11-13 June 2018 Holiday Inn Kingston Waterfront

The Return of Deterrence: Credibility and Capabilities in a New Era

Since the Euromaidan revolution in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea in 2014, deterrence has made a comeback for the West in general and NATO in particular. To be sure, deterrence was always central to the transatlantic security architecture during the Cold War. In the post-Cold War era, out-of-area operations and security cooperation with partner nations captured the attention of Western armed forces, with a concomitant decline in the centrality of deterrence as a theoretical and policy concept. With the transformation of great-power politics in the last decade, however, we have seen the re-emergence of deterrence in Western policy as the United States and its allies are increasingly confronted with challenges in relations with both the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China. What are the implications of re-emphasizing deterrence in defence policy? What is the appropriate balance of capabilities and political commitments to restore a credible defence posture while keeping the door open for constructive dialogue with Moscow and Beijing? In Western Europe, NATO’s defence capabilities must be able to both deter adversaries and reassure allies. Canada, along with the United States, Germany and the UK, has become lead nation for one of the four battlegroups in the Baltics and Poland. Yet even with NATO’s enhanced forward presence, it is not yet clear what deterrence will entail: is it a return to the Cold War or is deterrence in a more hybrid conflict environment fundamentally different? What is the respective importance of conventional forces, nuclear weapons and missile defence in upholding deterrence and reassurance? The conference will examine the evolving role and force posture of Canada, the United States and its allies in both Europe and the Asia-Pacific with regards to conventional and nuclear deterrence.

Wifi Access Network Login Information

IHGConnect (c0nnect as guest)

Password: YGKCA

@QueensCIDP

#KCIS2018

· 2018 SPONSORS ·

· AGENDA ·

Monday, 11 June Fort Frontenac Officers’ Mess

1730 – 2200 CONFERENCE OPENING - RECEPTION

Welcome and Opening Remarks Major-General Simon Hetherington,

Commander Canadian Army Doctrine and Training Centre

Tuesday, 12 June Bellevue Room, Holiday Inn Kingston Waterfront

0700 Breakfast – IslandView Room

0730 Registration

0830 Master of Ceremonies Lieutenant Colonel (P) Todd J. Allison, US Army

Welcome and Introductions Major-General Simon Hetherington, Commander CADTC

0845 - 0945 OPENING KEYNOTE ADDRESS AND CHALLENGE TO THE CONFERENCE

Lieutenant-General Stephen J. Bowes

Commander Canadian Joint Operations Command

0945 BREAK – IslandView Room

1015 - 1200 PANEL 1: THE FOUNDATIONS OF DETERRENCE

Deterrence has served as the underlying basis for the defense of the West since the development of the atomic bomb and the foundation of NATO in the late 1940s. The foundations established in the early Cold War have influenced force structure decisions, policy positions, and diplomatic behavior between potential antagonists in Europe, South Asia, the Middle East, and East Asia. In the post-Cold War environment, deterrence theory has moved away from the nuclear dimension but extended deterrence is still central, wherein a third party provides security guarantees for a second party against a first party. Extended deterrence is a concept fraught with challenges of credibility but is better than most conceivable alternatives for keeping global conflict at bay. What is deterrence theory? Why is deterrence still relevant today? How is deterrence applied in practice and what are the observable effects? What is the role of extended deterrence? How do the key threads of these concepts carry through to today's international security environment?

Chair:

Speakers:

Dr. Jeffrey Larsen, US Naval Postgraduate School Amy Woolf, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress Paul Bernstein, Center for the Study of WMD, National Defense University Dr. Jacek Durkalec, Center for Global Security Research, Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory

Tuesday, 12 June Bellevue Room, Holiday Inn Kingston Waterfront

1200 LUNCH – IslandView Room

1300-1500 PANEL 2: NATO’S DEFENCE AND DETERRENCE DEBATES

This panel will examine the evolution of NATO’s deterrence and defence strategies, with a focus on conventional deterrence and Enhanced Forward Presence. How do these forward-deployed forces support broader deterrence and defence objectives for the Alliance? What is the continued relevance of NATO’s missile defence and nuclear sharing arrangements? What is the appropriate mix of capabilities? What is animating the current deterrence debate?

Chair:

Speakers:

Prof. Stephanie Carvin, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University Prof. Stéfanie von Hlatky, Centre for International and Defence Policy, Queen’s University Dr. John R. Deni, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College Dr. Alexander Lanoszka, City, University of London/University of Waterloo

1500 BREAK – IslandView Room

1530 – 1630 KEYNOTE ADDRESS ON DETERRENCE

M. Elaine Bunn Former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy

1800 Boarding

NETWORKING DINNER Island Queen, Kingston 1000 Islands Cruises, Confederation Basin Dock – located at the back of the Holiday Inn Patio, bottom of

Brock Street.

