territory, we are seeing something in reverse.

When companies compete to sell their products, systems or services in the defense sector, they do many things in terms of public relations.

But Boeing is doing something quite unusual in Denmark – they are using their time-tested approach used in the United States now in Denmark.

But Denmark is not the United States.

When Boeing lost the tanker competition to Airbus, they pushed hard on the “American tanker” line and appealed directly to American voters and Congressman that the “right tanker” for America was the “tanker built in America.”

One could point out that the USAF is still waiting for their new tanker several years later, while the world’s air forces, including Arab ones, are flying the new Airbus tanker.

What works in America, why not try abroad?

We now learn from Boeing’s ads in Denmark that the Danish taxpayer will save a lot of money if the Danish Air Force buys F-18s and that money can then be used for schools and hospitals.

One can be sure the Danish government loves having Boeing appeal over the heads of the government to the Danish voters!

As Hans Tino Hansen of Risk Intelligence has put it with regard to the Boeing approach:

“What Boeing does not understand is that the Danish public expects the politicians to take this kind of decision. It is not about winning an ad campaign.

With these advertisements, it is turning the Danish public off rather than animating them.

It is actually detrimental to their own interests.

Danish citizens do not want foreign companies telling how to spend Danish taxpayer money.

They do not want a defense product pushed down their throats.”

Even Sputnik News has picked up on this.

Today, pictures of Boeing fighter jets adorn the front pages of a number of national newspapers in Denmark. With the country’s stock of ageing F-16 slowly approaching the end of their lifetime, Denmark’s armed forces are looking forward to a more state-of-the-art replacement.

The choice lies between three warplanes, namely the Joint Strike Fighter (produced by US Lockheed Martin), the Eurofighter Typhoon (produced by Airbus in partnership with a pan-European consortium) and the F/A-18 Super Hornet (produced by Boeing), with the F-35A Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter) generally regarded as the front-runner.

Besides, Denmark has been a partner nation in the F-35 program since 1997, contributing an estimated 291 million dollars to the development project….

Although the decision is solely up to the politicians in Copenhagen, Boeing is leaving no stone unturned in its massive campaign, which is addressed to the entire Danish population.

According to Tom Bell, Head of Boeing’ global sales and marketing department, the decision is so important that all of the Danish population ought to be involved.

It is our impression that an expense of such proportions concerns both the politicians and the population, and we hope the campaign will lead to an open and honest debate about the huge cost to the Danish taxpayers,” he said, explaining that Boeing has never launched campaigns of such a scale before.

The Mi17 chosen as the best helicopter for the Afghan forces.
The Mi17 chosen as the best helicopter for the Afghan forces.

Boeing believes that its radio and media outreach to the “average Danish citizen” is an appropriate step to take in playing its role as the custodian for Danish defense and budget.

Actually, Boeing has missed the core point: they have no role as custodian of the Danish budget!

To put this in perspective: the Russians provided combat helicopters for the Afghans paid for by DoD funds.

Many US manufacturers did not like this and worked the normal way to try to change DoD policy.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/11/03/russia-delivers-last-of-u-s-bought-helicopters-to-afghan-military/

So to continue with this analogy, the Russian firm to make its case takes out ads in many American newspapers and on radio, to argue that buying Russian helicopters versus those produced in America will save millions on hospitals and other civilian projects.

I am sure there would have been no reaction in the United States to such tactics.

Editor’s Note: The Williams Foundation of Canberra, Australia and the Centre for Military Reform, Copenhagen, Denmark, held a seminar on the future of airpower last year which addressed the challenges facing allies and how the evolution of airpower could aid in dealing with those challenges.

At the symposium, Ed Timperlake provided an overview of the kinds of challenges facing 21st century airpower, and it is against the evolving threat environment where a defense capability needs to be measured in terms of its adequacy or not.

It is not a voting contest.

For a copy of this report, please go here:

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/integrating-innovative-airpower-a-report-from-the-copenhagen-airpower-symposium/

Shakespeare at 400

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
04/21/2016

2016-04-21 By Kenneth Maxwell

April 23, 2016, will mark the four hundred years since the death of William Shakespeare in Stratford-upon-Avon. There will be many celebrations.

Not only was Shakespeare the greatest writer in the English language.

Shakespeare-poster-web

He has also been gloriously translated into many foreign languages, including most notably into Portuguese by the great Brazilian poet, Manuel Bandeira. But the commemorations bring back memories of my school days.

I went to a private boarding school in the southwest of England. I was there mainly because I failed my “11- plus examination” with meant I would not be admitted to the local “Grammar School.” The examination was intended to separate the “brighter” students from “the rest,” who would be streamed into a “secondary modern” schools, which they would leave at 15 year of age and destined for more “mundane” jobs.

The system was abolished in the 1980s in an effort to “democratize” secondary education.

The overall effect was, however, to greatly stimulate private education at the secondary level, and diminish the quality of education which had long been the hallmark of a public “Grammar School” education, something which William Shakespeare had enjoyed in the late sixteenth century in Stratford-upon-Avon.

In fact I may inadvertently have had a role in the ending of the “11- plus” examination. A family friend of my room mate at Cambridge University, George Thomas, was a labour member of parliament and was later the Speaker of the House of Commons.  He introduced broadcasting into the proceedings of parliament.

George Thomas had been a poor scholarship boy from a broken family in industrial South Wales. He was shocked when I told him of my failure of the “11-plus” examination, and he was very impressed that despite this early setback I was now a student at Cambridge University.

I was very lucky that my parents could afford (with difficulty at times) to sent me to a private school. But one of the great and permanent advantages of this was that I was able between the ages of 12 and 18 to play various roles in the school’s annual Shakespeare play.

I began as “Miranda” in “The Tempest” (it was an all boys school at the time). And I ended my school career playing Henry V, which was notable because we had the first girls from the local private girls school playing the female roles.

Kate, the daughter of the King of France, who after Henry’s victory at the battle of Agincourt was to marry Henry, was played by Diana Hoddinott, who later became famous as a professional actress.

She played Annie Hacker, the wife of  the government mister, and later prime minster, in the wildly successful and hilarious BBC TV sitcom  “Yes Minister” and “Yes Prime Minister” in the 1980s.

