We often think of a crisis as a sudden unexpected disaster, such as a car accident, natural disaster, or other cataclysmic event. However, crises can range substantially in type and severity. Sometimes a crisis is a predictable part of the life cycle.  Situational crises are sudden and unexpected, such as accidents and natural disasters. Existential crises are inner conflicts related to things such as life purpose, direction, and spirituality.

All leaders know that their organization will undergo crises.  They must prepare plans and processes that “inoculate” as much as possible their organization from its worst effects.  This includes plans for immediate crisis action, leader succession, communications, etc.  Next, good leaders must realize that all members of the organization will look to them for both direction and encouragement.  Finally, leaders must realize that their organization will not be the same after the crisis.  They must demonstrate caring and set a new course for the future.  A critical part of this is to take the time to confront a difficult question – “What can we learn from this experience no matter how difficult that will make us a better organization in future?”

Finally, it may be helpful to consider an old phrase from World War II — “Keep calm and carry on”.    This was a motivational poster produced by the British government in 1939 during the beginning of the Second World War.  It was intended to raise the morale of the British public in the aftermath of widely predicted mass air attacks on major cities. Oddly, the poster had only limited distribution with no public display, and thus was little known. The poster was rediscovered in 2000, and since then has been widely used throughout the United Kingdom.  During the preparation for the Olympic Games it was reissued – “Keep calm and carry on…it’s only the Olympics!

Image from HERE.

———————————————————-
Dr. Jeff McCausland is Founder and CEO of Diamond6 Leadership and Strategy, LLC. His most challenging and unique leadership experience was leading and commanding 750 troops into the first Gulf War. He is proud to say that everyone came home healthy and safe.
———————————————————-

If you have any questions between now and our workshop in July please email us at info@diamondsixleadership.com

RECORDING LINK: ASBOI Workshop Kickoff Call 6-5-13 7.06 PM

If you have trouble accessing it there due to different system requirements, you can access the recording here instead.

However, the crux of Fredrickson’s book lies in the subtitle of her book: “Top-Notch Research Reveals the 3-to-1 Ratio That Will Change Your Life.” The research contained within Fredrickson’s book is of true value. None but the crankiest of contrarians will deny that positive emotions and situations will indeed enhance one’s life.  But Fredrickson takes such vague, new-age ideas a step further and presents a body of research that grounds such notions in concrete realities that show definitive ways in which positivity affects the brain neurologically, in turn broadening our minds to accept more positive thoughts and experiences (or translate negativity into positivity.) Time and again throughout Positivity (particularly in early chapters), Fredrickson demonstrates her competency as a psychologist and the depth contained in her research.

Unfortunately, the book proceeds to a conclusion that is less than revelatory. Norman Vincent Peale’s 1996 book The Power of Positive Thinking that posited similar life-altering results inherent in positivity and optimism (a word Fredrickson is keen to avoid), albeit with unsubstantiated and anecdotal evidence. With Positivity, Fredrickson furthers such previous claims with well-researched and specifically-cited scientific fact. Unfortunately, the most interesting section of her book (the first half) merely affirms a conclusion that most everyone already believes to be true, while the latter half proposes a prescriptive lifestyle equation of the 3-to-1 ratio between positivity and negativity. Fredrickson occasionally gets bogged down in her new take on positivity and her wealth of research and information can be overwhelming, if not totally numbing. However, she does occasionally lessen the blow with touching anecdotes about her own life and how her methodology of positive thinking has allowed her to navigate some personal trials. Positivity tips heavily in favor of the hard data though, and a few more of these personal touches would have been a relief, as Fredrickson appears to be an interesting person beyond the wealth of psychological research.

Very rarely do books of this type really offer brand new startling insights into their chosen topic.  The best of them repackage old points of view in a new and interesting way. With Positivity Fredrickson re-views the power of seeing the glass half full with a strong academic background and through the lens of scientific research. While at times quite fascinating, the book never really transcends the forgone conclusion of “positivity is positive, negativity is negative.” Barbara Fredrickson’s Positivity will be of interest for those seeking tangible insights into how the brain processes and is influenced by positivity/negativity or those looking to learn a new way to integrate positive thinking into their lives. It won’t blow any deeply optimistic minds, nor will it uncross any cynical arms.

But, all along people have asked how they can get more 1:1 leadership development with me. They found the group approach very valuable but wanted to get some hands-on coaching and feedback.

Our goal at Diamond6 is to help you make your individual and organizational visions a reality this year. That is why we are starting to host FREE bi-monthly tele-calls focused on different areas of leadership that we have found to be of most interest to you.

Our first call was in March and I talked about mentorship. We had people from all over the world join us which was a thrill and we had a very interesting discussion.

Want to listen in?

We’ve included the audio below for you to listen to. Just click play.

Join us next time!

Sign up for the D6 newsletter and you’ll be the first to know about our next call!

