Posted on Apr 26, 2022
A Time for Choosing – Will We Ensure an American-Led 21st Century?
21.3K
189
62
41
41
0
NOW is a time for choosing.
Will we allow the 21st century to be Chinese-led or will we ensure the 21st century is American led?
We are now deeply engaged in a global, philosophical debate – a debate so consequential that it will not only decide how the world is organized but also the United States’ role in it.
This, at its core, is a debate between authoritarianism and democracy. And it is technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship that again will help settle this debate. In fact, there is precedent with respect to technology’s unique role in the philosophical debates at other times in history.
For example, during World War II, the United States and the West were locked in a war to determine whether the future would be fascist or free. At that time, it was the atomic bomb, radar, jet engines, Alan Turing’s Bombe and Deliliah machines – among other technologies – that helped determine the outcome of the war – and, by extension, this debate.
During the Cold War, innovative technology brought us to outer space and led us through an arms race to determine the outcome of another philosophical debate between communism and democracy.
In each of these examples, technology was key to settling these global, philosophical debates.
Today, we again find ourselves locked in a global, philosophical debate between modern authoritarians the likes of Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin and democrats in the West. And, like World War II and the Cold War, it will be technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship that will again help us settle this philosophical debate.
The problem is we have neither committed to fully engaging in this debate nor are we acquiring the innovative technology necessary to win the debate.
Our country has not yet decided whether to transform the interaction between our government and commercial technology sectors for radical engagement. The objective of such a transformation should be the development, acquisition, and adoption of the new and emerging innovative technologies required to compete and overtake China’s civilian-military fusion – a Chinese effort to build its national power with the objective of rewriting international rules and norms and overtaking the United States as the leading country in the world.
Luckily, China’s efforts and objectives have gotten the attention of our national leaders.
In the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the Trump Administration wrote:
“We are facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the long-standing rules-based international order—creating a security environment more complex and volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory. Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security…”
“China is a strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing features in the South China Sea. Russia has violated the borders of nearby nations and pursues veto power over the economic, diplomatic, and security decisions of its neighbors…”
“This increasingly complex security environment is defined by rapid technological change…”
More recently, we see the Biden Administration share this perspective in its March 2021 Interim Strategic Guidance:
“We face a world of rising nationalism, receding democracy, growing rivalry with China, Russia, and other authoritarian states, and a technological revolution that is reshaping every aspect of our lives.”
Moreover, during speech at the annual Reagan National Defense Forum in Simi Valley, California in December 2021, Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, laid out the stakes:
“…President Biden has said that we are in ‘stiff competition’ with the People’s Republic of China. And as he’s made clear, Beijing is the only competitor ‘capable of combining its economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to mount a sustained challenge to a stable and open international system…’”
“…the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party have been increasingly vocal about their dissatisfaction with the prevailing order—and about their aim of displacing America from its global leadership role…”
“China’s President, Xi Jinping, regularly talks about ‘great changes unseen in the world in a century.’ And he recently assured his fellow Party members that ‘time and momentum are on China’s side.’”
“…China’s military is on pace to become a peer competitor to the United States in Asia—and, eventually, around the world. China’s leaders are expanding their ability to project force and to establish a global network of military bases.”
The Secretary then went on describe the new technological areas in which the competition will manifest and the risks therein:
“…new areas of competition in space and cyberspace, where the norms of behavior aren’t well-established and the risks of escalation and miscalculation are high…”
“China is pouring state funds into key sectors, including quantum research. And Beijing is pursuing what its leaders call ‘indigenous innovation’ to cut its reliance on imports. And all that is fueling swift advances in PRC technology, with significant implications for China’s military.”
Secretary Austin’s prescribed solution in this speech included drawing on “all tools of national power to meet the China challenge.”
I would respectfully amend Austin’s prescription: We must draw of all tools of national and societal power to meet the challenge from China – not only our military, economic, diplomatic power – but also our “people power.”
