Steve Blank
For 25 years as the sole Superpower, the U.S. neglected strategic threats from China and a rearmed Russia. The country, our elected officials, and our military committed to a decades-long battle to ensure that terrorists like those who executed the 9/11 attacks cannot attack us on that scale again. Meanwhile, our country's legacy weapons systems have too many entrenched and interlocking interests (Congress, lobbyists, DOD/contractor revolving door, service promotion of executors versus innovators) that inhibit radical change. Our economic and foreign policy officials didn't notice the four-alarm fire as we first gutted our manufacturing infrastructure and sent it to China (profits are better when you outsource); then passively stood by as our intellectual property was being siphoned off; had no answer to China's web of trade deals (China's Belt and Road). The 2018 National Defense Strategy became a wake-up call for our nation.
National power is ephemeral. Nations decline when they lose allies, a decline in economic power (the UK in the 20th Century); they lose interest in global affairs (China in the 15th Century); internal/civil conflicts (Russia in the 20th Century); a nation's military can miss disruptive technology transitions and new operational concepts. One can make the case that all of these have/or are happening to the United States.
Joe Felter, Raj Shah and I are about to start our second year of teaching what was our Technology, Innovation, and Modern War class. (See all the class sessions here.) The goal of last year’s class was to explain how new emerging technologies have radically changed how countries fight and deter threats across air, land, sea, space, and cyber. And to point out that winning future conflicts requires more than just adopting new technology; it requires a revolution in thinking about how this technology can be acquired and integrated into new weapons systems to drive new operational and organizational concepts that change the way we fight.
This year we’ve expanded the scope of the class to look beyond just the effect of new technology on weapons and operational concepts. We’re now covering how technology will shape all the elements of national power (our influence and footprint on the world stage). National power is the combination of a country's diplomacy (soft power and alliances), information/intelligence and military and economic strength. The instruments of national power brought to bear in this "whole of government approach" was long known by the acronym DIME (Diplomatic, Information, Military and Economic) and in recent years have expanded to include “FIL”- finance, intelligence and law enforcement-or DIME-FIL. Given the broadened scope of the class, we’ve tweaked the course title to Technology, Innovation and Great Power Competition.
Our goals in this year’s class are to:
Help our students understand how each component of our national security and instruments of national power are now inexorably intertwined with commercial technology. We will explore the complexity and urgency of the impact of the 21st century onslaught of commercial technologies (AI, machine learning, autonomy, biotech, cyber, commercial access to space, et al.) in all parts of the government -- State, climate change, Department of Defense, economic policy, et al.
Give them hands-on experience to propose and prototype solutions to these problems.
Much like last year's class, this one has three parts – teaching team lectures, guest speakers, and, most importantly, team projects. We'll be using the concept of commercial technologies' impact on DIME as the connective element between each week's class.
In addition to the teaching team lectures and assigned readings, last year we had 20+ guest speakers, including two Secretaries of Defense, a Secretary of State, members of Congress, Generals, Admirals and policymakers. We hope to enrich the student experience with similar expertise and experience this year.
Last year, team projects started with a mid-term paper and finished with what was supposed to be a final paper project. However, one team took their project, got out of the building, and interviewed and presented a radically new operational concept for the South China Sea. It’s an idea that has caught fire. So this year, we're going to build on that success. Teams will form on week 1, pick an area of interest across DIME and spend the quarter interviewing key stakeholders, beneficiaries, policymakers, etc., while testing proposed solutions.
If the past is a prologue, our students, a mix between international policy and engineering, will be the ones in this fight. They'll go off to senior roles in State, Defense, policy, and companies building new disruptive technologies.
No comments:
Post a Comment