CLICK HERE to hear the full audio

By Nicholas A. Christakis, MD, PhD & James H. Fowler, PhD

It is significant that the 2010 film The Social Network opens with a conversation between Harvard Student Mark Zuckerberg (played by Jesse Eisenberg) and Erica Albright, his girlfriend (Rooney Mara). Eisenberg takes all jokes literally, rationally dissects every comment and intellectually condescends to Rooney, yet is left baffled when she dumps him in frustration. This failed one-on-one social interaction, argues The Social Network, is indicative of what drove Mark Zuckerberg to create Facebook, which has undeniably influenced how we view and engage social interaction. Nicholas A. Christakis and James H. Fowler’s seminal 2009 book Connected explores the fundamental and causal relationship of such singular relationships, and their ripple-effect on the broader social “superorganism”.

Christakis is a professor of medicine, social science and health care policy at Harvard, and was named one of Times’ 100 most influential people in the world in 2009. Fowler, professor of genetics and political science at the University of California, San Diego, gained recognition for his 2008 op-ed piece “Sharing the wealthiness”[1], summarizing his study of the “Colbert bump”: the social phenomenon in which financial support for Democratic candidates noticeably increased in accordance with their appearances as guests on “The Colbert Report.” Connected details how our immediate social behaviors and relationships extend to the greater social, financial, and even environmental milieu, and how these forces in turn unconsciously infect and influence individual behavior. Through this, Christakis and Fowler bridge the gap between the traditionally-held views of each individual paving their own way and class/ethnicity/gender directing one’s path. What results is a profound implication for what it means to be a social human being.

The conceit of Connected may come off as weighty, and it certainly is that, but the authors’ excitement and enthusiasm for the topic shines through their writing, which should prove infectious for a reader of any background. Their research is expressed with clarity and the anecdotes are fascinating and relatable. Whether detailing social “contagions” like obesity or happiness, the effects and importance of public-health and financial policies, or the ebb-and-flow of our interaction with the environment, Connected remains throughout a consistently engaging and illuminating read. It’s an infection you’ll want to spread.

The New Obama National Security Team 
In the aftermath of the inauguration, the Senate has begun confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama’s overall cabinet and national security team for the second term. Senator John Kerry (D-MA) was easily confirmed as secretary of state and received 94 affirmative votes from his Senate colleagues with only three opposed. Confirmation hearings for John Brennan, currently President Obama’s chief counterrorism advisor, will begin in early February for him to become the new CIA Director.

President Obama’s nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) as secretary of defense has drawn significant opposition from Republicans in the Senate and various other groups across the United States. There are five areas the opposition has focused on. First, Senator Hagel once commented about his belief that the “Jewish lobby” wielded inordinate influence on American lawmakers. While some might call this language inappropriate, Vice President Dick Cheney also used the same phrase, as have others. Clearly, anyone involved in policy development in Washington understands the significant influence wielded by the Israeli lobby. It should not be forgotten that every presidential candidate has delivered a speech at the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in efforts to secure their support. Despite the fact that Hagel voted consistently in favor of military aid for Israel throughout his career, some have now taken these comments as “anti-Semitic,” which would clearly appear to be a complete distortion.

Second, he opposed a number of unilateral sanctions against Iran and argued that they would be ineffective absent coordination with our European allies and others. Senator Hagel has also said the decision to attack Iran if it fails to halt its ongoing efforts to acquire nuclear weapons could unleash unexpected consequences and must be avoided at all costs. While this would seem even to the left of the position taken by the administration, Senator Hagel attempted to make clear that he supported the president’s policy that “all options should be on the table” when dealing with Iran.

Third, in the late 1990′s, he criticized a nominee for an ambassadorial post who was openly gay. Senator Hagel argued that the ambassador’s sexual orientation could adversely select his ability to perform his duties. He has subsequently apologized for these remarks.

Fourth, Senator Hagel has said that he believes the Pentagon budget is “bloated” and reductions in defense should occur as part of overall deficit reduction.

Finally, Senator Hagel openly broke with his Republican colleagues over the Iraq War and warned his colleagues in 2002 that an invasion of Iraq could lead to chaos and a violent struggle between Shiites and Sunnis. Senator Hagel also opposed the surge in 2007. This appears to have resulted in a clear rift with his old friend Senator John McCain (R-AZ) who Senator Hagel had supported for president in 2000. Senator McCain had actually said during that campaign that if he were elected president, Senator Hagel would be a good candidate for secretary of defense.

The confirmation hearing for Senator Hagel was particularly harsh and many of his former Republican friends were extremely critical. Senator McCain appeared to take it as a personal affront that Senator Hagel did not fully agree that the “surge” in Iraq was a success. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) badgered Senator Hagel over his assertions that the Israeli lobby had influenced actions in Congress and repeatedly asked him to name one senator who had been intimidated. New elected Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) surprised the hearing by showing a video of Senator Hagel appearing on the Arab television station Al Jazeera. Senator Cruz charged that, in the Al Jazeera clip, Senator Hagel had not challenged a caller who had accused Israel of war crimes

Oddly, the confirmation hearing was much more focused on the past than the challenges faced by a defense secretary in the future. Afghanistan was only raised a few times. There was no real discussion of the use of force in the future once the war in Afghanistan is over, or defense policy priorities during a period of shrinking resources. China and the so-called “pivot to the Pacific” were not discussed in any great detail. Finally, January 27, 2013 marked the 40th anniversary of the all-volunteer force which was created at the end of the Vietnam War. The next secretary of defense must examine carefully the health of that force and how to maintain it in future.