Paul Eddington played Jim Hacker, her husband, and Nigel Hawthorn played Sir Humphrey Appleby, his permanent civil service secretary. Jim Hacker “thought” as a minister, as later as the prime minister, that he ran the country.

Sir Humphrey “knew” that it was the civil service that in fact did so.

I had been invited to join the National Youth Theatre while at school.

But since I had already been offered a place at St Johns College, Cambridge University, I turned down the opportunity. I had intended to continue with acting after I went up to Cambridge. And I had gone for an audition.

But I was entirely put off by the arrogance of the then chairman of the Cambridge Dramatic Society, Corin Redgrave, one of the decidedly lesser talents of that very talented theatrical dynasty. He sat in majesty, on a very large throne, in the middle of a very small stage, from which he was reviewing the performances of the applicants.

I left before it was my turn. I did not act again thereafter.

But I never forgot Shakespeare’s plays or the parts I played in them at school.

It was the very best part of my education. And a truly magnificent introduction to the English language. Miranda in “The Tempest” was very first role in my very first play. I was thirteen at the time .

“The Tempest” was Shakespeare’s last play written in 1610-11. It was based in part on the ship-wreak of the “Sea Venture” on the island of Bermuda in 1609, during a ferocious Atlantic hurricane, while en route for the new settlement of Jamestown, Virginia.

Screen Shot 2016-04-21 at 1.21.45 PM

My sister, who is the family historian, recently discovered that among those marooned on Bermuda was Henry Bagwell, the grandson of Thomas Chappell, the mayor of Exeter, one of our ancestors. He was among those who constructed the pinnace “The Deliverance,” from out of the salvaged wood from the wreak of the “Sea Venture” and from Bermuda cedar.

When “The Deliverance” eventually reached Jamestown, Virginia, in 1610, those from the Bermuda ship-wreak found that only 50 of the 500 early English settlers at Jamestown had survived the winter.

Henry Bagwell was later to become the first clerk of the county court of Accawmack, Virginia.

But I well remember the words of Caliban from Shakespeare’s “The Tempest” from all those years ago:

“The clouds methought would open and show riches

Ready to drop upon me; that when I wak’d,

I cried to dream again.”

Credit for second graphic:

http://graphicshakespeare.tumblr.com

 

 

The Way Ahead for the Joint Land Combat Force: The Perspective of the Australian Army Chief, Lt. General Angus Campbell

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
04/20/2016

2016-04-20 By Robbin Laird

The well-regarded chief of the Australian Army, Lt. General Angus Campbell, weighed in on the future of the Australian Army in the joint environment in two presentations recently in Canberra.

The first was during the RAAF’s 2016 Air Power Conference and the second was during the Williams Foundation seminar on new approaches to air-ground integration.

For the Chief of Staff of the Army, it about having the “right effect, at the right place and the right time” for the joint ground force, whereby he clearly meant the joint maneuver force.

He underscored that the core challenge was the co-evolution of the ground, air and naval forces to deliver a timely capability against the tasks or missions in the area of interest.

Chief of Army, Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, DSC, AM, at the range during Exercise Jericho Dawn at Puckapunyal, Victoria, on 18 March 2016. *** Local Caption *** The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and the Australian Army, with support from Northrop Grumman, have successfully conducted a firepower demonstration and a combat team quick attack demonstration at Puckapunyal Military Area in Victoria as part of Exercise Jericho Dawn to display the powerful effects of integrated air and land operations. The live fire exercise allowed RAAF and Army operators, together with Defence and Industry representatives, to observe the combined air and land capabilities in two scenarios. The operators demonstrated the current capabilities, before trialling new ways to improve air-land integration, including the way that aircraft and vehicles connect and translate information through different communication networks.
Chief of Army, Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, DSC, AM, at the range during Exercise Jericho Dawn at Puckapunyal, Victoria, on 18 March 2016.  The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and the Australian Army, with support from Northrop Grumman, have successfully conducted a firepower demonstration and a combat team quick attack demonstration at Puckapunyal Military Area in Victoria as part of Exercise Jericho Dawn to display the powerful effects of integrated air and land operations. Credit: Australian Ministry of Defence

He argued that the technology was outpacing our concepts of operations and argued that if Wellington came back to see operations in World War II, he would see a decisive difference in how the ground forces operated in the combined arms context.

But that if one would look from World II to now, although the technology had changed dramatically, the differences in concepts of operations are not as significant as the changes in technology would allow.

He argued that we needed to become significantly more innovative in our conceptual thinking to find ways to better leverage technology and to prepare to better use advancing technologies and capabilities.

Here he saw two great opportunities.

The first is to break the hold of incrementalism and imagine significant disruption driven by dynamics of change being introduced in the man-machine relationship. He argued, in effect, that we need to think from the future back into our current thinking to shape a better way ahead in the joint arena.

The second is to move from the very divergent data, communications and related systems to shape more convergent efforts, in effect, to shape more effective co-evolution of the key elements of combat power.

And to shape a more effective joint land force it is crucial to determine where the key capabilities might most effectively be placed, throughout the multi-dimensional combat force.

Lt General Angus Campbell, Chief of the Army, addresses the question of innovation and modernization for the ADF,
Lt General Angus Campbell, Chief of the Army, addresses the question of innovation and modernization for the ADF,

“In some cases, we are looking for the touch points where best to evolve a capability,” by which he meant that rather than looking for organic upgrades to each platform, the challenge was to look at the joint force and determine which elements of the evolving capability can perform optimal tasks within the overall force capability.

He argued for the increasingly important role of the small, mobile unit within the ground forces, which can leverage the joint assets and, in turn, can contribute to the other joint forces in shaping more effective fire or situational awareness solutions.

He argued that the evolution of software was a key element in the joint space, and that ways needed to be found to more rapidly evolve software in the joint space to provide for the joint effect.

And the “T” or transformation factor was crucial. Rapidity of operations was a key element of the way ahead, and it was important for the joint land force to be able to function more rapidly, with greater effect and in a variety of situations in which connectivity would be degraded.

“The small group needs to train to operate in degraded situations and to operate with as great a capability to not be detected as possible.”