Wednesday, 13 June

Bellevue Room, Holiday Inn Kingston Waterfront

0700 Registration and Breakfast

0815 Welcome and announcements

0830 - 0915 OPENING KEYNOTE ADDRESS

Major General Edward F. Dorman lll Director of Logistics & Engineering, J-4, United States Central Command

0915 - 1045 PANEL 3: The EVOLVING CHARACTER OF DETERRENCE

Warfare has changed since the Cold War, introducing new options for aggressors as well as new frontiers to be defended. This panel will explore how the current understanding of emerging concepts such as cyber warfare, space warfare, information warfare, and political warfare can change the way we think about deterrence. How do these changes affect deterrence? How do these new concepts in warfare affect NATO and NATO members’ ability to deter aggression?

Chair:

Speakers:

Brigadier-General Derek Basinger, Force Development, Canadian Armed Forces

Kristin Ven Bruusgaard, Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford

University Dr. Cori E. Dauber, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Colonel Walter Wood, Acting Director-General Cyberspace, Canadian Armed Forces

1045 BREAK – IslandView Room

1115 - 1245 PANEL 4: BREAKOUT PANELS

The purpose of these panels is to explore the importance of contextual considerations to effectively deter an adversary. These panels will identify unique contextual considerations to deter China, North Korea, Iran, and Violent Extremists; and examine NATO's interest and potential role in deterring them. The challenge to each panel is to address the following questions:

4A: DETERRENCE IN ASIA (ISLANDVIEW BALLROOM)

• What are the unique challenges and opportunities associated with deterring these threats?

• Does Asia provide an alternative model for extended deterrence?

Chair:

Speakers:

Prof. Douglas Lovelace, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College Dr. David Lai, Asian Security Affairs, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College Dr. Jae Ku, US-Korea Institute, Johns Hopkins SAIS Dr. C. Christine Fair, Security Studies Program, Georgetown University

Wednesday, 13 June

Bellevue Room, Holiday Inn Kingston Waterfront

4B: DETERRENCE ON NATO’S SOUTHERN FLANK (BELLEVUE BALLROOM)

• What are the unique challenges and opportunities associated with deterring these threats?

• What should NATO's role be to facilitate that deterrence?

Chair:

Speakers:

Prof. William Braun lll, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College Dr. Chris Bolan, Middle East Security Studies, US Army War College Dr. Phil Williams, Matthew B. Ridgway Center, University of Pittsburgh Dr. Chloe Berger, Middle East Faculty, NATO Defense College (Rome)

1245 LUNCH – IslandView Room

1300 WAR ON THE ROCKS BOMBSHELL LIVE PODCAST – Belleview Room

Loren DeJonge Schulman, Prof. Stephanie Carvin, M. Elaine Bunn, Prof. Stéfanie von Hlatky

1345-1515 PANEL 5: DETERRENCE POLICY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MILITARY STRATEGY

What policy implications does the return of deterrence in its many forms, old and new, have for the United States, Canada and their NATO allies in Europe? How should military strategy be shaped in an era when the need to deter adversaries includes nuclear, conventional and cyber threats to national interests? This session will draw on the lessons provided by the conference panels to put forward concrete suggestions for the structure and posture of western armed forces in the decade ahead to maximize their deterrent capabilities against a wide range of threats.

Chair:

Speakers:

Prof. Kim Richard Nossal, Centre for International and Defence Policy, Queen’s University Prof. Stephen M. Saideman, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton

University Loren DeJonge Schulman, Center for a New American Security Prof. Hugh White, Australian National University

1515 BREAK – IslandView Room

1530 – 1615 KEYNOTE ADDRESS: CANADA’S PERSPECTIVE ON THE RETURN OF DETERRENCE

Mr. Gordon Venner

Associate Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence

1615 CLOSING REMARKS

Professor Douglas Lovelace

Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College

· ABSTRACTS ·

PANEL 1 – THE FOUNDATIONS OF DETERRENCE

Strategic Deterrence over the Years: The Evolution of Declaratory Policy

Amy F. Woolf Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress Deterrence – or, more specifically, deterrence through the threat of offensive nuclear retaliation – has served as the foundation of U.S. national security strategy for decades. It was widely recognized during the Cold War that the United States would retaliate with nuclear weapons after a Soviet nuclear attack against the United States, and often emphasized that the United States would extend that same deterrent threat in the case of a Soviet attack against U.S. allies in NATO and Asia. The United States also did not rule out the possibility that it might use nuclear weapons first, either in response to a devastating conventional attack or after the use of chemical or biological weapons. The model describing how and when the United States might employ nuclear weapons has evolved over time, from massive retaliation in the 1950s, to assured destruction, flexible nuclear response, limited nuclear options, and now, “tailored deterrence.” Within this construct, the United States has also issued public statements, known as “declaratory policy,” describing when it would, and would not, rule out the use of nuclear weapons. Over the years, adjustments to these statements have sought to balance efforts to deter the possible use of chemical, biological and other advanced weapons against the goal of encouraging other nations to remain committed to their nuclear nonproliferation obligations. This presentation will describe these changes in declaratory policy, with a particular focus on how the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review approached this subject and attempted to achieve this balance.

