Behind the Headlines

Dr. Kenneth Dekleva served as a Regional Medical Officer/Psychiatrist (including 5 years at the U.S. Embassy Moscow, Russian Federation) with the U.S. Dept. of State during 2002-2016, and is currently Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Director, Psychiatry-Medicine Integration, UT Southwestern Medical Center. The views expressed are his own.

OPINION — The recent release by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence of its [unclassified] annual threat assessment is both welcome and fascinating.  It clearly outlines the variety of threats faced by the United States and its allies over the coming years.  These threats range from nation-state adversaries, such as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, to threats from pandemics, climate change, migration, and transnational criminal groups and terrorist groups.  In this sense, the report has come to remind us of the annual updates – during the Cold War – as outlined in Jane’s Fighting Ships, cataloging different weapons systems of both allies and adversaries, and the potential threats therein.

But what is missing is the role of leadership, both that of our adversaries in its influence upon the threat matrix, and that of America and its allies as they counter and mitigate those said threats.  The report ignores the intentions, strategy and tactics, let alone any mention of formidable adversaries such as China’s Xi Jinping, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, or Iran’s Ayatollah Khameini.  And likewise, it ignores the importance of American leadership in mitigating, countering, and yes, leading, as America and its allies confront a myriad of what can only be seen as existential threats to the post-World War II established order, which has kept the peace for 75 years.

Leadership matters.  While China’s long-term strategy surrounding its rise is independent of any individual leader, and instead wedded to the CCP’s ideology, ruthlessness, and determination, can we ignore Xi Jinping’s single-minded drive, psychological strength, resilience, leadership psychology, and embodiment of the Chinese Dream of Rejuvenation of the Chinese people?  Can one really postulate that Xi’s role in the past decade is irrelevant, and that it wouldn’t matter if another leader was at the helm?  Likewise, how can one possibly assume that Vladimir Putin’s singular, fundamental disruption of the post-1991 order in Europe, central Asia, and the Middle East bears no relevance?  As the most formidable leader of Russia since Stalin, can we afford to ignore Putin’s intentions, leadership psychology, impressive intelligence and diplomatic skills, and embodiment of Russia’s long-term strategic interests moving forward?  Similar questions could be raised regarding North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, Iran’s ailing Grand Ayatollah, and other adversaries.

Perhaps more saliently, not only America, but Europe and post-war Japan had leaders who played a critical role in building a sustainable post-war order.  They faced unbelievable post-war challenges in rebuilding Europe, Asia, and in dealing with the changes of decolonialization.  Where are leaders such as Churchill, De Gaulle, Adenauer, Yoshida, and others of such ilk today?  How can Europe and Asia counter a rising China and disruptive Russia, absent such leaders?  These questions are key, as America and its allies in Europe and Asia face novel challenges (including internal, domestic weaknesses) as outlined in the threat assessment.