Our “people power” will be achieved when our technologists, innovators, and entrepreneurs are able to work in a virtually seamless environment with our government. A “sandbox-safe space” where the government and the private sector can be creative and unconstrained by the typical bureaucratic rules of government.
But, at present, the government and the commercial sector are all-too-often at arms-length. And, by extension, our “people power” is siloed – not only physically from one-another – but also culturally – thereby, rendering it ineffective.
Deputy Secretary of Defense, Dr. Kathleen Hicks, recently traveled to Silicon Valley. Secretary Hicks is a thoughtful leader who wanted to hear from technologists, innovators, and entrepreneurs about their experience working with the US government – and, more specifically, the Department of Defense. Secretary Hicks heard the “horror stories” and acknowledged that there was not a “magical fix,” stating:
“My view isn't like, I'm going to magically unlock special secret approaches that haven't been touched before…I think it's more about how you start to shift the incentives."
Secretary Hicks hit the proverbial nail on the head. It isn’t going to be “magic.” But it is not only about incentives.
What it’s about is value proposition.
It is about ensuring there is a strong value proposition for technologists, innovators, and entrepreneurs to deeply engage with the US government. And the only way to understand one’s unique and differentiated value proposition – no matter the range of stakeholders – from the government, to universities, to the private sector – is through working together in an applied way on a critical public problem.
Not talking at each other.
Or even listening to one-another.
What it takes is doing.
Working together in an applied way and on real-world problems – at scale.
And that is what programs like Hacking for Defense (H4D), a program sponsored by National Security Innovation Network at the Department of Defense, do.
H4D is not only a strategic innovation capability for the US Department of Defense but increasingly also for our partners and allies in the United Kingdom and Australia. It uniquely convenes the government, universities, and the private sector around critical public problems.
Through the core method in the program, each of these stakeholders conduct deep, purposeful discovery to learn over time: (1) How they can uniquely contribute to the true nature of the problem and (2) How they can help solve the problem.
In doing so, what we see is not “magic” but, instead, the hard work of problem-solving.
H4D and other such “Hacking for” programs are not just a convening event – in fact, they are a whole-of-society innovation capability to solve problems.
Call it 21st century problem-solving.
This model can be our version of societal fusion that holds the potential of overtaking China’s “civ-mil” fusion.
Indeed, this type of abductive-oriented, analytical approach can help us solve our problems in ways that may not yet have been considered or tried. It allows us to get ahead of uncertainty and incomplete information – the known unknowns as well as the unknown unknowns – to envision a way forward and leverage the minimum number of resources necessary to create new solutions that may not have been thought of before.
This is much better than the government and Silicon Valley continuing to simply talk at each other. It is also much better than the listening tours that have gotten a lot of attention but have produced little result.
This is doing.
Which will get us much closer to where we need to be – faster – before it is too late.
We must find new ways to solve our problems and create new technology to settle this new, modern philosophical debate between authoritarianism and democracy.
If we don’t, our world will look much different for ourselves, our children, and beyond.
So…
What do you choose?
Alex Gallo is the Executive Director of the Common Mission Project, a Visiting Fellow with George Mason University’s National Security Institute, and an adjunct professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University. He is also a US Army Veteran.
Will we allow the 21st century to be Chinese-led or will we ensure the 21st century is American led?
We are now deeply engaged in a global, philosophical debate – a debate so consequential that it will not only decide how the world is organized but also the United States’ role in it.
This, at its core, is a debate between authoritarianism and democracy. And it is technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship that again will help settle this debate. In fact, there is precedent with respect to technology’s unique role in the philosophical debates at other times in history.
For example, during World War II, the United States and the West were locked in a war to determine whether the future would be fascist or free. At that time, it was the atomic bomb, radar, jet engines, Alan Turing’s Bombe and Deliliah machines – among other technologies – that helped determine the outcome of the war – and, by extension, this debate.
During the Cold War, innovative technology brought us to outer space and led us through an arms race to determine the outcome of another philosophical debate between communism and democracy.
In each of these examples, technology was key to settling these global, philosophical debates.