The Foundations of Deterrence

Dr. Jacek Durkalec Center for Global Security Research, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Over the last decade, U.S. extended deterrence has regained importance in the Asia- Pacific region and in Europe. North Korea’s nuclear and missile developments and China's growing military have reinforced the value of U.S. security guarantees for Japan and South Korea. Russia’s aggressive behavior since 2014 led to the revival of attention to U.S. extended deterrence by the NATO allies. This renewed emphasis on U.S. extended deterrence has also brought back the challenges that are inherent to extended deterrence. The most pressing task for the U.S. and its allies is to re-learn to live with and to manage these challenges, in particular: differences among the U.S. and its allies regarding assessments of what is required for effective deterrence; allied concerns about U.S. reliability and U.S. concerns about allied burden-sharing; and difficulties in maintaining cohesion given differences between the U.S. and its allies on some major policy issues. While the United States and its allies have a proven track record of overcoming difficulties, this should not lead to complacency but to energized efforts to maintain unity. Determination to maintain cohesion despite differences among allies has been the foundation of credible and effective extended deterrence.

Contemporary Deterrence Challenges

Paul Bernstein Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction, National Defense University Deterrence remains an indispensable element of national security policy to shape and manage global and regional competition, crisis, and conflict. The conceptual foundations of deterrence and the central idea governing the practice of deterrence have changed little over a period of several decades. Deterrence actions seek to shape the perceptions and decisions of other players regarding the benefits and costs of taking or not taking certain actions. What has changed is the geopolitical and military context for “waging deterrence,” which today is more complex than in the past. Core U.S. strategy documents now openly recognize this, the factors contributing to it, and the consequences and implications for the U.S. and its conception of regional security and conflict. Important challenges to deterrence include the need to plan against multiple potential adversaries; potential asymmetry of stakes in regional conflicts; the shifting dynamics of extended deterrence relationships; emerging forms of conflict short of open kinetic war; and a more complex operating environment that includes not just conventional and nuclear forces but cyberweapons, intensifying competition in space, and a volatile information sphere. Additionally, the normative challenge to the legitimacy of nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence as a security strategy must be acknowledged.

PANEL 2 – NATO’S DEFENCE AND DETERRENCE DEBATES

Is It Time to Update NATO’s Deterrence and Defence Posture?

Professor Stéfanie von Hlatky Centre for International and Defence Policy, Queen’s University NATO’s Deterrence and Defence Posture was last revised in 2012 during the Chicago Summit. Since then, many observers claim that the security situation has changed significantly, especially following Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, and that the document should be revised. In the absence of a new Deterrence and Defence Posture review, the conversation seems to have tilted more heavily toward conventional deterrence and Enhanced Forward Presence. How do these latest developments support broader deterrence and defence objectives for the Alliance? What is the appropriate mix of capabilities? What is animating the current deterrence debate? The aim of this presentation is to offer some recommendations about how to update NATO’s Deterrence and Defence Posture for the current context, while identifying some points of contention for the Alliance, especially when it comes to the nuclear dimension.

Is NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence Fit for Purpose?

Dr. John R. Deni Strategic Studies Center, US Army War College Since the first quarter of 2017, NATO member have been implementing the Enhanced Forward Presence (EFP) initiative across Poland and the three Baltic States, basing roughly 1,000 troops east of the former East-West German border for the first time. The EFP initiative represents a strengthening of the alliance’s deterrence and reassurance posture, with 18 of 29 allies participating. From a strategic perspective, the fact that so many NATO allies are involved in this initiative is a major strength. If, in the worst-case scenario, Russia were to invade one of the four host nations, several alliance member states would likely sustain casualties. This would probably spur a faster, more unified response from the alliance. For this reason, if the primary purpose of the EFP initiative is to act as a tripwire triggering broader allied involvement, then it seems suitable for the task.

However, it remains to be seen whether the allies can overcome the challenges associated with the multinationality that characterizes each battlegroup. These include secure communications, equipment compatibility, and English-language proficiency. Moreover, national caveats similarly frustrate the effectiveness of the EFP battlegroups, potentially preventing some contributing state forces from operating alongside host nation counterparts. Additionally, command and control arrangements are somewhat unclear – are EFP units under the operational control of NATO, host nation units, or contributing states? Finally, there remain questions over what role EFP units play in less catastrophic but more likely security challenges such as unattributable cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and other ‘grayzone’ operations. In sum, while EFP is a necessary initiative, it does not yet appear sufficient in its current form.