The integration of air, naval and ground power was crucial to the way ahead, and the Australian Army’s battle management lab had RAAF officers involved on the ground floor shaping the way ahead.

Clearly, for the Australian Army chief, the Army is an embedded joint force, and with the new RAAF and Royal Australian Navy capabilities coming on line, would become more so.

Meanwhile back Inside the Beltway a discussion on Breaking Defense seemed in one instance to reflect the thinking Down Under.

According to Lt. General Deptula and Doug Birkey’s characterization:

“Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster issued a warning April 5 to the Senate Armed Services Airland subcommittee saying that the service will be  “…outranged and outgunned by many potential adversaries in the future….”

This statement garnered much attention in the media, but it artificially assesses Army capabilities in a stovepipe and fails to account for the realities of joint power projection.

Bottom line: the individual services don’t fight wars, the Combatant Commanders do by assembling an optimized mix of forces from each of the services to execute a given strategy to attain a desired set of conditions against a specific threat.”

The authors went to argue that “To put it simply, a soldier on the ground working in coordination with a B-1, B-52, the assets of a carrier air wing, or standoff munitions from a ship is afforded immense range and overwhelming firepower.

Those capabilities assembled as a joint task force create a synergy greater than any single service component alone.  In short, the combatant commands will never allow the US Army to be “outranged and outgunned.”

In Australia, the argument by Deptula and Birkey is simply ground truth from which the Australian Army is building its future.

And the Williams Foundation seminar on new approaches to air-ground integration simply builds from this point:

Air forces need to be capable of delivering air and space power effects to support conventional and special operations in the land domain. Air-Land integration is one of the most important capabilities for successful joint operations.

The last decade has seen a significant shift in how airpower has supported ground operations.

With the introduction of systems like Rover, the ability of airpower to provide precision strike in conjunction with ground forces saw a significant change in dramatic effects possible from a wide variety of air platforms.

Precision air dropping in support of outposts or moving forces introduced new capabilities of support.

This template of air ground integration is really focused on air operating in conjunction with ground whereas with the shift in the global situation, a much wider set of situations are emerging whereby the air-ground integration approach will become much wider in character, and the ability to insert force rapidly, as a precision strike capability, and to be withdrawn will be a key tool in the toolbox for decision makers.

Fifth generation enabled operations will see a shift to a distributed C2 approach which will clearly change the nature of the ground-to air command system, and with the ability of fifth generation systems to generate horizontal communications among air assets outside the boundaries of a classic AWACs directed system, the change in C2 will be very wide ranging.”

In other words, the co-evolution of the services was crucial in shaping a more effective force, and one capable of operating more effectively in a more timely manner.

Note: For the presentation of the Chief of Staff of the Australian Army’s presentation to the RAAF Airpower Conference 2016, you can listen here:

https://app.box.com/s/auj2inov49kzoxgb4mw2dm8k6jd3y8fz

 

New Approaches to Air-Land Integration: A Williams Seminar on 5th Generation Enabled Combat Operations

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
04/16/2016

On March 17, 2016, the Williams Foundation held its latest seminar on fifth generation enabled combat operations, this one focused on new approaches to air-land integration. The terms of reference for the seminar highlighted the way ahead.

“Air forces need to be capable of delivering air and space power effects to support conventional and special operations in the land domain. Air-Land integration is one of the most important capabilities for successful joint operations.

The last decade has seen a significant shift in how airpower has supported ground operations. With the introduction of systems like Rover, the ability of airpower to provide precision strike to the ground forces saw a significant change in fire support from a wide variety of air platforms. Precision air dropping in support of outposts or moving forces introduced new capabilities of support.

Yet this template of air ground is really focused on air support to the ground whereas with the shift in the global situation, a much wider set of situations are emerging whereby the air-ground integration approach will become much wider in character, and the ability to insert force rapidly, as a precision strike capability, and to be withdrawn will be a key tool in the toolbox for decision makers.

Fifth generation enabled operations will see a shift to a distributed C2 approach which will clearly change the nature of the ground-to air command system, and the with the ability of fifth generation systems to generate horizontal communications among air assets outside the boundaries of a classic AWACs directed system, the change in C2 will be very wide ranging.”

This seminar is the fourth in a series of assessments and discussions of evolving approaches to 21st century combat capabilities under the influence of fifth generation air capabilities.

The Williams Foundation hosted a seminar early in 2014, which focused on air combat operations through 2025 and identified key impacts, which the new platforms of the RAAF and the coming of the F-35 would enable in transforming the force.

In April 2015, the Williams Foundation co-sponsored a seminar in Denmark to discuss the evolution of airpower.

https://sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Copenhagen-Airpower-Symposium.pdf

And then in August 2015 the Williams Foundation sponsored a seminar where the RAAF could discuss in public its approach and involved a large number of officers debating the way ahead.

https://sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Plan-Jericho-Report-October-2015.pdf

The latest seminar followed the two-day RAAF Airpower Conference, which addressed a broad range of airpower issues, and during the second day explicitly looked at the RAAF’s transformation approach, Plan Jericho.

The former Chief of Staff of the Royal Australian Air Force, Geoff Brown, was the organizer for the event, and provided navigation throughout the day through the diverse presentations, as well as providing significant input to the final event of the day, the panel with senior leaders.

The current Chief of Staff of the RAAF, Air Marshal Leo Davies, provided an overview on the RAAF’s approach to transformation and his priority on shaping new approaches to operating with the ground forces.  It is not just about having a new fleet; it is about shaping new capabilities for the joint force, but one, which is to be understood as multi-dimensional, and not simply about who is supporting whom in a particular operation.

Several themes stood out from the Seminar.

The first was how significant the rethink on Army’s part really is.

The Chief of Staff clearly underscored that the land wars of the past decade are not the template for moving forward and saw the need and opportunity to shape new ways to integrate airpower with ground maneuver forces in providing for more effective capabilities in the contested battlespace.

The second was the reshaping of Army modernization to achieve the force envisaged by the Army Chief of Staff.

Brigadier General Mills, the head of Army Modernization, provided a hard hitting look at the Army and how the evolving force could shape a more distributed operational and decision making force, one which he saw as providing for 21st century ground maneuver forces.

