ANALYSIS
17 January 2017
Change in USA security perceptions
By: Karsten Riise
The USA is increasingly questioning its own global
primacy. The USA might even leave NATO in a not-too-distant future. NATO
may become an instrument controlled by the European Union. To fully leave the
EU, the UK may then have to leave NATO too. Africa - Latin America - Asia
- must develop new internal security structures.
In Denmark, ambassador Taksøe and the Danish military intelligence service
delivered a comprehensive report 1 maj 2016 on foreign policy and security.
Their outlook was old wisdom; winds of change are already blowing. Many other
countries may like Denmark be overlooking change in the USA - it may be
dangerous, if they are not prepared for fundamental change.
In order not to overlook change in your own regional security dynamics it
is not enough just to follow the official American policy, like Denmark seems
to do. Other political influences may soon turn the direction of the USA.
The following is an analysis of American foreign and security discourse.
Special emphasis is put on voices and factors of influence, which may any time
soon change USA in world affairs.
Pres. Obama & former secretary of state Hillary Clinton:
Pivot from Europe
USA's so called "pivot to Asia" is just as
much a "pivot from Europe".
The European Union - EU President Juncker, EU Foreign Affairs chief Mogherini,
the EU Parliament committees, Germany, France, Italy - saw this. Countries like
Denmark and the UK have been blind to this.
Recognizing that that the USA is pivoting away from Europe, the EU plans to
expand the EU with a European Defense Union, announced at EU President
Juncker's "State of the Union" speech on 14 September 2016.
The USA pivot from Europe to Asia was announced long ago by then US
secretary of state Hillary Clinton 11 October 2009 in an article Foreign
Policy: "America's Pacific Century". On 17 November 2011, Obama
announced to the Australian Parliament in Canberra (away from Europe) that
American military ressources in Europe would be shifted to Asia.
Since 2011, Europeans should have seen that USA military commitment to Europe
is approaching an end. USA has not got the ressources, nor the need. In the
USA, experts and ordinary Americans are losing motivation to
"protect" rich Europeans. President Trump saw this, but this
development is not about Trump - it is realpolitik, the reality of
a global power-shift.
USA would be foolish, if USA wanted to risk being involved in a big, maybe
nuclear, war for what from their perspective are marginal areas like the Baltic
countries or the Ukraine, where a nuclear neighbouring power has much
more at stake, and therefore is willing to take bigger risks and commitments
than the USA. The USA will (and should) rather stay out - and be open about
this.
The enlargement of NATO was not unconditionally an increase in USA power:
NATO-enlargement was a heavy increase in USA extended deterrence commitments,
which consumes USA ressources, involves risks and maybe unecessary extra
cost-burdens to the USA. The bigger NATO may in the end be a netto-liability to
the USA.
If the Baltic states and the Ukraine could be used by USA as a stage-area to
pressure Russia at marginal risk or costs to the USA itself, fine with the USA.
But as this does not seem to be possible, given the strength and assertiveness
of Russia, the USA has no need to take on large burdens for areas, which to the
USA are basically insignificant "border"-regions.
Denmark, Scandinavia, the Baltics and the UK, walk with eyes closed. They rely
blindly and solely on the USA for their security the coming decade. Whether USA
will stay committed to Europe's security is not certain, and this does not only
depend on the mood of President Trump, as some seem to believe. Those Europeans
are deceiving themselves, who may believe, that if they send sulky pleas, they
can politically maintain USAs military commitment in Europe. Whether the USA
loses interest in Europe or not is a USA decision - European voices will in the
end not make the decisive difference.
Prof. Kenneth N. Waltz:
Let Iran get the Bomb
In Jul/Aug. 2012, prof. Waltz argued in Foreign Affairs magazine, that the
world will be more stable and secure, if local military balances are allowed to
occur without always involving the USA. This was a new viewpoint against
American global supremacy. Prof. Walts even argued, that the world will
become more stable, if a regional power like Iran gets the bomb to make its own
security balance against Israel's arsenal of (probaby 200) nuclear bombs.
Essentially prof. Waltz argues that power balance should to a larger degree be
improved inside a region, to lessen the need (with
commitments, costs and risks) for the USA to balance from the outside.
