The Dynamic Duo of Lt. Gen. (Retired) David Barno and Dr. Nora Bensahel
One is a proven wartime senior commander long known for keeping a thumb on the pulse of the shifting dynamics of conflict and its impact on national security. The other is a seasoned scholar and mind mentored under the guidance of some of the most experienced foreign policy leaders our country has produced. Together, they form a intellectual powerhouse poised to pack a policy punch not seen in the Beltway since the heyday of Woodward and Bernstein.
Retired Lt. Gen. David Barno is a product of West Point, a member of the Class of Generals, the 1976 class noted for producing at least 33 general officers from a group of 855 graduates. He parachuted into combat at night in Panama during Operation Just Cause, commanded Rangers at Fort Lewis and Paratroopers at Fort Bragg, and pinned his third star at the young age of 49, the first in his class to do so. And he commanded the war in Afghanistan during a particularly tumultuous period as Washington’s focus shifted away from that region toward the Arabian peninsula. When he finally threw his boots over the wire in 2006, he emerged as one of the most prolific voices on foreign policy and national security, a role ideally suited for the square-jawed warrior scholar from New York.
After graduating magna cum laude from Cornell University, Nora Bensahel continued her education at Stanford, earning both her MA and PhD, while serving as a research assistant for former Defense Secretary William Perry. Fellowships followed at both Stanford and Harvard, as well as more than a decade at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown. It wasn’t long before the think tanks took notice, and RAND provided a proving ground to hone her considerable skills. Joining the Center for a New American Security in 2011, it’s unlikely that anyone realized that a dynamic duo would soon form with Dave Barno, or that their careers would take parallel paths from that point forward.
Few professional partnerships have proven as meaningful to the national security arena as Dave Barno and Nora Bensahel. From their work together at CNAS to their writing for War on the Rocks, their fingerprints can be found on every major issue at stake in our nation’s capitol. In short order, they have become the E.F. Hutton of foreign policy and defense-related matters: When they talk, people listen. And for the next 20 questions, they’re talking to you.
You two seem to be everywhere these days. Are there limits to your creative energy?
Barno: Of course not. That’s what coffee is for. Lots, and lots of coffee.
Bensahel: Yes. May I take a nap now?
2. Recently, you wrote in Time about women registering for the draft. In your opinion, why does the Selective Service system lag so far behind in recognizing gender integration and equality? Is the current Selective Service System even relevant, anymore?
The Selective Service system was built for an era when only men served in combat. The Supreme Court has allowed women to be excluded from the draft because ground combat positions were closed to women. Since that is about to change, the draft exclusion no longer makes sense. Equal rights and opportunities mean equal responsibilities — and the most fundamental responsibility of citizenship is to defend the nation when needed.
Yes, the Selective Service does remain relevant today. As we recently wrote, the chance that the United States will have to fight a big war — with many hundreds of thousands of troops and high levels of destruction and casualties — remains very low, but since the consequences could be enormous, we must retain the ability to mobilize the population into national service. It’s the nation’s only deep reserve of military manpower. And changing the law now to register women could also send a strong deterrent message to potential U.S. adversaries who may question our willingness as a nation to fight big or bloody wars.
3. Both of you have dedicated considerable thought to how we develop our military senior leaders. What are we doing wrong? What are we doing right?
What we’re doing wrong: the number of opportunities for civilian graduate schooling has shrunk dramatically during the past couple of decades, which means that fewer and fewer military officers are being exposed to the broad diversity in thought that such programs provide. There’s too much uniformity in the backgrounds of senior leaders, and they are too operationally focused in a world of strategy and policy. And there’s too little formal education for senior leaders after they leave the war colleges — which is precisely the time that general and flag officers need to think far more strategically than they ever have before. We recommended ways to improve the development and assignment of our senior ranks some time back.
What we’re doing right: the U.S. military continues to maintain the most extensive professional military education system in the world. The most senior military leaders recognize the value of broadening assignments and encourage people to take them (even though officers further down the chain of command don’t always do so). And there are lots of good executive courses and short programs available for general and flag officers.
4. Your anecdote on the DA Form 31 stuck a nerve with a lot of people. Simplicity is a principle of war for a reason. Why do we seem to forget that so often?
