Speeches and Articles Menu

On October 21, 2008 CACI International Inc and the U.S. Naval Institute hosted "Dealing with Today's Asymmetric Threat to U.S. and Global Security: Enhancing and Applying Soft Power: Exploring Strategic Concepts and Implementation Constructs." The symposium, held at the Officers' Club at Ft. Myer in Arlington, VA, gathered leaders from the military, government, private sector and academia to discuss the changing nature of global asymmetric threats and contemporary warfare. CACI Executive Chairman and Chairman of the Board, Dr. J.P. London, gave the following opening remarks.

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Welcome distinguished guests and colleagues to the second symposium in our asymmetric threat series. Thank you for being here today. As you know, we have a powerful agenda to explore.

When we met on May 8 at the National Defense University we discussed the need for an integrated national asymmetric threat strategy. In August we released our report from that session. And it has already become part of the national security dialogue.

Our goal today and going forward is to further the dialogue. Today's focus is "Enhancing and Applying Soft Power: Exploring Strategic Concepts and Implementation Constructs."

I also want to add that my views here are mine alone and do not necessarily represent those of anyone else. In fact, all of the dialogue here today is "privileged," "off-the-record," and "not for attribution."

So, what is "soft power" and why it an important topic today?

As we emphasized at the last symposium, the old threat response paradigm of the Cold War era no longer fits. Today, threats come not only from countries and governments, but also from non-state, non-uniformed entities that cross boundaries. These entities aggravate and inflame religious, ethnic and ideological conflicts – adding to ongoing socio-economic, political and military security challenges. Military and monetary might – or "hard power" – is simply not enough.

The term "soft power" was coined by Harvard professor Joseph Nye in the late 1980s. He defined it as "the ability to achieve desired outcomes through attraction rather than coercion." Others say it is the ability to influence people through cultural or ideological means. Some call it "winning the hearts and minds." Others call it "diplomacy." Simply put, it is the ability to attract and persuade. While "hard power" utilizes weaponry, machinery and monetary means, "soft power" uses culture, values and foreign policies. For example, freedom, opportunity and tolerance are all sources of America's soft power.

The scope of soft power is great. We saw during the Cold War how American democracy and the appeal of Western values drew many allies to our side. And now we see the expansion and influence of American culture through film, music, arts and literature around the world – even in Muslim countries who do not agree with our policies.

But soft power doesn't solve all problems. It doesn't even begin to. The threats we face today require a judicious balance of hard and soft power.

So, where do these threats lie? What are they?

Earlier this year, director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, stated that Al Qaeda is regaining its strength within Pakistan and is increasingly able to carry out attacks inside the United States. Al Qaeda is also an active threat to countries like Pakistan and the United Kingdom.

Iran is also a significant concern, and not just because of their growing nuclear capabilities and threats against Israel. Iran is actively engaged in Iraq with renewed diplomatic relations, business investments and deeply embedded intelligence and insurgent support operations – including the supplying of weapons. Iran's influence in the region also extends directly to the support of terror groups Hezbollah and Hamas.

Hezbollah and Hamas remain a major threat within the Middle East and to American interests. But they now combine national politics, local governance and social services with terrorist attacks. The white paper up-date on Hezbollah I recently emailed to many of you goes into further detail.

And consider Russia. Russia is eager to reestablish itself as a major world power. They have increased diplomatic and economic ties to the Middle East. They have displayed adamant opposition to Ukrainian and Georgian membership to NATO. And this summer there was the invasion of Georgia. Vladimir Putin has even been so bold as to declare the end of America's preeminence as a superpower.

We must address Asia too. India, Pakistan, China and North Korea all have existing or growing nuclear (or WMD) capabilities. India and China have also enjoyed rapid and expansive economic growth, giving them unprecedented influence, especially that of China.