Senator Hagel’s performance during the hearing was subpar at best. One observer summed the event up well and observed that he “melted like a chocolate bar on the dashboard during a hot day.” Senator Hagel did not seem to have ready answers for obvious questions and fumbled his responses concerning Iran. He stated at one point that he supported the president’s policy of “containment” of Iran, only to have to later retract that statement.

Still, it still appears likely that Senator Hagel will be confirmed. So far, no Republican senator seems interested in filibustering the nomination, and the Democrats have a majority on the committee that will insure the nomination makes its way to the floor. Most experts believe Senator Hagel may get 55 to 60 “Yes” votes, but he only needs 51. It appears hard to believe the Senate could reject one of their own who was born in poverty, got drafted, earned two Purple Hearts in combat in Vietnam, worked his way through college, made a fortune in the cellphone business, and then entered public service. In the history of confirmation votes, over 500 nominees have been confirmed and only nine have been rejected. The last was Senator John Tower (R-TX) over 24 years ago, and he was alleged to have been a womanizer with a severe alcohol problem.

This process and the nominations the president has made so far are also instructive about the character of the new team. The first Obama administration was characterized as a “team of rivals” that included political opponents such as Hillary Clinton. It is clear now that the president wants a team that he is personally comfortable with and supports the policies he wishes to pursue. This is a “team of friends.”

Sequestration and So-Called “March Madness”
The Pentagon issued a “28 Star Letter” to members of Congress in early January that was signed by all seven members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. All of these officers, representing all of the services and National Guard, have attained the rank of four-star general and they expressed their concern about the impact that the continuing resolution and sequestration will have on military readiness if it is implemented on March 1. All of the service chiefs and the chairman have also repeatedly made this point individually in various policy forums for many months.

For example, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jon Greenert released specific details of how the Navy is reducing operational spending to comply with the constraints of the ongoing continuing resolution (CR) and imminent sequester. He pointed out that the Navy is currently on pace to spend $49 billion in FY 2013 for operations and maintenance (O&M) funds on flight hours, steaming days, civilian personnel pay, and maintenance for ships and aircraft. Because of the terms of the CR that is currently funding the government, the Navy has already begun to reduce that level of spending for the rest of the year by $4.6 billion. The CR language also requires the deferral of $1.7 billion in planned spending on new programs until an appropriations bill is passed. If sequester is implemented on March 1, as now seems probable, the Navy will reduce spending a further $4 billion.

This would have a significant negative impact on many defense industries and the economy as a whole. Companies deriving significant income from Navy O&M will see reductions in planned payments from the Navy regardless of whether or not sequester goes into effect on March 1. Congress must replace the current CR with an appropriations bill by March 27 to reverse these cuts.

If sequester goes into effect on March 1, cuts to Navy O&M will have greater immediate operational impact in terms of curtailing current and future deployments. Actions taken to comply with FY 2013 sequestration will result in only one carrier and one Marine amphibious ready group deployed, and it will be in the Pacific. Even if funding is restored in the fall, it will take nine months to recover and get second and third groups deployed. Many believe this consequence alone makes it virtually certain that sequestration cuts, should they initially occur on March 1, will be mitigated and mostly restored by May.

If this happens it could actually cost the Navy more money in the long term. Those companies dependent on O&M funding for ship maintenance are bound to take losses in the near term and their subsequent prices will reflect this. However, these dips could present buy opportunities when the work finally is done. The Navy estimates that delaying ship maintenance two years results in the Navy paying 2.6 times for the same work when the maintenance finally is performed.

Still, as the month comes to a close it appears very likely that sequestration will occur. Senior officials, including chairman of the House Budget Committee Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), have already stated that they believe this will occur. Some Republicans have called for delaying the planned spending cuts in defense while increasing cuts in other areas of the federal government. Democrats have called for any cuts to be balanced to some degree at least with increased revenues. The Pentagon has already begun laying off most of its 46,000 temporary and term employees and cutting maintenance on ships and aircraft in an effort to slow spending before nearly $50 billion in new cuts are due to go into effect on March 1.

Defense Bill  
On January 2, President Obama signed a $633 billion defense bill for next year, despite serious concerns about the limits Congress imposed on his handling of terror suspects and lawmakers’ unwillingness to back the cost-saving retirement of aging ships and aircraft.

President Obama had threatened to veto the measure due to a number of concerns, but relented because he couldn’t pick and choose specific sections. However, in a statement, the president spelled out his concerns about restrictions on his ability to carry out his constitutional duties as commander-in-chief. Specifically, he complained that the bill limited the military’s authority to transfer third-country nationals being held at a detention facility in Parwan, Afghanistan. He also took issue with restrictions on his authority to transfer terror suspects from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“Decisions regarding the disposition of detainees captured on foreign battlefields have traditionally been based upon the judgment of experienced military commanders and national security professionals without unwarranted interference by members of Congress,” President Obama wrote. He said the section of the bill related to detainees in Afghanistan threatened to upend that tradition, and could interfere with a president’s ability, as commander-in-chief, to make time-sensitive determinations about the appropriate disposition of detainees in an active combat theater.