President Trump has been criticized for arguing that Japan and S.Korea should
have nuclear bombs to maintain their own balance with China without involvement
of the USA. President Trump follows exactly the same founded logic which the
renowned prof. Waltz wrote down in 2012.
From his argument, prof. Waltz obviously does not think, that
the USA can or should police and "balance" every region. Prof. Waltz
is a person whose words carry importance. His "Theory On International
Politics" is one of the world's most influential books on international
relations theory.
Prof. Mearsheimer & Prof. Walt:
Leave Europe to EU & Russia - USA must only
balance China
Prof. Mearsheimer and Walt are among the most influential scholars of
international relations in the USA. In an article in Foreign Affairs Jul/Aug.
2016, they point out, that USA wars and engagements and USA grand strategy have
been "misguided": They have been great failures the last 25
years with an "abysmal record", and therefore USA military
policy becomes increasingly questionable: "An
April 2016 Pew poll found that 57 percent [my emphasis] of
Americans agree that the United States should 'deal with its own problems and
let others deal with theirs the best they can.' On the campaign trail, both the
Democrat Bernie Sanders and the Republican Donald Trump found receptive
audiences whenever they questioned the United States' penchant for promoting
democracy, subsidizing allies' defense, and intervening militarily".
Also prof. Mearsheimer and Walt point to the exorbitant costs of the wars, the
USA has conducted to enhance its primacy. The wars of Afghanistan and Iraq cost
between US $ 4,000 and 6,000 billion, about 7,000 dead American soldiers and
created 50,000 wounded veterans, which have to be supported by USA society.
This price is not included in the official defense costs.
Prof. Mearsheimer and Walt point out, that Europe is of no strategic
concern to the USA, and that the Ukraine situated in a location of no strategic
relevance to the USA. Only China could in the longer term become a security
issue for the USA.
Therefore, they conclude that "instead of
policing the world", the United States should "encourage
other countries to take the lead [my emphasis] in checking
rising powers, intervening itself only when necessary. This does
not mean abandoning the United States' position as the world's sole superpower
or retreating to "Fortress America." Rather, by husbanding U.S.
strength [that is, holding back and reducing US engagements],
offshore balancing would preserve U.S. primacy far into the future and
safeguard liberty at home".
The reality behind these words is, that in order to preserve what is left of US
primacy, credibility and war-fighting apetite, the USA must draw this
"primacy" down, drastically reduce the level of US American military
engagement in and with the world, and leave it to the rest of the world, Europe
and Africa, also the Middle East, and even to a large degree Asia - to manage
their own affairs.
Unless "the kitchen burns" - at which time the USA has a choise
to or not-to step-in (though stepping-in later become difficult, which is
the argument of those advocating that USA should stay enganged in most
places).
Prof. Andrew J. Bacevich:
Leave NATO to the Europeans
President Trump is not alone to argue that "NATO is obsolete" in its
present form. Prof. Bacevich is far to the left of president Trump
and one of USAs very respected experts on foreign policy. Even a more
hawkish US foreign policy expert like Robert Kaplan, speaks with respect about
him. Prof. Bacevich, a "catholic conservative", is writing in both
traditional conservative (paleo-con, not neo-con) as well as in liberal left
media in the USA.
In Foreign Affairs Sept/Oct 2016, prof. Bacevich argues for "Ending
Endless War" and for an American "pragmatic" military strategy
in the world. Pragmatic means: No primacy. Wars like Iraq (where Bacevich lost
his son), Afghanistan, Libya and Syria (clandestine war) should not be made.
War should no longer as in recent decades be a "normal" policy tool,
but only a "last resort".
Prof. Bacevich argues to end USAs membership of NATO no later than 2025. USA
should exit NATO through a deliberate phased devolution of America's
responsibility in Europe: (1) Now, end the practice of having an American as
supreme commander of NATO in Europe - replace him with a European. (2) Execute
a schedule for closing down all remaining US military headquarters in Europe.
(3) Pronounce a date, where USA will exit NATO altogether and militarily leave
Europe completely.
Exactly like President Trump, prof. Bacevich argues that Europe is
"free-riding" on security at USA's expence. Prof. Bacevich
obviously agrees with prof. Mearsheimer and Walt, that Europe is of no security
concern to USA - and that Russia is no relevant threat to the USA.