The third was the clear synergy between the USMC and Plan Jericho.

Lt. General Davis, Deputy Commandant of Aviation, provided a comprehensive and hard hitting presentation on how the Marine Corps was evolving under the influence of the new technologies, the Osprey and the F-35, and how the focus of the Corps was upon “equipping the 21st century Marine,” rather than “manning the equipment.”

Davis highlighted that the Corps was working at the seams of air-land-sea integration, and described how he thought the tiltrotar revolution started with the Osprey would continue. He also provided an update on how the F-35 was fitting into the USMC’s overall approach to transformation.

He noted that the young pilots for the F-35 were already pushing the envelope on Close Air Support, and flying the F-35 into Nellis ranges through complicated red threats and being able to come out the other side and provide the maneuver force with various types of support, fires, ISR and C2.

The fourth was a clear response to industry to the Plan Jericho challenge to evolve differently in relationship to the evolution of the Australian Defense Force.

The Northrop Grumman presentation provided a clear look at the evolution of C2 capabilities in line with a transformed force; the Rockwell Collins presentation looked at how the JTAC role will change with new technologies; the L3 presentation provided a look at how commercial technologies could be leveraged to provide for the kind of cost effective and dynamic technological innovation which could support the connectivity needs for the RAAF.

The co-leaders of Plan Jericho Group Captains Jake Campbell and Pete Mitchell underscored that indeed C2 transformation was emerging as a key thread for transformation in shaping a way ahead.

There were other threads to the discussion which included the evolution of training to build a 21st century force, the evolution of the remotely piloted aircraft to work in an evolving battlespace, the challenge of ensuring that we get the right information to the right people at the right time, the evolution of Army force projection with the new RAAF airlift capabilities, and the future of providing for forward air control from the air in the contested battlespace.

What is clear is that the Aussies are at the cutting edge of the rethink of how to reshape an integrated 21st century force.

In this report, the main highlights generated by the seminar and discussion are augmented by a number of interviews conducted during and after the presentations at either the Air Power Conference or the Williams Seminar. As such, the report provides an overview on how the RAAF and the Australian Army are thinking about the transformation of the joint force.

The Australian Army Modernizes for the 21st Century Battlespace: An Interview with Brigadier General Chris Mills, Australian Army

Posted on | by Robbin Laird

2016-04-16 By Robbin Laird

The current Chief of Staff of the Army, Lt. General Angus Campbell and Brigadier General Chris Mills, Director General, Army Modernization provided the Australian Army perspective on the evolving framework for air-land integration under the impact of evolving technologies at the Williams Foundation seminar.

The Chief of Staff clearly underscored that the land wars of the past decade are not the template for moving forward and saw the need and opportunity to shape new ways to integrate airpower with ground maneuver forces in providing for more effective capabilities in the contested battlespace.

The reshaping of Army modernization to achieve the force envisaged by the Army Chief of Staff was provided as well by Brigadier General Mills in his presentation. He provided a hard hitting look at the Army and how the evolving force could shape a more distributed operational and decision-making force, one which he saw as providing for 21st century ground maneuver forces.

I had a chance to follow-up on his presentation to discuss further the approach, which Mills outlined at the seminar, in a meeting at his office on March 21, 2016.

It was clear from Mills presentation that he was thinking beyond the experience of the past decade towards where the technology and new concepts of operations could take the Australian Defense Force.

He emphasized that his background of the past decade was important, but he did not want to be captured by it. We have argued that the approach, which makes sense, is “Harvest the Best and Leave the Rest,” which clearly is his approach.

https://sldinfo.com/how-to-build-a-nike-perspective-for-rebuilding-the-post-afghanistan-us-military/

http://www.sldforum.com/how-to-build-a-nike-perspective-for-rebuilding-the-post-afghanistan-us-military/

https://sldinfo.com/“democratizing-the-battlefield”-the-rover-experience/

He highlighted both in the seminar and in the interview the importance of empowering the smaller maneuver group with technology and decision-making capabilities so that the effect, which can be created from joint fires and empowerment, can flow up and down the kill web.

We recently discussed the COIN experience with an experienced US Army officer who highlighted that he was concerned that the US Army was going back to its large stove pipes of separate platforms and specialties.

He argued that the real meaning for US Army officers from the COIN experience was the empowerment of the Forward Operating Base command elements.

“Junior officers were in charge of integrated operations and joint operations in their area of operations.

Now they are being sent back to Pentagon stove pipes.

This makes no sense, and is going the wrong way.

We need to empower the integrative capabilities of the small group, not put obliterate the role of the small group by putting them under the thumb of division headquarters and Pentagon stove pipes.”

This US Army officer went on to note that an Aussie Army officer trained him during his early years in the Army and that the Aussies focus on the battalion level and its importance.

“We need a similar focus in our modernization approach and strategy,” was the view of this US Army officer.

If this officer had been in the room with BG Mills, I am sure he would have found an intellectual soul mate.

During the briefing, Mills included a slide which would not appear in a typical Army briefing, for in this slide, the F-35 and naval fire support were prominently highlighted.

Mills Slide

Question: You put up a slide, which highlighted a very comprehensive look at joint fires and support to the ground maneuver forces.

How do you view the way ahead?

BG Mills: We need to move beyond the label of air land integration and look at joint integration or multi-domain integration.

We need to focus on the reality of what it looks like at the small team, combat team level, with regard to multi-domain integration with joint effects from JSF or from the Air Destroyer or from overhead surveillance systems.

I think the reality is that as we move beyond this decade, those type of joint effects need to empower the small team to achieve tactical success as the array of tactical successes transcend into an operational impact.

So a number of what would be seen as operational effects I think in the fullness of time will transcend all the way down to the small team, combat team level.

Hence, when a combat team commander who is about to attack a city block can potentially compartmentalize all the electronic emissions going out from that block to know exactly where the threat is.

Then he can look at a whole range of joint fires both lethal and non-lethal to support them in achieving their objectives.

Brigadier General Mills, Australian Army, addressing the question of Army modernization under the influence of evolving air capabilities.