Many things start out simple and become complex over time. We invaded Europe in 1944 using manual typewriters and carbon paper to draft directives. The 82nd Airborne Division’s operations order for the D-Day jump into Normandy was only a few pages long. DOD and the services today are densely packed with computers and cell phones, but have added layers and layers of new requirements on top of old ones rather than rethinking whether the old requirements even need to exist any more. The explosive growth in military staff sizes has added even more layers of unneeded work and complexity. And technology has been used to facilitate that complexity, rather than streamlining or eliminating unnecessary work. We think that the anecdote about DA Form 31 resonated so deeply because it is a very clear example that every member of the Army encounters on a regular basis, and which makes no logical sense at all.
5. Let me switch topics on you. Have we learned enough to save Afghanistan from imploding? If so, what are the right conditions for us to make a dignified exit?
Barno: We’ve recognized that we’re going to need to maintain a larger number of troops there than planned for an extended period of time — not tens or hundreds of thousands, but not just 500 or 5,500 either. Afghan forces are going to need Western advisors and dollars for many, many years into the future to be able to continue to fight. There is no illuminated exit sign in view.
Bensahel: I agree that the Afghan forces will continue to require very significant Western support for the foreseeable future. Withdrawing that support now would almost certainly cause Afghanistan to implode. Ultimately, though, the United States cannot determine whether Afghanistan becomes a somewhat stable country or not. That will depend on decisions made by the Afghan government and the Afghan people.
6. The situation in Iraq and Syria is increasingly complex. Can we have our cake and eat it, too? Or do we need to compromise and find consensus among the key actors in the region?
The problems of Iraq and Syria are nested inside an even bigger regional problem of the next Middle East. And violent jihadist ideologies originating in the region are cropping up all across the global stage — North Africa, Europe, East Asia, and even the United States. Some kind of compromise in Syria with Assad will do nothing to tamp down these flames. The United States and its allies are in for a multi-generational battle with no obvious solutions.
7. General James Mattis once told me that leader development was our greatest challenge in ongoing training efforts with the Iraqi Security Forces. How long will it take for them to develop the leadership culture required to secure their own country?
The ISF is never going to look like the U.S. military, and it was a mistake to try to build it in our own image. It will not develop the leadership culture required to defend Iraq unless it is at least somewhat protected from massive politicization and promotions unrelated to merit. An even more fundamental question, though, is whether members of the ISF can maintain the will to fight on behalf of the national government while the country further fractures along ethnic and sectarian lines. A deeply sectarian government won’t create a multi-ethnic armed forces that can fight credibly on behalf of the entire nation — and a sectarian Iraqi military is unlikely to defeat ISIS or keep both the Sunni minorities and Kurds on side. That looks like an irresolvable disconnect right now.
8. You both have extensive experience in the think tank circuit. Who do you think is best postured to see the future clearly? Why?
It’s always hard to see the future clearly, but the think tank environment has changed dramatically during the past several years in ways that make this an even more difficult challenge. The lingering effects of the 2008 financial crisis and the deep polarization of U.S. politics have dried up many of the funding sources that think tanks relied upon in the past. Donor interests — either political or commercial — are driving research agendas more than ever before. This often leads to research on narrow or relatively unimportant questions instead of more complex strategic problems. That undermines creativity and originality — which are exactly what’s needed to think about the future.
9. You’re churning out a new discussion topic every couple of weeks, now. How do you balance writing with all your other priorities?
Barno: We write, we teach, we do media, we do leader development, we have a book project. Weekends go away. Sleep goes away. I can’t remember what I was going to say next.
Bensahel: What an excellent question. If you figure it out, please let us know.
10. You’ve both had the opportunity to offer advice and counsel to a fairly eclectic group of senior military and government leaders. Who stands out to you as our most capable leaders?
Trick question: In other words, who are the dummies?
Seriously, we both have been impressed with Ash Carter’s four-star choices. He has tapped a slew of unconventional picks to lead the Pentagon (including Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley and Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson) and combatant commands (including the SOCOM commander taking over CENTCOM and the commander in Korea taking over as SACEUR in Europe). Few of his picks would have made the expected short list 18 month ago.