President Obama promised when he took office four years ago to close the prison at Guantanamo, but Congressional opposition from Republicans and some Democrats have prevented him from fulfilling that vow. The law limits his authority to transfer terror suspects to foreign countries or move them to the United States. President Obama has insisted he still believes Guantanamo should be shuttered because operating the facility “weakens our national security by wasting resources, damaging our relationships with key allies, and strengthening our enemies.”  The president said his administration will interpret the bill’s provisions, and if they violate the constitutional separation of power, he will implement them in a way to avoid that conflict.

The law puts off the retirement of some ships and aircraft, and President Obama warned that the move could force reductions in the overall size of the military as the Defense Department faces cuts in projected spending. It also included cuts in defense spending that the president and Congressional Republicans agreed to in August 2011, along with the end of the war in Iraq and the drawdown of American forces in Afghanistan.

The new budget does authorize $528 billion for the Defense Department’s base budget, $17 billion for defense and nuclear programs in the Energy Department, and $88.5 billion for the war in Afghanistan. The measure is about $29 billion under the current level, largely due to smaller amounts for Iraq and Afghanistan. While there are legitimate concerns as previously suggested over sequestration and the rapid reduction in defense spending, it is also important to note that the U.S. defense budget exceeds the spending of the next 10 countries combined, and most of those states are American allies. Defense spending is roughly 18 percent of all annual federal outlays.

In addition to increasing spending for security at diplomatic missions worldwide after the deadly September 11, 2012 raid in Libya, the measure tightens penalties on Iran in an effort to thwart its nuclear ambitions. The legislated sanctions would hit Iran’s energy, shipping, and shipbuilding sectors as well as Iran’s ports, blacklisting them as “entities of proliferation concern.” The bill would impose penalties on anyone caught supplying precious metals to Iran and sanctions on Iranian broadcasting.

As suicides among active-duty soldiers have accelerated, the bill also allows a commander officer or health professional to ask if a member of the services owns a firearm, if they consider the individual at risk for either suicide or hurting others. The bill includes a Senate-passed provision sponsored by Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) that expands health insurance coverage for military women and their dependents who decide to have abortions in cases of rape and incest. Previously, health coverage applied only to abortions in cases where the life of the mother was endangered. The measure includes a 1.7 percent pay raise for military personnel.

International security issues

Visit of President Karzai to Washington  
Afghan President Hamid Karzai arrived in Washington to meet with President Obama and his national security team in early January. Four things were high on the agenda for these meetings:

1. The level of U.S. forces in Afghanistan after 2014.
2. The pace of the withdrawal of the 66,000 American forces in the country between now and the end of 2014.
3. The general outline of a base security agreement (BSA) between Afghanistan and the U.S., which describes where U.S. forces will be based, the type of operations they will conduct, and legal protections for American soldiers serving in Afghanistan after 2014.
4. Military and economic assistance to Afghanistan in future.

Prior to the meeting, General John Allen, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, put forward his recommendations for residual force levels. It is widely believed that the general’s recommendations included three options that are a function of the capabilities to be retained: 6,000 troops, 10,000 troops, or 20,000 troops.

Option #1: With 6,000 troops, defense officials said, the American mission would largely be a counterterrorism fight of special operations commandos who would hunt down insurgents. There would be limited logistical support and training for Afghan security forces. U.S. forces would be concentrated in one base only: Bagram. This is the “Afghanistan National Security Force (ANSF) is on its own” option.

Option #2: With 10,000 troops, the United States would expand training of Afghan security forces. On top of the troops from option #1, this would provide an additional 4,000 U.S. troops to support training and mentoring in the ANSF. These troops would essentially continue the deployment of training teams currently in place. Some troops would be assigned to ANSF training bases and others would be partnered with ANSF units in the field. In addition to training and mentoring, this option would confer some ability for ANSF units to call in NATO airstrikes. This number of troops is similar to US troop levels in 2003-2004.

Option #3: With 20,000 troops, the Obama administration would add some conventional army forces to patrol in limited areas. On top of the troops from option #2, this option adds 10,000 troops (about one or two brigades) of conventional army forces. It is unlikely that they would be used for patrolling, since the number of troops would be insufficient for that purpose. A more useful function would be a quick reaction force to bail out ANSF units if they got into trouble during specific operations. There would be either one or two major U.S. bases: Regional Command-East in Bagram, and a possible second base at Regional Command-South at Kandahar. This number of troops is similar to U.S. troop levels in 2005-2007.

In the aftermath of the meeting, it is clear that the Obama administration decided on a smaller American “footprint” and a more rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces than some in the Pentagon might have desired. The Obama administration appears poised to keep 6,000 to 9,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014. This is fewer than previously reported, and most of them would be confined to fortified garrisons near the capital, leaving Afghan troops largely without American advisers in the field to fight a still-powerful insurgency. A force of 9,000 or fewer U.S. troops will be unable to provide any significant advisory, training, mentoring, or combat support programs for the ANSF.

