*WHY THE WEST IS LOSING THE GLOBAL FIGHT* *By* *Harlan Ullman* *February 4th, 2016*

*WHY THE WEST IS LOSING THE GLOBAL FIGHT*

*By*

*Harlan Ullman*

*February 4th, 2016*





Make no mistake: the United States and the West are not winning the battle
against the Islamic State (IS). And Russian President Vladimir Putin and
Chinese President Xi Jinping are running metaphoric geostrategic and
political rings around us globally.



Of the reasons for these reversals of fortune, one is particularly damning.
IS (despite its hateful ideology), Putin and Xi each have a strategic
mindset reflecting the realities of the 21st century. Meanwhile, the U.S.
and the West cling to a 20th century mindset dominated by the legacies of
the largely binary conflicts of two world wars and a cold one.



During the Cold War, the West agreed on the existential threat of the
Soviet Union. For over four decades, NATO coherence and unity were secured
by the threat from the east. That same threat catalyzed Nixon’s China
gambit and the “two-pillar policy” in the Persian Gulf where Sunni Saudi
Arabia made common cause with Shite Iran against the Soviet danger until
the Khomeini revolution in 1979 destroyed that framework.



Today, U.S. strategy wrongly assumes that every member of the anti-IS
coalition regards this threat as existential to the region. But Saudi
Arabia sees its cross-gulf neighbor Iran and Syria’s Bashar al Assad as the
greater dangers. Iraq’s government seeks to control Sunni minorities
rather than ejecting IS from its borders. Turkey is obsessed with the
Kurdish threat of the PKK and deposing Assad. Israel is not about to
challenge IS and provoke retaliation. Until agreement on the existential
danger posed by IS is reached, any alliance to eliminate this threat cannot
be effective.



Putin is playing a weak hand brilliantly. The frozen conflict in Ukraine
can be calibrated to suit Putin’s purposes. The intervention into Syria
with minimum armed forces gives Russia far greater influence in affecting
that outcome than the U.S. And Xi is advancing China’s interest in part
through international trade and investment and by fortifying tiny islets in
the China seas enhancing Beijing’s influence and reach. Of course, both
leaders have huge economic Achilles’ heels.



If the U.S. and its allies are to succeed against IS and to deal with
Russia and China productively, a mindset reflecting the realities of the 21
st century is urgently needed. This mindset has three parts. First is
developing far greater knowledge and understanding of global conditions,
events and situations. The U.S. has consistently failed to do that in
Vietnam and later in Afghanistan and Iraq.



Second, unlike the 20th century, the world of the 21stcentury is far more
interconnected and interrelated. It is not and cannot be zero sum.
Demanding, for example, that Assad must go was both a meaningless threat
and an impossible pre-condition for any negotiation to end the horrific
Syrian civil war.



Third, policy and strategy must be outcome driven. The collective aim must
be to affect, influence and control will and perception necessitating far
more than a single blunt instrument such as military force to achieve that
end state.



Regarding IS, an attrition-based strategy alone to defeat and destroy IS
will never succeed, a lesson learned long ago in a different context in
Vietnam. As distressing, why has the U.S. not convinced or coerced allies
in the region of IS’s existential danger or likewise Russia and Iran to
shift from protecting Assad to defeating IS? If it cannot, something is
very wrong with its mindset and strategy.



Regarding Russia, a 21st century strategy would check Moscow’s strengths
and exploit its economic weaknesses. Strengths include Russian
intimidation tactics with Special Forces; cyber; propaganda and numerical
theater nuclear superiority. But Putin will not gamble on a war with the
West.



NATO is responding to Moscow’s moves in Ukraine with conventional Cold War
responses by rotating more U.S. forces to Europe to reassure allies and to
deter further Russian intimidation. Yet, Russia seems unimpressed.



Instead, NATO should shift to a strategy of “porcupine defense” in which
allies on the flanks are more heavily armed with Stinger anti-air and
Javelin anti-tank weapons to blunt any incursion providing a signal that
Moscow will understand while beefing up counter-propaganda and cyber
capacities. This need not be expensive. Yet NATO is not doing this.



While economic leverage may not always have worked in the 20th century,
surely Beijing is highly sensitive about currency manipulation and Putin
desperately needs sanctions relief. A 21st mindset would incorporate this
type of thinking into its strategy.



Knowledge, understanding, subtlety and sophistication are sorely needed.
But can or will the West respond? This is *the* issue.

_____________________________________________________________​____

Harlan Ullman was the lead in creating the doctrine of shock and awe and a
brains based approach to strategy; Chairman of the Killowen Group that
advises leaders of government and business and Senior Advisor at Washington
DC’s Atlantic Council and Business Executives for National Security (BENS).
His latest book is *A Handful of Bullets: How the Murder of Archduke
Franz Ferdinand Still Menaces the Peace.*





On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 10:57 AM, CP wrote:

> Have you read WSJ editorial this morniing?
>
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Harlan Ullman
> wrote:
>
>> XCP--well you at least saved one rasher of Hillary's bacon---for the
>> moment!
>>
>> What a country!
>>
>> Best H
>>
>
>
re WSJ YES and they are right even though Mike Mukasey's oped to indict was nutty. Hillary is damaged goods although compared with the rest of the field of possible nominees, in my mind, there ain't much competition.