11. Who do you see as the rising stars in terms of influence and potential on the future?
By the end of this summer, all of the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will have taken office within a 12-month period — only the fourth time in history that has ever happened. That means that they and the newly appointed combatant commanders each have 3 to 4 years of running room in front of them. Down the road, they will be likely replaced by key players who right now are moving from the field into the Pentagon’s Joint Staff principal director jobs. The senior officers who are serving long tours in combat commands like Iraq and Afghanistan are also likely to move up to other key leadership positions once they rotate home to take advantage of their operational experience.
12. What makes you laugh?
The Duffel Blog. The 2016 U.S. presidential race. And of course, Doctrine Man.
13. You’ve both worked closely with Tom Ricks. Are the rumors true that his beard is actually a sentient being that uses the rest of his body as a host?
Not true. But his beard does have to be polygraphed separately to keep its TS SCI security clearance.
14. There’s nothing quite like the Beltway Grind. What motivates you?
Barno: Living half my week in Pennsylvania. In D.C. — coffee. Writing. Working out. Teaching. Coffee. Writing. Coffee. Red wine. More coffee. Repeat.
Bensahel: This is going to sound trite, but trying to make the world a better place, especially through teaching and mentoring the next generation.
Barno: Okay, what she said.
15. Tell me about the last good book you read.
Barno: First off, I’m appalled to confess that I read only a tiny fraction of the number of books I read fifteen years ago; it’s not just how I digest most content anymore. But I do read lots of parts of books. Probably my favorite last full book I’ve absorbed is Ghost Fleet, a novel about near-future war by P.W. Singer and August Cole. A stunning, prescient chiller.
Bensahel: William Perry’s My Journey at the Nuclear Brink. It’s a remarkable story of how and why the 19th Secretary of Defense has devoted his career to reducing nuclear threats around the world — and why he believes that the possibility of a nuclear catastrophe is greater today than it was during the Cold War. (Full disclosure: I worked as a research assistant for Perry when I was a graduate student at Stanford and he sat on my dissertation committee.)
16. If Hollywood invaded American University, who would direct the film adaptation? J.J. Abrams, Steven Spielberg, Clint Eastwood, or Woody Allen? Why?
Woody Allen. You can only imagine the daily humor in thousands of undergrad students encountering life for the first time. But it would have to be a comedy, because the students wouldn’t believe anyone would seriously want to take over the Davenport coffee lounge. Besides, only Woody Allen could adequately capture our favorite moment on campus last year: watching 40 ribbon-bedecked U.S. Army sergeants major (who came to hear us give a talk) encounter a gender-inclusive restroom for the first time.
17. iPad, Kindle, or old-fashioned book?
Barno: Yes, yes, and yes. Plus a Fire, and two laptops. Gotta have digits for ease of reading for travel, but otherwise I love having a real book in my hands. Even if I don’t read the whole thing.
Bensahel: Books. Why is this even a question?
18. You’ve been selected for an interstellar voyage to search for life in other galaxies, and you get to select a co-pilot from your former cronies at the Center for a New American Security. Who do you take and why?
Barno: Ummmm. Maybe Ellen McHugh, their director of operations. She’s Irish, a part-time EMT at Fairfax Fire and Rescue, and never loses her cool. Just steely and unflappable — even when she’s provoked. Which used to be often.
Bensahel: Definitely Ellen, but not as my co-pilot. I’d put her in charge of everything and get back to writing.
19. Tell me about the last really good movie you watched.
Barno: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot with Tina Fey. Comedy-drama that covered my time in Afghanistan — that was weird! We actually wrote a column on it. One of my closest former Army friends commented: “In the future, that might be the phrase that gets most associated with U.S. foreign policy over the last fifteen years.”
Bensahel: Star Wars: The Force Awakens. I’m pretty sentimental, so I really enjoyed how the eternal themes of the original movies are playing out with the next generation. Plus I loved that it had a strong female lead, steadily growing into her powers. I hadn’t realized that I hadn’t seen any role models in the original movies as a kid until I saw Rey and the other female pilots in this one. I even liked that there was a female commander on the Dark Side — showing that all people, male or female, are complex and fallible.
20. What’s next for you?
Barno: We’re waiting for the tryouts for live blogging the first Mars Mission. In addition to our other, earthly duties. Anything is possible.
Bensahel: Don’t we have a column deadline to meet?
Yes, you have a deadline to meet
No comments:
Post a Comment