Today, we again find ourselves locked in a global, philosophical debate between modern authoritarians the likes of Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin and democrats in the West. And, like World War II and the Cold War, it will be technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship that will again help us settle this philosophical debate.
The problem is we have neither committed to fully engaging in this debate nor are we acquiring the innovative technology necessary to win the debate.
Our country has not yet decided whether to transform the interaction between our government and commercial technology sectors for radical engagement. The objective of such a transformation should be the development, acquisition, and adoption of the new and emerging innovative technologies required to compete and overtake China’s civilian-military fusion – a Chinese effort to build its national power with the objective of rewriting international rules and norms and overtaking the United States as the leading country in the world.
Luckily, China’s efforts and objectives have gotten the attention of our national leaders.
In the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the Trump Administration wrote:
“We are facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the long-standing rules-based international order—creating a security environment more complex and volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory. Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security…”
“China is a strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing features in the South China Sea. Russia has violated the borders of nearby nations and pursues veto power over the economic, diplomatic, and security decisions of its neighbors…”
“This increasingly complex security environment is defined by rapid technological change…”
More recently, we see the Biden Administration share this perspective in its March 2021 Interim Strategic Guidance:
“We face a world of rising nationalism, receding democracy, growing rivalry with China, Russia, and other authoritarian states, and a technological revolution that is reshaping every aspect of our lives.”
Moreover, during speech at the annual Reagan National Defense Forum in Simi Valley, California in December 2021, Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, laid out the stakes:
“…President Biden has said that we are in ‘stiff competition’ with the People’s Republic of China. And as he’s made clear, Beijing is the only competitor ‘capable of combining its economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to mount a sustained challenge to a stable and open international system…’”
“…the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party have been increasingly vocal about their dissatisfaction with the prevailing order—and about their aim of displacing America from its global leadership role…”
“China’s President, Xi Jinping, regularly talks about ‘great changes unseen in the world in a century.’ And he recently assured his fellow Party members that ‘time and momentum are on China’s side.’”
“…China’s military is on pace to become a peer competitor to the United States in Asia—and, eventually, around the world. China’s leaders are expanding their ability to project force and to establish a global network of military bases.”
The Secretary then went on describe the new technological areas in which the competition will manifest and the risks therein:
“…new areas of competition in space and cyberspace, where the norms of behavior aren’t well-established and the risks of escalation and miscalculation are high…”
“China is pouring state funds into key sectors, including quantum research. And Beijing is pursuing what its leaders call ‘indigenous innovation’ to cut its reliance on imports. And all that is fueling swift advances in PRC technology, with significant implications for China’s military.”
Secretary Austin’s prescribed solution in this speech included drawing on “all tools of national power to meet the China challenge.”
I would respectfully amend Austin’s prescription: We must draw of all tools of national and societal power to meet the challenge from China – not only our military, economic, diplomatic power – but also our “people power.”
Our “people power” will be achieved when our technologists, innovators, and entrepreneurs are able to work in a virtually seamless environment with our government. A “sandbox-safe space” where the government and the private sector can be creative and unconstrained by the typical bureaucratic rules of government.
But, at present, the government and the commercial sector are all-too-often at arms-length. And, by extension, our “people power” is siloed – not only physically from one-another – but also culturally – thereby, rendering it ineffective.
Deputy Secretary of Defense, Dr. Kathleen Hicks, recently traveled to Silicon Valley. Secretary Hicks is a thoughtful leader who wanted to hear from technologists, innovators, and entrepreneurs about their experience working with the US government – and, more specifically, the Department of Defense. Secretary Hicks heard the “horror stories” and acknowledged that there was not a “magical fix,” stating:
“My view isn't like, I'm going to magically unlock special secret approaches that haven't been touched before…I think it's more about how you start to shift the incentives."
Secretary Hicks hit the proverbial nail on the head. It isn’t going to be “magic.” But it is not only about incentives.
What it’s about is value proposition.