Emerging Technologies and Baltic Regional Security

Dr. Alexander Lanoszka City, University of London/University of Waterloo Many international observers assert that humanity stands on the precipice of a Fourth Industrial Revolution. This looming period of great technological change will consist of advances made in robotics, artificial intelligence, and additive manufacturing. These technologies might affect not only business practices and the global economy, but also how militaries operate. For small countries the Fourth Industrial Revolution may hold a lot of promise for levelling the playing field with the great powers. However, if the experience of unmanned aerial vehicles is of any indication, only an elite group of states might possess the technical and organizational wherewithal to develop and to adopt these new technologies instead. My presentation examines the impact that these technologies might have on the Baltic security environment. It first assesses how these technologies might assist U.S. military—specifically, the U.S. Army—efforts to bolster deterrence and defence in that region. It then discusses how Russia might exploit these technologies for its own benefit. Thereafter it describes the implications of these technologies for Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania so as to gauge their overall effect. The biggest promise of these technologies is that they may allow those Baltic states to prevent or to defeat the sort of tactics used by Russia against Ukraine in its 2014 annexation of Crimea.

PANEL 3 – THE EVOLVING CHARACTER OF DETERRENCE

Relearning deterrence for modern conditions

Kristin Ven Bruusgaard Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University Deterrence remained a contested concept during the Cold War, as scholarly discussions on its assumption of rationality and potential for producing misperception and security dilemmas persisted. Questions regarding the effectiveness and consequences of deterrence policies are no less relevant today, and they pertain to both traditional domains, such as nuclear and conventional deterrence, as well as to emerging domains, such as political warfare and cyber warfare. As we seek to relearn deterrence for modern conditions, we should acknowledge the possibilities as well as the limitations of deterrence.

Deterrence in the Online Space

Dr. Cori E. Dauber University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill This presentation considers deterrence as a communicative relationship between two parties where regular forms of communication (based on trust) have failed or will not work. If that is the case, can deterrence be made to work to regulate the problem of terrorist use of social media and the internet to spread propaganda? It would first require that we establish who, in this scenario, can be the partner in our deterrent relationship. This presentation posits a methodology for determining possible partners.

PANEL 4A – DETERRENCE IN ASIA

Deterring China?

Dr. David Lai Asian Security Affairs, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College “Deterring China” has been a buzzword in Washington nowadays. The most-pointed one is perhaps about “deterring China in the South China Sea.” To a lesser extent, it is “deterring China’s efforts over Taiwan” and “deterring China’s design for the Senkaku Islands” in the East China Sea. While there have been works in theorizing the ideas of deterrence and extended deterrence and policy analyses about deterring China over the years, many have not quite come to grips with a few of the practical questions: Is China deterrable on the South China Sea conflicts? Assuming the United States has prevented China from using force to unify with Taiwan for almost 70 years, given the changing power balance surrounding Taiwan, how much longer can the United States maintain it deterrence on China over the Taiwan issue? Moreover, are Air-Sea Battle concept and the Third Offset the right answers to deterring China on the above-mentioned issues? If not, what are the alternatives? This presentation intends to generate a debate on these issues and explore proper answers to the questions.

Deterring North Korea

Dr. Jae Ku US-Korea Institute, Johns Hopkins SAIS The United States-Republic of Korea alliance has successfully deterred North Korea for sixty-five years. The overwhelming conventional capability reinforced by nuclear deterrence has maintained the peace. Now that North Korea has acquired nuclear weapons, will deterrence still be effective? For deterrence to be effective, the actors involved must be rational to the infliction of punishment, and that threat of massive punishment must be credible. Is Kim Jong Un’s North Korea a rational actor? Will the US threat of nuclear retaliation remain credible? In what circumstances will it not be credible?

Filling the Deterrence Gap in India: The Need for Sub-conventional Deterrence

Dr. C. Christine Fair Security Studies Program, Georgetown University Pakistan has cultivated strategic instability such that it can engage in sub-conventional operations against India under the security of its ever-expanding nuclear umbrella. India, ostensibly, could do the same thing. Instead, India has focused upon conventional deterrence and has even demurred from expanding its nuclear arsenal. (In contrast Pakistan will soon have one of the largest nuclear arsenals, inclusive of battle-field nuclear weapons.) Indian capabilities to deliver a decisive, swift defeat to Pakistan under this nuclear umbrella may take decades to develop. Yet Pakistan’s adventurism continues unabating. I argue that in the near-term India should develop sub-conventional deterrence (i.e. military operations other than war) to contend with this continuing security threat from terrorist groups like LeT and their masterminds in the Pakistani army and ISI. The challenge will be calibrating these responses to deprive Pakistan of an opportunity to launch a larger conflict. This will require working with partners like the United States and Britain to force Pakistan to acquiesce. This is not akin to asking for permission; rather a notification of Indian intentions immediately before undertaking the planned operation. These efforts will fall short of the overall goal of coercing Pakistan to cease and desist from using terrorism as a tool of policy; however, they may provide an important interim step in degrading their lethality.