Brigadier General Mills, Australian Army, addressing the question of Army modernization under the influence of evolving air capabilities.

Question: What you talking about is shaping the right kind of joint force package designed to achieve a particular mission set in a timely manner?

Answer: The overall challenge is to generate more force, more rapidly, and more effectively when called to do so. That is the joint mission; it is not just about the Army.

Question: In some ways, what you are describing is taking the mental furniture of the Special Forces and applying more broadly to the Army?

Answer: That is a fair way to put it. The Special Forces are generally able to channel a whole range of joint effects for their particular tactical tasks.

They might have strategic effects but the reality is we need to take as you said that mental framework and apply that to what we call the joint land force.

All of those services that are collectively working to fight with Army to fight the land battle is referred to within the ADF context as the joint land force. That joint land force is by nature purple.

Although it was predominated by army people the reality is it needs to work as a joint organization and I would like to go back to the point you discussed.

Not only do you have to package this small team, but this small team has to be capable of dynamically repackaging the force on the fly with joint effects. For example, if you now need additional EW, the combat team will able to leverage additional EW from the joint force.

You now need the ability to coordinate direct air land integration fires and you need more F-35 support to deliver that effect.

The reality is that we potentially need to look at as we move beyond this decade of pushing support further down from division level and making it more readily available and more dynamically available to the small group level.

The time responsiveness of an Air Tasking Order that’s 72 hours old is really not going to make it.

I would suggest that time line needs to be radically truncated.

The Chief of Army made the point at the Airpower Conference that in many ways we are still using procedures and approaches that go back to World War II for air-ground operations; this makes no sense in terms of technological advances and operational shifts.

We need to shape a 21st century approach.

It is as a said, not about air-land integration, it is multi-domain integration at the small group operating level.

Question: A key question involves C2 and information parsimony. It is really about empowering the maneuver group with in the words of Air Commander Australia, “right information at the right time.”

Answer: The importance will be on the filter that can potentially gather up all of this data.

What’s the most important time sensitive information I need?

The ability to pull data that’s relevant to the combat situation at the time, and to use rapidly is what we need, not vast collections of data to be examined by historians.

That’s going to be a key for us because we’ve got so many senses now that are currently connected to our C2 systems within the ADF we’re potentially overwhelming ourselves.

We are reaching the maximum capacity of our processing exploitation and dissemination capability.

We need to provide that filter and connect information up to provide intelligence.

Latency is important here. It might be the best bit of intelligence but if it arrives too late it’s worthless.

Question: During your presentation at the Williams Foundation seminar, you showed a small UAV which costs around $12,000 which can be used by the small combat group.

You made the point that it was not just about enabling the small group, but opening up the possibility that the close contact picture might be then available to support the overhead or sea-based strike force.

Could you discuss your thinking here?

Answer: When that information stops becoming just important to that squad leader, platoon commander or company, it can become crucial for divisional commanders as well.

Suddenly the squad leader has identified a hot priority target. I’ve got imagery of a high priority target, hot value target that’s time sensitive from the squad commander.

How long does it take currently to pass that information up to the strike element?

This will only happen if the squad leader can jump the net and move directly to the fire cell within division so that that he can talk directly to the divisional asset and potentially the plane overhead, to coordinate the fires.

I think it’s this issue to work out the decision loop.

You want to connect the key people that need to be involved in a particular joint fire and potentially jump those who need the information but do not need to make a decision.

BG Mills closed by noting that he had nothing but respect for the U.S. military and its performance during his time of service in the Middle East.

“I have had the great privilege to work with some amazing US generals and some amazing US men and women in uniform.

I am in awe over what the US military has achieved in the past two decades supported by the American people.

I have learned a lot working with the United States military.”

Given the perspective of BG Mills, the slide, which we developed to capture the discussions with the RAAF and in the seminar generally, can be applied to the ground maneuver force as well as to considering the evolution of the RAAF itself.

The Extended Battlespace

The biography of Brigadier General Chris Mills:

Brigadier Chris Mills was born in Brisbane, Queensland, on 10 June 1969. Following graduation from university Brigadier Mills resigned his commission in the Reserves to enlist in the Regular Army and train at the Royal Military College Duntroon. He graduated from Duntroon to the Royal Australian Armoured Corps in June 1991. Brigadier Mills attended the Australian Command and Staff College in 2004 and attained a Masters of Management. Brigadier Mills has served in a range of regimental, training and staff appointments within Army and has served on a number of Joint and Inter-Agency headquarters.

Post staff college, Brigadier Mills was employed as the Military Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Army and worked within the Directorate of Capability and Development, Future Land Warfare, in Army Headquarters. In 2009-10 Brigadier Mills was privileged to be the commander of 2nd/14th Light Horse Regiment (Queensland Mounted Infantry).

Brigadier Mills was promoted to Colonel on 17 January 2011 and assigned the position of Director Military Commitments Army; responsible for overseeing Army’s commitments to operations, domestic tasks and exercises, and managing Army’s preparedness reporting.

In 2013, Brigadier Mills was appointed the J73 in Headquarters Joint Operations Command, responsible for the design, planning and conduct of Joint and Combined Exercises. In 2015, he graduated from the Centre for Defence and Strategic Studies and completed a Masters of Business Administration.

He was promoted to his current rank with effect 18 January 2016 and assumed the positions of Director General Modernisation and Director General Land 400.

Brigadier Mills has had operational experience in Bosnia and Afghanistan.

In 1999 he was employed within a British Armoured Infantry Battle Group in Bosnia.

In 2007 he deployed as Deputy Chief Plans within Headquarters International Security Assistance Force Afghanistan (ISAF).

Over the period August 2012 to August 2013 he deployed to Afghanistan as the Headquarters Regional Command South Chief of Future Operations, responsible for Divisional level planning and operationalizing base closure.

His academic achievements include a Bachelor of Science, Masters of Management and a Masters of Business Administration. His leisure interests include military history, rugby, distance running and a variety of other outdoor activities.