To pursuit global primacy, the USA maintains a pervasive (and costly) military
presence in 150 of the world's about 200 countries. Prof. Bacevich argues to
significantly reduce this pervasive American military presence, which he finds
is very much just due to US military "habit". The message to the
world's regions is clear: Manage your own security business.
US Military:
Put primacy up for discussion
The United States Airforce sponsors the Strategic Studies Quarterly (SSQ)
magazine. The Winter Issue, 2016 of SSQ brings an article by Benjamin H.
Friedman and Justin Logan, both from the Cato Instute, which questions why US
military global primacy is not discussed in the USA.
The kind of article in the official journal of a US military branch indicates,
that top-circles in the US military find it is about time to rethink, whether
American military efforts of global dominance (primacy) have been successful or
sustainable, and whether this pursuit should be continued.
As the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) has pointed out in
its analyses: The US fleet of air planes and war ships is smaller and older
than ever since WW II - and in a dire state of technical wear and tear. As the
Government Accountability Office has pointed out, the F-35 combat air craft,
which was meant to replace nearly all other non-longdistance bomber combat
aircraft (F-15C/D, F-16C/D, F-18A-D and AV-8B), is lacking in
performance, 8-10 years behind schedule - and the F-35 costs of $ 400 billions
for purchase and $ 1,000 billions (2012-dollars, military inflation, higher
than civilian inflation, must be added) for operation are probably unaffordable
even for the USA, draining the US military of its resources (GAO report 15-364,
14 April 2015):
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-364
The hugely costly and troubled F-35 weapons program illustrates very much
intrinsic problems of the USA military the last 50 years, which torment its
pursuit of military primacy.
On the people side, the US Army came close to a human breaking point under the
strain of extended services to a Iraq (a small population, actually) - and the
US Veteran Affairs (with billions not included in official defense spending
figures) is in deep trouble after more than 14 years of wars.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/3/va-still-plagued-by-problems-two-years-after-scand/
The official figures for USA military burden of 4,1% of GDP (US $ 732
billion in 2015, www.BEA.gov) are misleading and
absolutely underestimate the real costs of pursuing global
military supremacy. Alone US $ 200 billion (1.1% of GDP) for Veteran Affairs
are normally excluded, bringing military costs up to 5.2% of GDP. Nuclear
weapons programs belong strangely enough to the Department of
"Energy" - these extra billions are also normally excluded from
figures of USA defense costs. Additional budgets & appropriations for USA
wars in Afghanistan, Iraq etc. are normally also excluded - according to prof.
Mearsheimer and Walt above, these wars cost a staggering US $ 4,000-6,000
billion, no less than 22%-33% of one year GDP (2015).
The wider societal costs of broken veterans, lost work hours, opportunity costs
of efforts and money for war purchase which could have been spent to repair USA
broken infrastructure and a falling educational level - are excluded in the
figures. Counting all costs, the societal burden including hidden costs of
maintaining USA military primacy - especially for the lower 90% of USA society
- resembles more and more the longterm societal burden of defense which
caught-up the Soviet Union in its latter days.
To sum up, "primacy" is hugely expensive for USA society - seemingly
the pursuit of global (supposedly liberal) hegemony, in the longterm simply
proves to be simply too costly for the USA.
See also:
http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/
All this questions USA ability to play a "primacy" role in the future
world. As I documented 4 August 2016, the burden of US military primacy in
the world is economically unsustainable for USA:
The USA military top must be aware and worried of these facts - which question
their own future primacy.
Cato Instute - and Koch influential advocacy:
Come Home, USA
The Cato Institute was September 2016 ranked no 6 think-tank in the USA by the
"Global Go To Think Tank Index Report" from the University of
Pennsylvania. The Cato Institute is founded by the Charles Koch Foundation.
Charles and David Koch are among the USAs richest and most influential
individuals in many movements, so called political action committees (PACs). In
spite of some recedent incident in a Trump golf-course, Koch also have
political connection to President Trump :
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-koch-brothers-231863
Viewpoints of the Cato Institute therefore has political importance in today's
USA. The Cato article by Benjamin H. Friedman and Justin Logan in Strategic
Studies Quarterly, 4/2016 questions American global primacy, but in that piece
they do not propose an alternative.