PANEL 4B – DETERRENCE ON NATO’S SOUTHERN FLANK

Projecting Stability: NATO’s Deterrence Strategy for South?

Dr. Chloe Berger Middle East Faculty, NATO Defense College (Rome) This presentation will establish an overall framework to assess the security challenges faced by NATO along its Southern flank, and the necessary elements of a sustainable strategy to deter those challenges. The presentation proceeds from the assumption that stabilizing the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region will logically contribute to a more secure NATO. Further, given the diversity of challenges faced by the Alliance on its Southern periphery, as well as the great variety of areas concerned, the Alliance needs to rely on credible and trustable partners to effectively deter instability emanating from the South. The Alliance’s strategy to deter hostile actions and prevent the resultant instability from penetrating NATO’s Southern flank requires a comprehensive stability strategy. The strategy must be capable of timely adaptation and flexible enough to remain credible over the long-haul. The range of tools and measures necessary to develop an effective strategy will be framed by considering three geographically concentric circles from which the challenges emanate. The first circle covers the direct vicinity of the Alliance’s territory that could be understood as the Mediterranean Sea. The second circle refers to North Africa and the Middle East where the consequences of the growing and persistent instability pose serious challenges to the territory of the Alliance. The third circle refers to the “south of the south”, the Sahel and Sub-Saharan regions.

Challenges of Deterring Iran

Dr. Chris Bolan Middle East Security Studies, US Army War College The challenges of deterring Iran today are particularly daunting given Tehran’s number of independent actors in Iran’s national security decision-making process and the broad spectrum of troubling behaviors that the international community seeks to deter or reverse. The success or failure of deterrence will ultimately be determined in the minds of the leadership in Tehran as they weigh the perceived costs and benefits of their foreign policy actions or inactions. Consequently, the first challenge for effective and tailored deterrence is to develop a sophisticated understanding of key Iranian influencers and the role each plays in the national security decision-making process. The second primary challenge for Western leaders will be to prioritize and clarify the specific Iranian behaviors that they seek to deter or change. These security concerns include conventional security issues for which traditional deterrence have a solid (if imperfect) record such as preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, constraining its ballistic missile capabilities, and ensuring the Strait of Hormuz remains open to global trade and shipping. However, it also includes a set of non-traditional security issues such as Iran’s support for terrorist organizations and other regional militias, as well as cyber and information warfare for which conventional strategies of deterrence are either unproven, thought to be ineffective, or for which entirely new capabilities are needed. The ultimate challenge for Western leaders will be to forge an international coalition capable of presenting Tehran with a coherent set of credible threats of punishment combined with persuasive incentives that are most likely to influence Iranian decision-making in a positive direction. This presentation seeks to elaborate on these challenges and assess prospects for deterrence going forward.

NATO's Wicked Problem: the Migration Phenomenon

Dr. Phil Williams Matthew B. Ridgway Center, University of Pittsburgh The presentation explores the migration phenomenon on NATO’s Southern flank as a wicked problem that in turn elicits a wicked policy-making process. After summarizing the characteristics of wicked problems, the presentation will analyze migration flows from Africa and the Middle East demonstrating how this multi-faceted challenge poses a wicked security problem to NATO, but especially Europe, at multiple levels. Specifically, the presentation will address the difficulties of differentiating between legitimate refugees fleeing conflicts, economic migrants seeking a better life in Europe, and violent extremists who hide themselves within these broader flows of people in order to obtain access to Europe. In addition, the presentation will explore the difficulties of responding adequately at multiple levels to what are simultaneously security threats, humanitarian emergencies, criminal activities, and economic imperatives. The analysis suggests that strategies of deterrence have very little impact on the migration challenge, and denial strategies work better in the short term; but that, for a variety of reasons, the challenges are likely to intensify rather than decline over the next decade.

PANEL 5 – DETERRENCE POLICY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MILITARY STRATEGY

Deterrence and Reassurance in the Incredible Age of Trump

Professor Stephen M. Saideman Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University For much of NATO’s history, the US has had to expend much effort to convince not just the Soviet Union/Russia that its commitment to defend Europe is credible but also the European allies. This was in an era where NATO’s common purpose and the shared values of the members facilitated NATO’s commitments. Now, the common purpose and shared values are dissipating with the rise of authoritarian tendencies and xenophobia in Europe and in the US, undermining the certainty that NATO used to provide. This is not just about the rise of Donald Trump but of dynamics on both sides of the Atlantic.