You might like this column that comes out next week

Best h





































WHY THE WEST IS LOSING THE GLOBAL FIGHT

By

Harlan Ullman

February 4th, 2016





Make no mistake: the United States and the West

are not winning the battle against the Islamic State (IS). And Russian

President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping are running

metaphoric geostrategic and political rings around us globally.



Of the reasons for these reversals of fortune,

one is particularly damning. IS (despite

its hateful ideology), Putin and Xi each have a strategic mindset reflecting

the realities of the 21st century.

Meanwhile, the U.S. and the West cling to a 20th century

mindset dominated by the legacies of the largely binary conflicts of two world

wars and a cold one.



During the Cold War, the West agreed on the

existential threat of the Soviet Union. For

over four decades, NATO coherence and unity were secured by the threat from the

east. That same threat catalyzed Nixon’s China gambit and the “two-pillar policy”

in the Persian Gulf where Sunni Saudi Arabia made common cause with Shite Iran

against the Soviet danger until the Khomeini revolution in 1979 destroyed that

framework.



Today, U.S. strategy wrongly assumes that every

member of the anti-IS coalition regards this threat as existential to the

region. But Saudi Arabia sees its cross-gulf

neighbor Iran and Syria’s Bashar al Assad as the greater dangers. Iraq’s government seeks to control Sunni

minorities rather than ejecting IS from its borders. Turkey is obsessed with the Kurdish threat of

the PKK and deposing Assad. Israel is

not about to challenge IS and provoke retaliation. Until agreement on the existential danger

posed by IS is reached, any alliance to eliminate this threat cannot be

effective.



Putin is playing a weak hand brilliantly. The frozen conflict in Ukraine can be calibrated

to suit Putin’s purposes. The

intervention into Syria with minimum armed forces gives Russia far greater

influence in affecting that outcome than the U.S. And Xi is advancing China’s

interest in part through international trade and investment and by fortifying

tiny islets in the China seas enhancing Beijing’s influence and reach. Of course, both leaders have huge economic Achilles’

heels.



If the U.S. and its allies are to succeed

against IS and to deal with Russia and China productively, a mindset reflecting

the realities of the 21st century is urgently needed. This mindset has three parts. First is developing far greater knowledge and

understanding of global conditions, events and situations. The U.S. has consistently failed to do that

in Vietnam and later in Afghanistan and Iraq.



Second, unlike the 20th century, the

world of the 21stcentury is far more interconnected and

interrelated. It is not and cannot be

zero sum. Demanding, for example, that Assad must go was both a meaningless

threat and an impossible pre-condition for any negotiation to end the horrific

Syrian civil war.



Third, policy and strategy must be outcome

driven. The collective aim must be to affect, influence and control will and

perception necessitating far more than a single blunt instrument such as

military force to achieve that end state.



Regarding IS, an attrition-based strategy alone to

defeat and destroy IS will never succeed, a lesson learned long ago in a different

context in Vietnam. As distressing, why has the U.S. not convinced or coerced

allies in the region of IS’s existential danger or likewise Russia and Iran to

shift from protecting Assad to defeating IS?

If it cannot, something is very wrong with its mindset and strategy.



Regarding Russia, a 21st century

strategy would check Moscow’s strengths and exploit its economic weaknesses. Strengths include Russian intimidation

tactics with Special Forces; cyber; propaganda and numerical theater nuclear

superiority. But Putin will not gamble

on a war with the West.



NATO is responding to Moscow’s moves in Ukraine

with conventional Cold War responses by rotating more U.S. forces to Europe to

reassure allies and to deter further Russian intimidation. Yet, Russia seems

unimpressed.



Instead, NATO should shift to a strategy of “porcupine defense” in which allies on the

flanks are more heavily armed with Stinger anti-air and Javelin anti-tank

weapons to blunt any incursion providing a signal that Moscow will understand

while beefing up counter-propaganda and cyber capacities. This need not be expensive. Yet NATO is not doing this.



While economic leverage may not always have

worked in the 20th century, surely Beijing is highly sensitive about

currency manipulation and Putin desperately needs sanctions relief. A 21st

mindset would incorporate this type of thinking into its strategy.



Knowledge, understanding, subtlety and

sophistication are sorely needed. But can or will the West respond? This is the

issue.

_____________________________________________________________​____

Harlan Ullman was the lead in creating the

doctrine of shock and awe and a brains based approach to strategy; Chairman of

the Killowen Group that advises leaders of government and business and Senior

Advisor at Washington DC’s Atlantic Council and Business Executives for

National Security (BENS). His latest book is A Handful of

Bullets: How the Murder of Archduke

Franz Ferdinand Still Menaces the Peace.