However, a 6 December 2016 piece in The National Interest points to what they
propose instead:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/cutting-waste-isnt-enough-curb-pentagon-spending-18640
Benjamin H. Friedman from Cato points out, that to save money, the US military
will have to close bases, reduce the number of commands, cut down on the
"too many generals" (USA has a lot of generals),
reduce military personnel and nuclear forces. In fact, the US military needs to
reduce the "number of missions" in pursuit of "foolish
goals" (i.e. wars). In another piece, same journal, from 6 November 2016,
Mr. Friedman makes a link to a 1997 piece "Come Home,
America" in International Security, vol 21, no 4 co-authored by
Eugene Gholz, another Cato-related specialist:
The 2016-link by Benjamin H. Friedman back to a
1997-analysis shows that American intellectual reservations against US global
dominance have persisted for at least 20 years. These reservations can one day
soon become prominent in political influence in the USA.
USA now de-securitize Russia
USA under President Obama and US secretaries of state Hillary Clinton and John
Kerry have in their discourse constructed Russia as a nearly existential threat
to USA and the West. The process of constructing somebody or something as a
threat is called "securitization".
I now term the opposite procedure: To deconstruct a threat; to
argue that something hitherto perceived as a threat, is no longer a threat, or
maybe actually never was, I will call "de-securitization".
More politicians and foreign policy experts in USA now de-securitize Russia.
They argue that Russia is by no means a real threat to the USA, that she never
was since 1990, and that the USA and Russia can and indeed have to find a
constructive way together again. Also, American experts are increasingly coming
into the open with a realization, that Russia's course of direction is NOT defined
only by its top-leader the last 17 years, but that Russia's aims and policies
have a broad legitimate, foundation and support in Russian society. Also, they
argue not to make American "regime change" policies
towards Russia, sanctions are not helpful - accept differences.
Henry Kissinger:
Reduce commitment to Ukraine and befriend Russia
Already 4 February 2016 - before Trump was even nominated - Kissinger in The
National Interest magazine published a piece where he promoted the view, that
USA instead of combatting Russia (as under Obama) should work to "merge"
the futures of USA and Russia:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/kissingers-vision-us-russia-relations-15111
Kissinger is a realist. For Kissinger, international equilibrium is the most
important of things. Kissinger has for years argued that promoting a better
balance of power between the USA and Russia would improve global stability.
Kissinger wrote in his article in February, that "Russia should be
perceived as an essential element of any new global equilibrium, not primarily
as a threat to the United States." Kissinger also wrote that the
"long-term interests of both countries call for a world that transforms
the contemporary turbulence and flux into a new equilibrium which is
increasingly multi-polar and globalized".
An article 24 December 2016 in www.politico.www points
that the Ukraine is losing its faith in the West:
http://www.politico.eu/article/home-alone-in-ukraine-in-the-age-of-donald-trump-russia-us-macaulay-culkin-christmas-film/
If Ukrainians lose losing faith in
the West, where else can they turn? Only to the East - to
Russia. Kissinger probably already in February 2016 saw this - that the
Ukraine is a "lost cause" for the West, because Kissinger in his
piece argued for much more limited (realistic) American aims in Ukraine -
namely that "Ukraine needs to be embedded in the structure of
European and international security architecture in such a way that it serves
as a bridge between Russia and the West, rather than as an outpost of
either side." [My emphasis] Ukraine is gravitating back towards
Russia, and the best that the USA can now hope for is, in Kissinger's words,
that the Ukraine becomes neutral.
Kissinger recommends the USA to
cooperate with Russia on Syria: "Compatible
U.S.-Russian efforts coordinated with other major powers could create a pattern
for peaceful solutions in the Middle East and perhaps elsewhere.” Kissinger view can now influence
the White House again, and he has already been in contact with Trump several
times.
28 American foreign policy researchers
Russia is NOT the Soviet Union - adapt US foreign
policy
Former US Secretary of State and presidential-candidate Hillary Clinton
publicly compared Russia's leader with "Hitler" - with a person who
murdered millions of people. Ms. Hillary Clintons comparison was not just
haphazard populistic - it was self-defeating and damaging to USA's ability to
manoeuver in international relations. Now, times seem to change.