Deterrence in Real World Decisions

Loren DeJonge Schulman Center for a New American Security By the time we reach my session inevitably all that can intelligently be said about deterrence will have been said. Recognizing the good work of the smart speakers before me, I will attempt to offer a sense of how national security policymakers debate, misunderstand, use, and abuse the concept of deterrence in real world decisions. Despite its renewed popularity, deterrence never disappeared from the lexicon of American policy discussions, being "tailored" to a panoply of potential threats and challenges in the Situation Room and littering strategy documents. In its ubiquity, policymakers and military leaders were well-intentioned but learned bad habits in policy discussions: confusing assurance, compellance, and deterrence; rarely holding to account whether their efforts and intentions succeeded or why; neglecting to affirm and clarify U.S. interests and intentions, internally and externally; actually following up if deterrence fails; and considering when we ourselves have been deterred. In practice, deterrence is too often a by-word to get the capability or action you want without the intellectual baseline or wherewithal to make it work. But this need not be the case. By learning from earlier bad habits, policymakers can set new ones as deterrence demands a greater role in defense policy - or at least ones that can work when credibility is established in 280 characters or less.

Deterring Moscow’s and Beijing’s challenges to the post-Cold War Order

Professor Hugh White Australian National University This paper will focus on deterring Moscow’s and Beijing’s challenges to the post-Cold War, rules-based order in Eastern Europe and East Asia respectively. We can no longer take our capacity to do this for granted. We have to ask anew whether, and if so how, we can establish or reestablish deterrence. We cannot rely on conventional deterrence now it is clear that the West cannot expect swift cheap victories against Russian or Chinese conventional forces in their own backyards. This can’t be fixed just by spending more on conventional forces, by token tripwire reinforcements or by political statements of commitment. It can’t even be fixed by large-scale rearmament, unless it can be made clear to rivals that we are willing to use those forces in a major war – a war which might become nuclear. It will be easier for Moscow and Beijing to deter us than for us to deter them unless we can convince them that we are as determined to defend the current orders as they are to revise them. This is especially true for the United States. During the Cold War neither side was perceived to have had the balance of resolve on its side. But today it is far from clear that America is as resolved to preserve the post-Cold War regional orders in Europe and Asia as Russia and China are to revise them. That is not just because of President Trump. No US political leader has presented a compelling argument as to why America should bear the burdens, pay the costs and accept the risks required to resist the challenges from its major rivals. The elements of such an argument are not immediately clear – and certainly not as self-evident as many of us in the Western strategic community might assume. For too long we in the West have evaded a serious debate about whether we really are willing to do that or not: would we really fight Russia to defend the Baltic States, or China to defend Taiwan, knowing where such wars could lead? What really is at stake for us in these contests, and what is it worth to us? The answers we give to these questions, both to ourselves and to our rivals, are the core of deterrence.

· PROFILES ·

Lieutenant Colonel (P) Todd J. Allison US Army

Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Todd Allison was commissioned as a Quartermaster Officer after graduating from University of Pittsburgh with a BS degree in Economics. Early in his career he served in a variety of platoon leader and company executive officer positions in airborne units at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. During this time, he completed a tour as part of the initial response of Operation Enduring Freedom to Afghanistan in 2001 to 2002 where he took part in providing logistics support to Operation Anaconda and establishment of the coalition operating base at Bagram Afghanistan.

He was then assigned to the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment stationed at Fort Carson, Colorado and later Fort Hood, Texas. In 2010, LTC Allison was assigned to the US Pacific Command in Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii where he served as a logistics planner and executive officer to the Director for Logistics, Engineering and Security Cooperation. In 2014 he was assigned to the 8th Theater Sustainment Command at Fort Shafter, Hawaii where he served as the Chief of Commander’s Initiative Group for the Commanding General and then as the commander of the 8th Special Troops Battalion at Fort Shafter, Hawaii. In 2017, LTC Allison came to the Centre for International and Defence Policy at Queen’s University as the 2017-18 US Army War College Senior Service and Visiting Defence Fellow. His civilian education includes a Master’s Degree in National Security and Strategic Studies from the US Naval War College and attended the Joint and Combined Warfighting (JCWS) School at the Joint Forces Staff College.

Major-General Simon Hetherington, OMM, MSC, CD Commander Canadian Army Doctrine and Training Centre

Major-General Simon Hetherington was born and raised in Oakville, Ontario and joined the Canadian Army as an officer in the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery. He has served on regimental duty with light, airborne, and mechanized artillery units in Germany and across Canada. He holds a Bachelor's degree in political science and a Master's degree in strategic studies. Major-General Hetherington's operational experience includes United Nations peacekeeping

in Cyprus, multiple tours of duty in Bosnia, and three deployments to Afghanistan in various command and staff appointments. He has also participated in several domestic response operations. He has commanded at every level from platoon to division. Staff assignments include service as the Executive Assistant to Commander Canadian Army and the Army Director of the Canadian Forces Transformation Team. He served with the US Army as the Deputy Commanding General for Operations of XVIII Airborne Corps in Fort Bragg, NC, overseeing the operations and training of the Corps' four divisions and seven separate brigades. Major-General Hetherington assumed command of the Canadian Army Doctrine and Training Centre on 26 April, 2017.