It is also important to realize that the ANSF will be reduced over the next two years. The downsizing of the ANSF is a consequence of two important decisions made by the U.S. and other International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) nations. First, at the NATO summit in Chicago in May 2012, the U.S. and other ISAF nations decided that the ANSF security budget would be reduced from the current $11 billion per year to $4.1 billion per year by the end of 2017. (The U.S. would contribute $2.3 billion, allies would contribute $1.3 billion, and the Afghan government would provide $500 million per year.) Since this new funding level is not enough to support the current force of 352,000 troops, the ANSF would have to shrink to 228,500 troops according to the NATO summit communiqué. The preliminary model for a future total ANSF size, defined by the international community and the government of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, envisages a force of 228,500, with an estimated annual budget of $4.1billion. This would be reviewed regularly against the developing security environment.

The process of building the ANSF began in 2003 and was accelerated starting in 2008 in conjunction with the surge of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Today the ANSF, including army, air forces, border guards, and police, is close to a previously planned goal of 352,000 troops. In addition, the Afghan army had planned a complete force structure: armor, artillery, special operations forces, aircraft, logistics, training, intelligence, medical, et cetera.

Given the decisions on the budget and U.S. troop levels, the current size of the ANSF is unsustainable, and a complete force structure cannot be achieved. Therefore, it is no surprise that the buildup of the ANSF has stopped and downsizing has begun. By 2017, the ANSF will be smaller, lighter (fewer heavy weapons), and less well-trained. It also will likely have fewer combat service and support assets. This raises a very serious question: If a force of 352,000 Afghan security personnel plus 100,000 U.S. troops and nearly 40,000 allied troops has not defeated the Taliban, what can Afghanistan expect after this force has been reduced to 228,500 Afghan security personnel and fewer than 9,000 U.S. troops?

The continued presence of American and allied forces in Afghanistan beyond 2014 has also been affected by so-called “green on blue” attacks. Insider attacks on coalition forces have risen steeply over the past two years. In 2012, they caused 15 percent of coalition casualties, as compared to 6 percent in 2011; and 2 percent or less in preceding years. They have become an important part of Taliban strategy, as the coalition drawdown continues in anticipation of the complete handover of security responsibility to Afghan forces in 2014. A BBC report noted that in 2012 “a quarter of the British troops who died in Helmand, were killed in such attacks” and that all six of the British troops killed during the latest six-month tour of duty have died this way.

In the aftermath of President Karzai’s visit, President Obama made several additional announcements at the closing press conference. He discussed the possibility of negotiations with the Taliban as a means to find a political solution to the ongoing conflict. In that regard, the president announced that an office for these discussion would be opened in Qatar in the near future. The Afghan government has also held preliminary discussions with Taliban representatives in Paris. Still, few experts believe that there is much likelihood of even beginning real negotiations in the near future. The president also announced that U.S. forces would shift to a new mission later this spring—training, advising, and assisting with ANSF in the lead. This clearly seems to indicate an accelerated withdrawal of remaining forces between now and the end of 2014 and a lower residual force after that date.

Israeli Elections  
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud Party suffered serious setbacks during Israeli national elections. While Prime Minister Netanyahu and his ultra-nationalist ally, the Yisrael Beiteinu party, will still retain the largest voting bloc in the 120-seat Knesset with 31 seats, they lost a quarter of the seats they had previously held. The surprise winner was a new centrist party, Yesh Atid, led by a former Israeli television host, Yair Lapid. His party garnered 19 seats in the election.

The newly elected Knesset is now evenly split, with 60 seats each for right-wing ultra-Orthodox parties and center-left and Arab parties. Netanyahu will still remain as prime minister and likely seek to form a coalition that will include Yair Lapid. The election campaign focused more on domestic issues in Israel, including the economy and the growing divisions between the ultra-Orthodox communities and others in Israeli society. One big issue was the fact that Orthodox Jewish young men are exempt from military service. It will be interesting to see in the weeks ahead what effect this election and the new government has on relations between the Israeli leadership and the new Obama national security team, as well as how it affects ongoing concerns in Washington and Tel Aviv over the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear program. 

The Conflict in Syria and Speech By President Assad
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad delivered a speech in early January that had been trumpeted as an offer to seek a political solution to the ongoing civil war. Sadly, his remarks actually seemed to reduce any possibility of negotiations in the near future. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon characterized President Assad’s speech as disappointing and not contributing to a solution that could end the violence which has wracked Syria. American officials characterized President Assad’s plan for a national reconciliation conference as “detached from reality” and merely an attempt to cling to power. President Assad asserted that he would not negotiate with “terrorists,” which is how he has characterized the rebels in the country since the onset of the civil war.

The humanitarian disaster continues to grow. Over nearly two years of unrest and violence, the United Nations now estimates that 60,000 Syrians have been killed. Nearly 600,000 Syrians have registered or are awaiting registration as refugees in neighboring countries, while an additional 2.5 million persons are internally displaced, and 4 million people inside Syria are in need of assistance.