Also, see the following:

http://defence.frontline.online/blogs/626-%5Bfield_first_name%5D-Laird/4494-Aussies%3A%20%20Joint%20Land%20Combat%20Force

 

 

An Update on Plan Jericho From the Perspective of Jericho Dawn: A Discussion with Group Captains Campbell and Mitchell

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
04/15/2016

2016-04-15  By Robbin Laird

During the Airpower Conference hosted by the Chief of Staff of the Royal Australian Air Force, the co-leaders of the Plan Jericho project, Group Captains Andrew “Jake” Campbell and Peter Mitchell, provided an update on the Plan Jericho effort.

And the approach permeated the discussion at the Williams Foundation seminar on new approaches to air-land integration, notably because there has been a significant effort to better align the airlift and support sector with the evolving approach of the Army and its approach to ground maneuver warfare.

But what highlighted in many ways the approach and the way ahead was seen on Friday after the Airpower Conference and the Williams Seminar, namely in a Jericho Dawn exercise which focused on ways to provide better situational awareness for the ground maneuver force.

I had a chance at the end of the Williams Foundation seminar and the following week AFTER the Jericho Dawn exercise to talk with the co-leads about the exercise and its place and significance within the Plan Jericho effort.

The exercise involved changing how the air and ground communicated with one another in the maneuver space. As such, the exercise could seem to be a look at new technologies to connect the force.

But this would miss the real point of the effort, which is the reshaping the concept of operations and the co-evolution of the ground and air forces.

And the reshaping effort requires an ongoing operational training regime to understand what further changes are required to ensure that the air-ground maneuver forces work in an effective manner.

It is about technological enablement, but changing the culture and approach of the forces as they work the new technology into new approaches.

With regard to the Jericho Dawn exercise delivered on March 18, 2016, the Australian Ministry of Defence described the exercise as follows:

The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and the Australian Army, with support from Northrop Grumman, have successfully conducted a firepower demonstration and a combat team quick attack demonstration at Puckapunyal Military Area in Victoria as part of Exercise Jericho Dawn to display the powerful effects of integrated air and land operations.

The live fire exercise allowed RAAF and Army operators, together with Defence and industry representatives, to observe the combined air and land capabilities in two scenarios.

 The operators demonstrated the current capabilities, before trialling new ways to improve air-land integration, including the way that aircraft and vehicles connect and translate information through different communication networks.

 Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Leo Davies AO, CSC, said that the demonstration showcased existing air-land operations technologies and processes, and the operational gains that have already been achieved through better integration of systems and information.

Group Captain Peter Mitchell, co-head of the Jericho project, speaking on the second day of the RAAF Airpower Conference, March 16, 2016.
Group Captain Peter Mitchell, co-head of the Jericho project, speaking on the second day of the RAAF Airpower Conference, March 16, 2016.

 “Through today’s demonstration we were able to provide a visualisation of the effects of some of the Australian Defence Force’s capabilities,” Air Marshal Davies said.

 The lessons identified from the activity will help shape Defence’s future capability decisions and improve existing training activities.

 “Demonstrations such as today are an important means of testing and displaying joint effects.

 “We are building on the Air Force’s international reputation for being good at what we currently do, and asking important questions about taking Air Force’s contribution to joint operations even further.

 “If this kind of training exercise shows us something we can do that would help Air Force, Army and Navy fight better as a team, then that’s what we will pursue.”

 The Australian Army’s Head Modernisation and Strategic Planning, Major General Gus McLachlan, AM, said that greater air-land integration is an important step towards the Army and the ADF working in a joint, combined and interoperable environment.

“Our Army is focussed on two key areas to ensure improved air-land integration. The first is to deliver better communication systems to ensure an agile, efficient and timely response to an intelligent, well-armed and motivated adversary,” said Major General McLachlan.

 “The second is to advance how we plan and conduct air-land operations to deliver the right effect, at the right place, at the right time.

 “The demonstration highlights how we can better harness the strengths of our team by digitally connecting air and land platforms.

 “This increased connectivity enhances awareness and communication. It gives a common operating picture, so we are better able to plan and execute joint operations into the future.”

Chief Executive Australia, Ian Irving said Northrop Grumman has unparalleled expertise developing and deploying airborne gateways that ensure resilient communications of disparate networks and enable a fully networked battlespace.

 “We’ve applied this key capability for more than a decade in numerous operational programs, exercises and demonstrations and have seen how effective and transformational networking a diverse force of assets can be,” said Mr Irving.

 “Northrop Grumman congratulates Air Force and Army on their initiative in undertaking this technology demonstration and we look forward to continuing to support the ADF as it builds interoperability in its current and fifth-generation force.

 “As demonstrated during the Jericho Dawn exercise, the ability to share information and situational awareness from various sources across diverse platforms and domains is critically important in facilitating joint and coalition operations.”

 Capabilities involved include RAAF’s C-17A, AP-3C, KC-30A, E-7A Wedgetail and FA-18 Hornet aircraft, as well as the Army’s air-land enablers from the 16th Air Land Regiment, Tiger armed reconnaissance helicopters from 1st Aviation Regiment, and vehicles and equipment from the Combined Arms Training Centre.

The key to understanding what happened is to focus on the two situations being tested.

The first was using the current methods, which rely on voice communication and a ground controller operating as a human switchboard, which means that this person must work deconfliction of assets, which can not see one another.

The second was to rely on an air based “translator” or “machine switchboard” aboard a gulfstream aircraft where the Tiger system (Eurogrid), could be translated into Link-16 and the various ground-air systems able to see one another in the battlespace.

Although important, this shift actually underscored the crucial choke point which is the C2 system.

The Tiger Attack Helicopter as seen in the Jericho Dawn Exercise. One of the tasks in the exercise was to find ways to integrate the Tiger into the Joint Force. Credit Photo: Australian Defence Force
The Tiger Attack Helicopter as seen in the Jericho Dawn Exercise. One of the tasks in the exercise was to find ways to integrate the Tiger into the Joint Force. Credit Photo: Australian Defence Force

If the key assets on the battlespace can see one another, and the key units at the point of attack can see how best to attack the adversary, why are they reaching back in the battlespace for a “mother-may-I” general officer?

Even worse, training to absorb data in a fluid battlespace and to react quickly to the right data is a skill set, which one needs when one is not being directed by voice command as well.