Lieutenant-General Stephen J. Bowes, CMM, MSC, MSM, CD Commander Canadian Joint Operations Command

Lieutenant-General Stephen J. (Steve) Bowes enrolled in the Canadian Forces in 1985. He served in a variety of Regimental positions and locations during his early formative years, first with the 8th Canadian Hussars (Princess Louise's) in Petawawa and in Lahr, Germany, and with the 12e Régiment Blindé du Canada in Valcartier. He also served in staff positions in Toronto, Moncton and Gagetown before taking command of The Royal Canadian Armoured Corps School in 2003.

Lieutenant-General Bowes was promoted to Colonel in April 2005 and was subsequently appointed the first Commander of the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team where he was deployed on Operation ARCHER under an Operation ENDURING FREEDOM mandate. In May 2006, he was appointed Deputy Commander Standing Contingency Force in Halifax and served with the Royal Canadian Navy in the Integrated Tactical Effects Experiment (Sea-Land-Air). In June 2007, he assumed formation command and was appointed Commander Combat Training Centre, Gagetown. Promoted to the rank of Brigadier-General in 2009, he was appointed Deputy Chief of Staff Plans and Projects for the stand-up of the new International Security Assistance Force Joint Command (IJC) Headquarters in Kabul. He returned to Canada in 2010, assumed command of Land Force Atlantic Area and concurrently, Deputy Commander Joint Task Force Atlantic. In June 2011, he was promoted to Major-General and appointed as Commander of Canadian Army Doctrine and Training Centre. In July 2014, he assumed the responsibilities of Chief of Force Development at National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa. Lieutenant-General Bowes was promoted to his current rank and assumed command of the Canadian Joint Operations Command in June 2015. After a fulfilling three years at CJOC, Lieutenant-General Bowes will be seconded to Veterans Affairs Canada in Charlottetown beginning July 2018, where he is looking forward to helping the Government provide the best possible care for our ill and injured. Lieutenant-General Bowes graduated from Acadia University in 1981 with a Bachelor of Arts in History, and in 1982 with an Honours Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. In 1982, he graduated from Queen's University in Kingston with a Master of Arts in Political Studies. He is also a graduate of the Canadian Land Forces Command and Staff Course, and the Canadian Forces College Command and Staff Course. Lieutenant-General Bowes is a Commander of the Order of Military Merit and has been awarded the Meritorious Service Cross, the Meritorious Service Medal, the United States Bronze Star and Meritorious Service Medals, and a Commander of the Canadian Army Commendation.

Dr. Jeffrey Larsen Research Professor, Department of National Security Affairs, US Naval Postgraduate School

Jeffrey Larsen is a research professor in the Department of National Security Affairs, US Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, and president of Larsen Consulting Group. He was director of the Research Division at the NATO Defense College, Rome, from 2013-2018. Prior to that assignment, he served for 16 years as a senior policy analyst with Science Applications International Corporation, and 21 years in the U.S. Air Force as a command pilot in Strategic Air Command, associate professor of Political Science at the Air Force Academy, and first

director of the Air Force Institute for National Security Studies. He has been an adjunct professor at Northwestern, Denver, and Texas A&M Universities, and was NATO’s 2005 Manfred Wörner Fellow. He holds a PhD in politics from Princeton University, and is author or editor of more than 150 books, journal articles, chapters, and monographs, including NATO’s Response to Hybrid Threats (NDC, 2015), and On Limited Nuclear War in the 21st Century (Stanford, 2014).

Amy F. Woolf Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy, Congressional Research Service Library of Congress

Amy F. Woolf is a Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy in the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress. She provides Congress with information, analysis, and support on issues related to U.S. and Russian nuclear forces and arms control. She has authored many studies on these issues, addressing such topics as nuclear weapons strategy and doctrine, nuclear force structure, strategic arms control and the U.S-Russian arms control agenda, ballistic missile defense policy, and issues

related to nuclear weapons and threat reduction programs Russia and other former Soviet states. Ms. Woolf has spoken at numerous conferences and workshops, discussing issues such as Congressional views on arms control and ballistic missile defenses, cooperative threat reduction with Russia, and U.S. nuclear weapons policy. Before joining CRS, Ms. Woolf was a member of the Research Staff at the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) in Alexandria, Virginia. She also spent a year at the Department of Defense, working on the 1994 Nuclear Posture Review. Ms. Woolf received a Masters in Public Policy from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University in 1983 and a BA in Political Science from Stanford University in 1981.

Paul Bernstein Senior Research Fellow at the Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction, National Defense University

Paul I. Bernstein is a Senior Research Fellow at the Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction, National Defense University in Washington, DC, and a member of the university’s Research Faculty. He leads the Center’s practice in strategic security analysis, and is engaged in a range of policy support, research, and professional military education activities related to WMD, nuclear policy, deterrence, threat reduction, and regional security, and works in collaboration with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint

Staff, combatant commands and defense agencies. Mr. Bernstein has been an adviser to the Defense Science Board and the DoD Threat Reduction Advisory Committee and is a contributing author of the Department of Defense Strategy for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction. He is a regular guest instructor at senior war colleges and other professional military education venues, has developed multiple curricula for nuclear and WMD instruction, and serves on the Board of Advisors of the Deterrence and Assurance Academic Alliance. He is author most recently of “Exploring the Requirements of Integrated Strategic Deterrence,” “Countering Russia’s Strategy for Regional Coercion and War,” “Making Russia Think Twice About Nuclear Threats,” and “Deterrence in Professional Military Education.”