Yet it appears unlikely that any action by the international community will occur in the near future. Both Russia and China continue to block any effort to pass a resolution condemning the Syrian regime in the Security Council of the United Nations. Russia has endorsed the efforts of the UN special representative for Syria, but has declared that any proposal that has as a precondition the departure of President Assad will be opposed. Over $1.5 billion has been pledged by a group of donor countries and regional organizations to provide humanitarian assistance to refugees affected by the ongoing violence.

There have also been continued growing concerns about Syrian chemical stockpiles as the situation has deteriorated. President Obama and many other world leaders have warned the Assad regime repeatedly that the use of such weapons against Syrian rebels or civilians was a “red line” that might result in international action. Israeli leaders have also argued that as Syria descends into chaos, the possibility that these weapons could fall into the hands of terrorist groups or be transferred to Hezbollah in Lebanon cannot be ignored.

In response to these growing concerns, the Israeli air force conducted airstrikes against targets close to the Syrian-Lebanese border in late January. One target is believed to have been a convoy that was transporting SA17 anti-aircraft missiles to Hezbollah. The second target  was a “scientific research center,” now identified as the Centre D’Etudes et de Recherché Scientifique. It was further reported that warehouses at the research center, stocked with equipment necessary for the deployment of chemical and biological weapons, were destroyed in the strike. Syria denounced these raids in the United Nations and both Iran and Hezbollah announced their support and willingness to take additional actions to come to the aid of Damascus.

In addition, Israel has taken several steps in response to the growing Syrian crisis, including deploying its Iron Dome batteries that are designed to intercept missile attacks to the northern portion of the country. Many experts fear that the airstrikes by Israeli, growing numbers of refugees, and expanded violence within Syria, coupled with increased instability in the region, could result in a wider conflict.

The United States has made a modest increase in its forces in the region in response to this growing crisis. U.S. Army soldiers from the 10th Army Air and Missile Defense command from Europe and the 44th Expeditionary Signal Battalion, as well as members of the 32nd AAMDC from Ft. Bliss, Texas have deployed to Turkey. They represent two Patriot missile batteries and are part of a NATO response to a request from the Turkish government to augment its security in light of the ongoing civil war in Syria. Many experts believe this could be the first step in the possible creation of a “no-fly zone” over Northern Syria.

French Military Involvement in Africa  
France conducted two military operations in Africa. In one, French commandoes conducted a daring raid in Somalia to rescue a French hostage that was being held by the radical Islamist group al-Shabaab. Unfortunately, the mission failed and at least two commandoes were killed. It was later reported that the hostage was also killed.

French forces also came to the assistance of the government of Mali in its efforts to stem the advance of Islamist rebels who are affiliated with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). The rebels had been successful over the past several years and had assumed control over a large portion of the country. They had installed Sharia law in the northern areas of the country and threatened to topple the existing government.

France employed both ground forces and airstrikes. It also worked with several other countries in the region to provide forces to aid the Malian government in its efforts against the Islamist rebels. As a result, President François Hollande announced expanded security measures in France to counter any attempt by terrorist groups sympathetic with the rebels. By the end of January, French forces had entered Timbuktu, as well as Kida, which was the last major stronghold for Islamist militants.

In the midst of the French deployment to Mali, a group calling itself either the Masked Brigade or Those Who Sign with Blood Brigade stormed a natural gas drilling facility at Amenas, Algeria and took a number of Algerian and foreign hostages. This is a remote site that is roughly 1,000 miles from Algiers, the Algerian capital. The leader of the group, Mokhtar Belmokhtar, who was not physically present in Amenas, stated in a video that the operation was in retaliation for France’s military intervention in Mali, and the decision by the Algerian government to allow French military aircraft to transit Algerian airspace. Belmokhtar is believed to be affiliated with AQIM and is widely known in the region for his involvement in drug smuggling, weapons, hostage taking, and extortion,. He has at times been referred to as “Mr. Marlboro.”

The standoff ended when Algerian special operations forces stormed the facility. Forty-eight hostages, including three Americans, were killed, as well as 29 militants. It is believed that the group intended to blow up the facility and kill all of the hostages in the process. This would have not only galvanized public opinion but would have been a serious blow to the Algerian economy, since the site provides roughly 10 percent of the natural gas exported by the country.

The United States and Britain provided assistance to France during their military operations in Mali. The U.S. Air Force provided refueling support, logistics, troop transport, and intelligence sharing. It is also reported that the U.S. military is preparing to establish a base for drones in northwest Africa to increase surveillance of Islamist extremist groups operating in the region. There appear to be no plans at present to deploy armed drones to this base.

African countries and members of the international community have now pledged $455 million to assist an African-led military intervention in Mali. This may allow most French forces to largely depart in the near future but the threat posed by Islamist groups will continue in Mali and the region. Most experts fully believe that weak governments across North Africa, porous borders, and large supplies of weapons offer AQIM and related groups an opportunity that they will likely attempt to exploit. While the Malian government with French support may have reasserted control over the urban areas of the country, Islamist rebels will likely still be able to operate from the countryside.

Media Security Issues
The following are a brief summary of the major national security issues that the media focused on during the month.