From November to December 2016, The National Interest magazine hosted a
multi-part symposium on American policy on Russia. At the symposium, 28
American foreign policy academics gave their recommendations for changes in US
policy on Russia:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/symposium-advice-president-trump-us-russia-policy-18522
A general line in the 28 foreign policy academics view on Russia is, that
Russia is a country that must receive a more constructive attitude from the
USA, that US confrontations with Russia are dangerous and meaningless, and that
Western sanctions don't work. After President Obama, it is time to find a way
for a better relationship.
Under president Obama, the USA escalated its confrontations and sanctions
towards Russia, and this has backfired on the USA. Instead of comparing
Russia's leader with "Hitler", very many American foreign policy
experts now recognize that USA is not strong enough to push Russia down. Obama
painted the USA into a corner towards Russia - the end of Obama's term is an
opportunity for a new approach.
Of the 28 foreign policy academics, Doug Bandow (also a
Cato-affiliation) probably most succinctly underscores in a follow-up
piece 29 December 2016 in The National Interest, that Russia is NOT the Soviet
Union:
Europe will be pressed
to fundamentally reorient its view and policy on Russia.
American global strategy can suddenly change
From the right to the left of the political spectrum, American politicians,
experts and lay-people strongly question USA global engagements.
I could illustrate the above with several more examples. Read Christopher
Layne's far-looking and thorough analysis in International Security vol.22 no
1, 1997. Already 20 years ago, Christopher Layne made the point well,
that over the long term (over a decade) a USA seeking global predominance would
over-extend its deterrence-commitments. This is exactly what has happened. I
could also mention Barry R. Posen from the prestigious MIT, who for several
years has argued that American foreign policy must be based not on
global primacy, but on restraint. American restraint may end USA's interest in
NATO.
Why do so many more Americans - experts, ordinary people, and the new USA
president - start to question USA primacy in the world right now? They do,
because global primacy is becoming more and more impossible for the USA to
pursue - as I have already predicted in FUTURE OF SECURITY:
The Soviet Union stopped to exist in 1989, though it might technically have
continued 10 years longer (Tsygankov, 2013). But it recognized at last, that
continuing past efforts would become too difficult.
In FUTURE OF SECURITY, I compared USA global defense commitments with a bridge
losing its strength. You don't see the cracks at the beginning, but if you
don't modify the structure, the cracks will get worse and a dangerous surprise
may arise.
In FUTURE OF SECURITY, I also foresaw that regional powers will increasingly
play their own game, making it very difficult for USA to instrumentalize
regional actors to extend USA primacy. This pattern of regional key-countries
going in their own directions, caring less and less about USA, is exactly what
we saw in 2016: Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Philippines care less about the
USA. More people in the USA question American global primacy, because primacy
becomes more difficult, requires more ressources - it is becoming
unsustainable.
Many other American experts and politicians continue to argue that USA for
ideologic, missionary or safety reasons should continue to invest more
ressources to seek supremacy or a maximum possible degree of primacy in the
world: Pundits like Petraeus, Kagan, Kaplan, Krepinevich, Hillary Clinton, Ash
Carter - even after once denouncing primacy, in a half-hearted
way Brzezinski continues. Their arguments reflect conventional American
wisdom, which has been repeated more or less unchanged for 10-20 years. I
will therefore not go into detail with this here.
The point of this analysis is to demonstrate, that retrenching influences which
have existed for 20 years, are on the rise in the USA - and may achieve a
breakthrough in the White House.
The election of Trump should be a wake-up-call. Whether the USA retrenches from
the world now, does not depend on President Trump only. But circumstances &
people put their forces around him, and a seismic reduction in USA willingness
(and ability) to commit its defence to other countries can happen now or under
the next USA president in just 4-8-12 years.
Orderly change can take 10 years. Start to prepare now.
USA-independent regional security
When the USA leave local security-balances to regional actors - new security
structures will develop.
Europe - the EU must prepare itself to take over NATO. Russia must
be reconnected.
Africa - ECOWAS, the East African Community and South African
cooperation will be pressed to improve their own regional security - for a
future without USA involvement. Congo needs an African solution. North Africa
(esp. Morocco) may need a close defense cooperation with Europe, and Europe
must invest enormously in civilian projects to repair what they broke with
their war in Libya which has spread extremism all over North Africa.