“The tactical elements now have better situational awareness, but their command and control network needs to be able to support the decision speed that those linkages now enable.

We now need to make sure that the ground commander can make his decisions in a quicker manner to allow the enhanced situational awareness (SA) to be beneficial.”

They pointed out that in the second phase of the exercise that the exercise director actually had to slow down the exercise because “the call to fires done via the link systems so reduced the time it took to deliver the effect that it was becoming to fast for the VIP observers to be able to see clearly.”

This is probably a good metaphor for what the future holds for the old C2 structure!

But to be clear, the Jericho co-leads emphasized that working through new C2 concepts of operations within the overall transformation of the RAAF was a central lynchpin for change.

“The C2 system itself will need to be as flexible and agile and adaptive as the forces that we put out to deliver the localized tactical effects.

Group Captain Andrew "Jake" Campbell, the Co-Head of the Jericho team, speaking on the second day of the RAAF Airpower conference.
Group Captain Andrew “Jake” Campbell, the Co-Head of the Jericho team, speaking on the second day of the RAAF Airpower conference.

And this is especially true in a contested environment because when the forces lose a particular node, cannot sit around waiting for it return.

They will need to be reactive and adaptive.

We are talking about decentralized C2 as a centerpiece of the evolving force structure.

We need to start focusing on our tactical C2 layer this year and think about how that will interact with our strategic C2 layer.

We’ll be doing a lot of work on this challenge, which is a central one to the way ahead.”

As Group Captain Campbell added:”The C2 system is the potential handbrake in a modern networked force.

Some would argue that C2 has always been the handbrake to ops.

However, in modern warfare, fast and effective C2 will be the difference between winning and losing.”

Editor’s Note: One of the presentations at the Williams Foundation seminar was by Major General (Retired) Goldfein of Northrop Grumman who discussed C2 and the Jericho Dawn exercise which was upcoming the day after his presentation. 

And the day after the presentation, the ADF made the Jericho Dawn exercise a success.
The following slideshow of photos provided by the Australian Ministry of Defence provides an overview on the exercise day, March 18, 2016.

Political Disorder 2016: Distrust of Government and Political Parties

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
04/14/2016

2016-04-14  By Harald Malmgren

2016 is a year of political disorder in many nations.

Long established political parties are suffering fragmentation and leadership disputes.

In some nations new parties are forming and gaining momentum.

In others fringe parties are gaining traction and emerging as mainstream challengers.

Voter frustration and discontent seem to be surfacing in both rich countries and poor.

As a reminder, the list of politically turbulent countries includes several European nations including Ireland, Spain, Italy, France, Portugal and even Germany.

The upcoming UK referendum on whether the UK should remain in the EU or exit is not only being closely watched by UK citizens but throughout Europe.

(Present polling indicates public opinion tilting towards exit, opposing Prime Minister Cameron’s preference to retain EU membership).

Will the British votes respond to Europ'e troubles rather than focus on the narrower issue of membership in the European Union?
Will the British votes respond to Europ’e troubles rather than focus on the narrower issue of membership in the European Union?

Political cohesion of other EU members is being tested as regions or sub-cultures seek greater autonomy or even independence.

Catalonia’s current effort to secede from Spain is but one example.

Increasing separation of budgets between Flemings and Walloons in Belgium, and rising separation demands another example.

The growing crisis of refugees from Syria and North Africa is weakening political connections among Continental European governments and their citizenries.

A visible split has emerged between Chancellor Merkel and a wide swath of Germany’s population and its regional governments regarding the degree to which Germany should open its arms to Middle East refugees.

The historic Schengen Agreement providing for open borders among EU members is being ruptured by refugee security and economic risks as ordinary citizens demand restoration of border controls and limits to entry from neighboring EU member countries.

Merkl in Trouble

A voter demand for stricter immigration controls has become a key issue in the UK debate over possible exit from the EU.

The continuing Greek crisis is again threatening political relations among Eurozone members and institutional relations between the Eurozone and the IMF. Rifts are again widening over the balance between ECB monetary policy, EU and Eurozone austerity fiscal policies, and financial market regulation.

The French are effectively ignoring EU budget restraints, and Germans are delaying the pace of financial market unification, as anti-Brussels and anti-Euro sentiments grow in both France and Germany.

The credibility of ECB stimulus measures is waning not only within financial markets but among the general Eurozone public.

The criminal behavior of many recent refugees in several Western European nations is also generating physical backlash from residents and collapse of ordinary police functions.

Sweden’s entire system of national and local governance is being stressed to the point that incidents of abdication of authority at the local level are occurring.

Japan’s political leadership is not yet challenged, but elections lie ahead and its fragile economy is generating growing discontent among the citizenry.

Credibility of Abenomics has fallen markedly.

Public confidence in the Bank of Japan, the Government Pension Investment Fund and other retirement mechanisms is crumbling.

Capital flight from China to Japan has benefited the economy but has also helped to strengthen the Yen, which is damaging international competitiveness of the corporate sector.

The corporate outlook has been hurt by a stronger Yen and global economic slowdown, so large Japanese corporations are resisting broad wage increases that are needed to lift domestic consumption after years of income stagnation.

Among the emerging markets the BRIC’s are all in varying stages of political or economic deterioration.

Brazil’s entire government appears to be in chaos or paralysis as growing evidence appears of pervasive corruption at its highest levels.

President Roussef is likely to be impeached, throwing into confusion prospects for alternative political leadership. Prime Minister Modi’s political grip seems to be weakening in India.

Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff reacts during a meeting with leaders of the Social Democratic Party (PSD) at the Planalto Palace in Brasilia November 5, 2014. REUTERS/Ueslei Marcelino
Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff reacts during a meeting with leaders of the Social Democratic Party (PSD) at the Planalto Palace in Brasilia November 5, 2014. REUTERS/Ueslei Marcelino. She seems to be invoking divine help, but he/she might be able to do so?

Putin’s political national approval level remains strong among the Russian people, but business leaders are restive and increasingly critical of excessive Russian military adventurism and breakdown of business ties with Western Europe.

Growing visibility of Minister of Defense General Shoigu domestically and internationally suggests Putin’s need for greater support of the military in the balance of competing powers in Russia.