Tensions Rising on the Korean Peninsula  
The UN Security Council voted for additional sanctions against North Korea in the aftermath of the December launch of the Unha3, a long-range rocket. The launch was viewed as a clear violation of UN Security Council resolutions. In the aftermath of this decision, North Korea has issued new threats against South Korea and the United States. It described the expansion of the sanctions as an act of war and appears to be preparing for a new nuclear test. North Korea also argued that the successful launching of a satellite into space by South Korea was a provocative act that would increase tensions on the peninsula.

Border Violence Between India and Pakistan  
Two attacks occurred along the Line of Control in Kashmir between India and Pakistan. Pakistan accused India of a cross-border raid in the disputed Kashmir territory, killing at least one Pakistani soldier and critically wounding another. But Indian officials say their troops fired across the border after being attacked from Pakistan.

These were the first such attacks in a number of years and resulted in casualties on both sides. India’s defense minister condemned the killing of two Indian soldiers and vowed that there would be a response. Still, most experts believe the incident is unlikely to seriously affect the peace process that has dramatically improved diplomatic ties between the two countries. It is still important to remember that most experts believe the border between India and Pakistan remains one of the most dangerous locations on the planet.

General Allen Cleared by Department of Defense Inspector General
Marine General John Allen, commander of U.S. and ISAF forces in Afghanistan, had been the subject of a Department of Defense inspector general (DODIG) investigation over emails he allegedly sent to a Jill Kelly, volunteer female social aide to CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa, Florida. This was part of the larger investigation concerning an extramarital affair that former CIA director Dave Petraeus had with a woman who  wrote his biography and who had exchanged correspondence with Kelly.

As a consequence, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced in December that Allen’s nomination to become NATO supreme allied commander (SACEUR) had been temporarily placed on hold. The DODIG announced that Allen had been cleared, and the Obama administration reinitiated his nomination to the Senate. Allen is scheduled to be replaced by Marine General Joseph Dunford in mid-February. Dunford recently served as deputy commandant of the Marine Corps and curiously has no previous experience in Afghanistan. 

DOD Lifts Ban on Women in Combat
Secretary Panetta announced that the military would remove all restrictions from females serving in combat assignments and associated military occupational specialties. The secretary gave the services until 2016 to implement the decision or present analysis why women should continue to be blocked from certain combat specialties.

Supporters of this decision believe this is a question of equality, and a lawsuit had been filed by a female Army colonel and command sergeant major against the Department of Defense in the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC. Opponents have traditionally opposed females in combat assignments due to concerns about its effect on overall combat effectiveness. They argue that women in large numbers cannot meet physical fitness requirements (such as upper body strength), and that it would have an adverse impact on males in such units who might tend to try and protect females as opposed to being mission-focused. Other concerns have been physical hygiene during extended combat tours, sexual harassment, danger of female soldiers becoming prisoners of war, and pregnancy. It will be particularly interesting to see how this debate is conducted for the assignment of females to special operations units, such as SEALS, Rangers, Delta Force, and Special Forces. The military also announced that female helicopter pilots could now serve in the elite special operations aviation unit, Task Force 160, that flew the mission which resulted in the killing of Osama bin Laden

General Observations  
As we look ahead I would make the following final comments.

Confirmation Hearings and Senate Votes
As previously noted, John Brennan will appear for his confirmation hearings in early February. He will be asked very difficult questions about his involvement in rendition and decisions with respect to waterboarding detainees. It is also very likely that the use of drone strikes against terrorist groups in Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere will be raised.

Continued Budgetary Crisis and Sequestration
Sequestration looms on the horizon and is scheduled to be implemented on March 1. It will be interesting to see if either party entertains a serious effort to resolve this crisis or spends the majority of the next month trying to blame its political opponents. Furthermore, the nation will begin to see the serious economic consequences that sequestration may have on a still fragile economy. 

Possibility of a Nuclear Test by North Korea  
It appears very likely that North Korea will conduct a third nuclear test in the next few weeks. While this will increase tensions on the Korean peninsula, it may also have a positive benefit. It will provide a much clearer idea of how far the North Korean program has progressed.

Egypt in Turmoil
Thousands of Egyptians throughout the country have demonstrated against the government of President Mohammed Morsi. Morsi’s opponents have even taken to Cairo’s Tahrir Square to demand his overthrow and carried their protest to the doors of the presidential palace. As many as 65 people have been killed in violent clashes since January 25. This prompted the head of the army to declare the state is on the verge of collapse. Those opposed to the government are furious with the new constitution drawn up since Morsi came to power after Hosni Mubarak was ousted two years ago. This new wave of the Arab Spring could have dramatic consequences should Egypt collapse into the type of civil violence we are now witnessing in Syria.

———————————————————-
Dr. Jeff McCausland is Founder and CEO of Diamond6 Leadership and Strategy, LLC. His most challenging and unique leadership experience was leading and commanding 750 troops into the first Gulf War. He is proud to say that everyone came home healthy and safe.
———————————————————-

“I suppose dozens of operations orders have gone out in my name, but I never, throughout the war, actually wrote one myself … one part of the order I did, however, draft myself – the intention.  It is always the most important, because it states … just what the commander intends to achieve.  It is the overriding expression of the will by which everything in the order and every action by every commander and every soldier in the army must be dominated.”