Asia - The USA history of brutal colonization (Philip Golub, 2010)
and later support for a long deeply problematic regime (Marcos) detract from
USA efforts for Philippine cooperation. After Marcos, the Philipines quickly
kicked USA forces out. In spite of USA strongest efforts, and some renewed
USA presence, the Philipines (a key country) are turning away from the USA -
towards China. This is probably not about the Philipine leader as a person, as
often reported, but about something deeper. The USA may try to remove the
Philipine leader with a coup, assasination or some legal case. But as we saw
with the failed coup in Turkey (which the USA must have known about), with
gradual loss of superiority, the USA is becoming a more unsafe pair of hands,
capable of making own-goals which can further accelerate USA own loss of global
influence.
The Philipines are a key location in East Asia. Vietnam, Malaysia og Indonesia
may after the Philipines also have to move closer to China. According to a RAND
study, the USA has already lost military superiority in the Taiwan
strait. With the Philipines moving towards China, the South China Sea can
fall under political (and maybe also military) dominance of China, and the oil
supply line from Malacca up to North East Asia, Japan, Korea and Taiwan, may
come under considerable Chinese influence.
The USA can suddenly stop to be the dominating security actor from Singapore
all the way up to Japan - one of Earth's wealthiest regions with increasing
international political importance.
American military presence in East Asia looks to become ever more costly,
ineffective, operating from ever more remote locations (Guam), and even
irrelevant. This in spite of USA most determined efforts to concentrate
("pivot") remaining USA power to continue the game to stay on top
around China. The USA loses vital interest in Europe and moves
forces to Asia, but the USA may even be driven out of Asia too. This is
the final game. A weaker USA in Asia may become nervous, insecure, jittery
- losing direction and therefore even become a destabilizing risk-factor, as
Chinese influence increases. Realist political theory calls this the
"Thycudides-trap" - and it must be avoided.
China, India, Russia Japan and South Korea, ASEAN and Pakistan with neighboring
Iran and Saudi Arabia, are all in focus. This creates a difficult security link
to the Middle East. Russia even has to manage its rôle in three theaters,
Europe, Asia and the greater Middle East (with Turkey and Iran). Asia must
build an own regional security architecture - which must be a whole new
kind of regional security structure based on serial-multilateral
regional balances-of-power not to be depending on the USA for on-shore
or off-shore balancing.
Latin America - China will increasingly want to invest in and
politically cooperate with Latin America, especially with Pacific countries
like Mexico, Nicaragua and Panama (the canal), and Peru with transport corridor
to Brazil.
With increased commercial and political interests, greater security interests
normally follow. Chinese interactions with Latin America may therefore sooner
or later conflict with the Monroe doctrine and its Roosewelt corollary of
American regional hegemony. Latin American countries must therefore strengthen
their own security cooperation to manage potential conflicts from outside. The
MERCOSUR and Mexico (with Cuba, Colombia and Venezuela) may have to take on
themselves a greater security responsibility in South America and Central
America.
Middle East - The CSIS has
documented, that the USA long time ago lost their military capability to secure
the (only?) main Western interest in the region, namely the free flow of oil
from the Persian Gulf. In the wider region, a least 6 regional powers make an
unstable balance (Egypt, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan), 2 of
these powers are already nuclear, and 2 more may become nuclear quite fast,
either through own efforts (Iran) or through nuclear transfer (to Saudi, from
Pakistan). The USA grip may slip (Libya, Syria, Yemen, or even Turkey, Egypt
and Saudi). Israel makes very independent policies anyway. When the USA
(willingly or by mistake) loses its regional grip, the lid may get off, even
worse than before the last big regional war in 1973. In the future, regional
nuclear weapons will either be the only thing which may prevent pervasive
violence from becoming a big-scale war (as prof. Waltz argues above), or
nuclear weapons may release a catastrophe. With 6 strong ambitious countries of
comparable power, and a lot of unpredictable, often instrumentalized, movements
and international influences, no balance of power inside the region will be
longterm stable. Neorealist political theory (Waltz) and practical facts on the
ground all predict this. A constant level of violence will probably
persist, and Israel may 10-20 years ahead have more and more difficulty to stay
on top of this - anything can happen.
All these regional security changes in the world challenge old wisdom. A new
president in the White House with new security perceptions is a chance to
restrain interventionist old habits.
Karsten Riise
Partner & Editor
CHANGE NEWS &
CHANGE MANAGEMENT