It is about ensuring there is a strong value proposition for technologists, innovators, and entrepreneurs to deeply engage with the US government. And the only way to understand one’s unique and differentiated value proposition – no matter the range of stakeholders – from the government, to universities, to the private sector – is through working together in an applied way on a critical public problem.
Not talking at each other.
Or even listening to one-another.
What it takes is doing.
Working together in an applied way and on real-world problems – at scale.
And that is what programs like Hacking for Defense (H4D), a program sponsored by National Security Innovation Network at the Department of Defense, do.
H4D is not only a strategic innovation capability for the US Department of Defense but increasingly also for our partners and allies in the United Kingdom and Australia. It uniquely convenes the government, universities, and the private sector around critical public problems.
Through the core method in the program, each of these stakeholders conduct deep, purposeful discovery to learn over time: (1) How they can uniquely contribute to the true nature of the problem and (2) How they can help solve the problem.
In doing so, what we see is not “magic” but, instead, the hard work of problem-solving.
H4D and other such “Hacking for” programs are not just a convening event – in fact, they are a whole-of-society innovation capability to solve problems.
Call it 21st century problem-solving.
This model can be our version of societal fusion that holds the potential of overtaking China’s “civ-mil” fusion.
Indeed, this type of abductive-oriented, analytical approach can help us solve our problems in ways that may not yet have been considered or tried. It allows us to get ahead of uncertainty and incomplete information – the known unknowns as well as the unknown unknowns – to envision a way forward and leverage the minimum number of resources necessary to create new solutions that may not have been thought of before.
This is much better than the government and Silicon Valley continuing to simply talk at each other. It is also much better than the listening tours that have gotten a lot of attention but have produced little result.
This is doing.
Which will get us much closer to where we need to be – faster – before it is too late.
We must find new ways to solve our problems and create new technology to settle this new, modern philosophical debate between authoritarianism and democracy.
If we don’t, our world will look much different for ourselves, our children, and beyond.
So…
What do you choose?
Alex Gallo is the Executive Director of the Common Mission Project, a Visiting Fellow with George Mason University’s National Security Institute, and an adjunct professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University. He is also a US Army Veteran.
VetSpective
Leadership
WWII World War Two
Technology
American History
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 24
1
1
0
Great post! You must have put in a lot of time and effort to write it. I'll tell my friends about it. https://garticphone.onl/ https://ovogame.co/
Gartic Phone - Play Gartic Phone on Gartic Phone
Gartic Phone is a phone game that you can play on your computer or mobile device. The objective of the game is to help your character, named Gartic, reach...
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
You're sorely mistaken on many fronts about life, liberty, and the pursuits of the modern war fighter.
Mr Austin is one of the finest generals I served under during war time. He was ready for command before command was thrust upon him as Lt General Vines retreated, 10th Mntn Div Task Force, Afghanistan 2003, due to medical concerns. Then General Austin took the reins, went up 3 stars in a little over 3 yrs.
I stood in a conference room as General Austin walked into the room for a briefing on the Corps of Engineers mission in 2007. The first thing I saw him do was note I was wearing the 10th Mntn patch on my right arm. He knew...
Mr Austin is one of the finest generals I served under during war time. He was ready for command before command was thrust upon him as Lt General Vines retreated, 10th Mntn Div Task Force, Afghanistan 2003, due to medical concerns. Then General Austin took the reins, went up 3 stars in a little over 3 yrs.
I stood in a conference room as General Austin walked into the room for a briefing on the Corps of Engineers mission in 2007. The first thing I saw him do was note I was wearing the 10th Mntn patch on my right arm. He knew...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
There are too many politicians taking Chinese money. Too many American companies and institutions of higher learning dependant on CCP cash as well. We even have sitting politicians that have employed or have had prolonged "affairs" with Chinese spys that still sit on critical Congressional committees. It even sounds like the President's son is involved with Cinese companies with CCP ties. I don't know how we clean up this mess?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Sadly, with the election of President Biden and other socialists it seems we are to be socialist country going forward. There won't be money for cradle to grave socialism and also the world's preeminent military power and world's "policeman". But of course that is part of the leftists objective.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google