Who else is on the radar? Cuba is nearing the end of the Castro era, but their future is still uncertain. Venezuela is asserting itself, using its oil industry for global leverage. And ongoing instability in Africa (both North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa) has made it vulnerable to Al Qaeda and other Islamic terror groups. And China has its own designs.

Our challenges are not limited to physical threats, either. The full scale and scope of the financial, banking and liquidity crisis has yet to be determined. But we do know it will disrupt and alter our national security priorities. The financial crisis has also lessened trust in our markets and oversight policies.

We must pay more attention to energy. Oil dependence is a serious and well exposed vulnerability. Not only do we compete for demand with China, India and Europe, but we have paid a heavy financial toll. ($700B this year, some say.)

And we must not forget old challenges, like illegal drugs. Drug trafficking within Afghanistan alone generates $4B annually. And it is a major source of funding for the Taliban and Al Qaeda. And the Latin American drug traffickers are still at the center of this nearly $400B/year "industry."

There are also serious "virtual threats." Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff just stated one week ago that terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah, want to use cyber means to target the United States. And the Internet has been part of the enemies' propaganda efforts, unparalleled in it effectiveness with social attacks on us. America has been the leader in the information age, but we cannot neglect the importance and reach of technology – as a tool of attack by our enemies or as an instrument for their influence.

We must re-emphasize the importance of international development efforts. I read a comment that before September 11^th, very little thought was given to conditions in Afghanistan, but we now know that a "poor, weak country halfway around the world can make a very great difference to us…"

Perhaps most importantly, we must discuss the ideological challenges in the Global War on Terror, because this is where soft power may have the greatest impact.

First, we need to address, head-on, the source of the problem – without pretense or disrespect. Extreme interpretations of Islam are used as moral justification for acts of hatred and violence. And these extreme views are actively taught in madrasses and mosques in many places around the world. Radical leaders also create an environment where terrorists are motivated, supported, and even celebrated.

Second, we must recognize the internal conflict between Islamic extremists and moderates. Extremism does not appeal to moderate Muslims, who, like us, want security, opportunity, and dignity. But to thrive, extremists require sympathizers – or at least some degree of tolerance from the moderate majority. In some cases, it can legitimize terror groups, like Hezbollah and Hamas.

Finally, Islamic extremists are fighting against Western values, not just American values. We need to work with others free peoples to convey the appeal of our shared values of tolerance, equality, and freedom.

As we can see, there are many worthy questions and challenges for our discussion today. I believe the subject of soft power, and how one might effectively implement the concept, is both timely, urgent, and of major national concern.

In closing, I want to quote from a letter I recently received from Mr. Roger Barnett of the Naval War College, who in 2003 wrote the seminal book Asymmetrical Warfare: Today's Challenges to U.S. Military Power:

"We must get to know these cultures if we are to win their hearts and minds. But whose 'heart and mind' are we trying to win? Are we so naïve to believe that the al Qaeda suicide bomber can be persuaded to give up his jihad? Do we think that we can win over a populace that is terrified even of speaking to us because of the very real threats to them and their families?

"Finally, with 'the surge,' we began to understand that to win the 'hearts and minds' of the populace, not the adversary, we must make the ordinary folks feel secure. If they feel secure, they will not resist. It is that simple, and has always been that simple, but we had to learn it the hard way."

I want to thank our distinguished speakers, panelists and moderators for their participation today. Thank you all for joining us today.

Finally, I want to say a special "thank you" to those folks who made our symposium today a reality. Thanks to CACI Board Member Warren Phillips and Tom Wilkerson, CEO of the U.S. Naval Institute. At CACI, Louis Andre, Bert Calland, Bill Reno, Gail Phipps, Jody Brown, Phillip Sagan, Hillary Hageman, Janis Albuquerque, John Plant and many others whose extraordinary efforts put this all together.

Again, welcome, and please have a most productive symposium! Our goal is to stimulate serious and meaningful dialogue on these issues of vital national concern.

Thank you!