Field Marshal Slim knew the value of empowering his command and so should you.  In today’s uncertain business environment innovation is key.  “Leader’s Intent” drives innovation and makes you successful.  This article will show you how to develop it and use it.

Successful growth demands innovating and adapting to ever changing circumstances by perceptive and flexible leadership.  Many corporate leaders earn their way to key decision making positions by hard work and innovative management techniques.  Yet, today’s leaders must take on the additional and essential responsibility of driving innovation in order to successfully adapt to the changing dynamics of their business environment.  The use of the concept of  “Leader’s Intent” as a daily tool to inspire and empower their employees will give leaders a huge advantage in effective adaptation required for success.

The nature of leadership includes the critical responsibility to envision how the company or organization should change to meet the requirements of the future.  The leader uses all his assets and talented subordinates to help him form the best vision, but ultimately, he makes the decision on what the vision says.  His critical role becomes communicating that vision to the organization and any outside organizations that will help the company attain the vision of the future.  The “Leader’s Intent” becomes the tool that best helps the leader affect this communication for the success of his company.

“Leader’s Intent” succinctly describes what constitutes success for the organization.  This idea can be used by the Company President for the lofty goals of a company’s five-year business plan and just as appropriately by the Packing Team Leader for the daily and routine tasks as they deal with customers.  The “Leader’s Intent” is a clear and concise statement of what the organization must do and the conditions it must establish with respect to its business requirements (customer satisfaction, meeting business standards, profit/loss) to meet the successful end-state.  The end-state may be meeting long-term growth targets in the company’s yearly plan or it may be the successful delivery of 20,000 lbs of household goods from coast to coast with no claims of loss or damage.

The leader spends the time to craft his vision of the company’s operation and the desired end-state.  He uses his experience, research and judgment in order to be creative.  His description of the desired end-state allows his subordinates to act quickly as opportunities appear, because they have a shared understanding of the purpose and the goal of the operation. Subordinates know their leadership will back them, because they understand where the leader wants the organization to go.  The leader must throw his energy into communicating the intent to the organization once he has crafted it.

Creating the “Leader’s Intent” requires imagination from the leader to determine the purpose, method and end-state for the organization’s task.  These elements should be concise enough for the members of the organization to remember.  Long paragraphs of details will not help.  During the Civil War, General Ulysses S. Grant sent his subordinate, General Sherman, his intent for Sherman’s operations through Georgia in April of 1864, which exemplifies an appropriate “Leader’s Intent”:

“It is my design to work all parts of the Army together and, somewhat towards a common center…You I propose to move against Johnston’s army, to break it up and to get into the interior of the enemy’s country as far as you can, inflicting all the damage you can against their war resources. I do not propose to lay down for you a plan of campaign, but simply lay down the work it is desirable to have done and leave you free to execute it in your own way. Submit to me, however, as early as you can, your plan of operations.”

Grant states the purpose and end-state of breaking up Confederate General Johnson’s Army and the method by inflicting damage to the resources of the Confederacy.  Grant empowered General Sherman to use his imagination to carry out Grant’s intent.  The United States Army uses this technique to insure subordinate commanders can act rapidly on a fluid battlefield to take advantage of fleeting opportunities to achieve success.  The Army calls this, “Commander’s Intent.”

An ideal “Commander’s Intent” for an Army operation will be a clear and concise statement that is 3-5 sentences long in the form of:

• Purpose
• Method
• End-state

The purpose states the ultimate goal of the task.  The method may list several essential tasks that the organization must accomplish to create the right conditions for the end-state.  The end-state defines success in terms of friendly forces, the enemy, terrain and civil considerations.  The equivalent business end-state defines success in terms of your organization and the competition, profit and loss, the satisfaction of clients and or business partners.  The key is to create a clear intent that your subordinates will understand and can use to make decisions on their own.

This very practical tool for leaders is a method to set the conditions for a desired future end-state.   Because the leaders at all levels focus on communicating the intent, it empowers the organization to take action.  The opportunity for communication gives leaders at all levels the platform to motivate and inspire the whole organization.  The spirit from the intent gives the organization a common purpose as the employees accomplish their daily tasks.  It allows subordinates to work toward the future without specific instructions and allows them to take appropriate fast action when time is essential.

Just as Sir William Slim wanted his soldiers to know their part in combat, the leaders of any organization can use “Leader’s Intent” to give their organization a common purpose for every task.  Then, the leaders can tap into the creativity and new ideas generated by a motivated organization.  It will also allow leaders to probe the work force to find out the degree of common understanding and help the leadership continuously redefine and better direct the company into a successful future.  Inspired, motivated, knowledgeable and empowered employees will carry businesses to success.

—————————————————————–

Stan Florer, President of S F Dynamic Solutions, LLC, supports organizations large and small to help them more effectively develop their leadership and management teams.  He brings to his clients his experience from a 28-year career in the Army and ten years of business consulting.  His Special Forces leadership positions in wartime Command as well as education and training development give him the insight needed in today’s education, business and defense related government organizations.