Also, Putin recently decided to create a new, consolidated domestic military force and appointed Viktor Zolotov, his former personal security head, to lead it.

The Russian official description of the duties of the new domestic security force is to curtail domestic terrorism and corruption, but concerns are growing that the new force will be used to suppress domestic political critics by a new army directly reporting to Putin in the months ahead prior to the next national elections.

Even the hard solidity of the Chinese centralized Communist Party political power structure has recently been showing cracks.

The frequency of worker demonstrations has accelerated, along with rising job losses or long periods of no pay for work done.

Academics are showing unhappiness with Party-generated limitations on what they can teach, and how. There seems to be quietly rising discontent about China’s new external assertiveness and risky diversion of attention from needed domestic economic action.

The yuan, China's market, and global confidence in Beijing are all dropping. It's not an easy time to be the leader of the world's second-biggest economy. Getty images.
The yuan, China’s market, and global confidence in Beijing are all dropping. It’s not an easy time to be the leader of the world’s second-biggest economy. Getty images.

Unease among party members seems to be surfacing.

Questions have bubbled up into public of whether Xi has gone too far in creating a cult of personality and infallibility, allegedly to place himself beyond criticism even from his supporters.

Two recent public challenges to XI appear to have generated extraordinary concerns.

One was appearance on the internet of an open letter urging Xi’s resignation, said to be authored by members of elite leadership circles. This letter generated a disproportionately aggressive response from State security personnel in widespread efforts to identify and hunt down the authors.   ()

The other, perhaps more ominous challenge to Xi, or perhaps to Communist Party leadership in general, came in the form of an essay that appeared on the official website of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI).

This is the agency that pursues corruption by public officials and disloyalty to leadership. CCDI’s chief is Wang Qishan, widely known and widely feared throughout China as Xi’s personal enforcer.

This essay, “A Thousand Yes-Men Cannot Equal One Honest Advisor” was also translated into English. It is considered to be an “act of remonstrance”, which is a form of warning to the Party leader from his own supporters.

(In history such an act of remonstrance is considered to place the authors at risk, but serious enough to make thoughtful consideration desirable.)

This essay posted on the CCDI website has since been taken down.

It includes reference to 16 specific policies that may have become controversial among high Party circles. Subjects mentioned include “one country, two systems policy”, foreign policy aggressiveness, cult of personality, and Party control of media. Strangely the essay also includes concerns for safety and wellbeing of Xi and his family. Some foreign experts on China believe this essay may indicate areas of likely policy reconsideration priorities in the not distant future.

With regard to the United States, the turbulence in American politics and apparent rise of populism and nationalism among voters is shocking both the Democratic and the Republican Party leaderships.

Both major parties are experiencing widening divisions of political opinion to an extent not experienced in many decades.

Sanders

While it is likely Republicans will retain majority control of the House of Representatives in November national elections, there is growing uncertainty about which party will be in control of the Senate. This uncertainty by itself generates uncertainty about taxation, immigration, environment, business and labor regulations and direction of thinking in the nation’s state and federal courts.

Critical questions about the boundaries of Presidential power may have to be decided after elections by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), with one or more vacancies to be appointed by the next President.

Mainstream media continues to oversimplify the current competition within each party for nomination of a candidate for President.

The long, elaborate, complex process of state primaries gets continuous intense news attention.

As is known throughout the world, Donald Trump has taken a lead among Republican Party primaries. Trump’s rise is presented as a rebellion against the “established” political structure nationally and locally.

Trump was able to identify and exploit growing dissatisfaction of ordinary people with continuing weakness of the economy and job opportunities. The majority of the nation’s population has been mired in stagnation and even decline in incomes since the start of the Great Financial Crisis. In essence median incomes have fallen 4% since the start of the Obama Administration.

The public doesn’t focus blame on President Obama, but rather on failure of the entire government under the President and Congress.

In many polls, Congress is more disliked than the President or his Cabinet.

Ideological divisions have widened between the two major parties, but also within each party.

Since the introduction of TV to all Congressional deliberations, including committees and subcommittees, members of Congress have grown accustomed to delivering speeches to their own state and local constituencies, rarely attentive to the speeches and legislative initiatives made by each other.

Bipartisan teamwork which long prevailed in the background in Congressional work has been abandoned in favor of focusing on and resolving internal party divisions.

Donald+Trump+qRkEMISULtom

Political rivalries within parties are now often far more intense than between parties. Bargaining and attempts at consensus building between parties are often viewed as political disloyalty.

Dysfunctionality of Congress has been immeasurably amplified by President Obama’s personal reluctance to interact closely with individual members of the House or Senate. Democrats in Congress are often openly critical of the Democrat President’s unwillingness to address their personal concerns and priorities.

Thus, both the Presidency and the composition of Congress in 2017 remain unknowns.

Therefore the outlook for domestic economic policies, debt management, climate change, healthcare, trade, defense, and foreign policy are all in question, leaving large uncertainties for world politics and the world economy in the next few years.

It must also be kept in mind that transitions from one Presidency to another have been notoriously slow in recent decades.

Although the changeover from the past President to the next takes place all at once, the elaborate process of appointing and securing Senate approval of new cabinet and sub-cabinet officials takes several months.

Once a new Cabinet and sub-cabinet team are in place a power struggle inevitably takes place among them, and between them and White House staff who are subject to personal decisions of the President.

Some Presidents delegate a wide span of autonomy and authority to cabinet leaders and their departments. Other Presidents delegate little authority, and let White House staff micromanage daily decisions whenever that is deemed desirable.

The nation and the world have become accustomed to President Obama’s preference for detailed control of the Executive Branch, delegating little authority to his senior public officials in such complex areas as national security and foreign policy.

A future President may manage quite differently.

Whatever the new system ultimately looks like, there will likely be a lengthy period of trial and error in policies and in the respective roles of Cabinet members and agency heads.

Thus, the rest of the world may find continuing uncertainty in the direction of American policy throughout much of the first year of a new President.

At a time of worldwide political and security challenges, and possible continuation of global economic slowdown, the global turbulence we have recently experienced may continue well into and even beyond the next year.