Dr. Jacek Durkalec Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Center for Global Security Research (CGSR), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Jacek Durkalec is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Center for Global Security Research (CGSR) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. His research focuses on US extended deterrence, including similarities, differences, and links between U.S. security guarantees in Europe and the Asia-Pacific. Prior to joining LLNL, from 2010 to 2017, he was a research analyst at the Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM). He was also a visiting scholar at the National Security Affairs Department of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA in

2015, a staff member in the Missile Defense Office of the Polish Ministry of National Defense in 2009-2010, and an intern in the Strategic Planning Unit of the Executive Office of the Secretary-General of the United Nations in 2008. He holds a doctorate in Political Science (2016) and master’s degree in International Relations (2008) from the Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland.

Professor Stephanie Carvin Assistant Professor, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs Carleton University

Stephanie Carvin is an Assistant Professor at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs. Her research interests are in the area of national security, foreign policy, critical infrastructure protection, terrorism and technology. Stephanie holds a Masters and PhD from the London School of Economics and her most recent book is Science, Law, Liberalism and the American Way of Warfare: The Quest for Humanity in Conflict” (Cambridge, 2015) co-authored with Michael J. Williams.

In 2009 Carvin was a Visiting Scholar at George Washington University Law School and worked as a consultant to the US Department of Defense Law of War Working Group at the Pentagon. From 2012-2015, she was an analyst with the government of Canada working on national security issues. Carvin frequently appears in the media to discuss issues related to security and is the co-host of the Canadian national security law and policy podcast “A Podcast Called Intrepid” with Craig Forcese.

Professor Stéfanie von Hlatky Director, Centre for International and Defence Policy Queen’s University

Stéfanie von Hlatky is an associate professor of political studies at Queen’s University and the Director of the Queen’s Centre for International and Defence Policy (CIDP). She received her Ph.D. in Political Science from Université de Montréal in 2010, where she was also Executive Director for the Centre for International Peace and Security Studies. She’s held positions at Georgetown University’s Center for Peace and Security Studies, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Dartmouth College’s Dickey Center for International

Understanding, the Centre for Security Studies at ETH Zurich and was a Fulbright Visiting Research Chair at the University of Southern California’s Centre for Public Diplomacy. She has published in the Canadian Journal of Political Science, the Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, International Journal, European Security, Asian Security, as well as the Journal of Transatlantic Studies and has a book with Oxford University Press entitled American Allies in Times of War: The Great Asymmetry (2013). She has also published two edited volumes: The Future of US Extended Deterrence (co-edited with Andreas Wenger) with Georgetown University Press (2015) and Going to War? Trends in Military Interventions (co-edited with H. Christian Breede) with McGill-Queen’s University Press (2016). Stéfanie von Hlatky is the founder of Women in International Security-Canada and current Chair of the Board. She also serves on the Senate of the Princess of Wales’ Own Regiment. She has received grants and awards from NATO, the Canadian Department of National Defence, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Public Safety, the Government of Ontario’s Ministry of Research and Innovation and Fulbright Canada.

Dr. John R. Deni Research Professor of Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational (JIIM) Security Studies, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College

John R. Deni is a Research Professor of Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational (JIIM) Security Studies at the U.S. Army War College’s (USAWC) Strategic Studies Institute (SSI). He is also an adjunct lecturer at the American University’s School of International Service. Previously, he worked for 8 years as a political advisor to senior U.S. military commanders in Europe. Prior to that, he spent 2 years as a strategic planner specializing in U.S. security cooperation and military-to-military relations. While working for the U.S. military in

Europe, Dr. Deni was also an adjunct lecturer at Heidelberg University’s Institute for Political Science—there, he taught graduate and undergraduate courses on U.S. foreign and security policy, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), European security, and alliance theory and practice. With degrees from the College of William & Mary, American University, and George Washington University, Dr. Deni has spoken at conferences and symposia throughout Europe and North America. He is the author, editor, or co-editor of seven books, including NATO and Article 5 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2017), and he has authored several peer-reviewed monographs and journal articles.

Dr. Alexander Lanoszka Assistant Professor, University of Waterloo

Alexander Lanoszka is an assistant professor of international relations in the Department of Political Science at the University of Waterloo and a nonresident fellow at West Point’s Modern War Institute. He previously taught at City, University of London and has held postdoctoral fellowships at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Dartmouth College. He researches and writes on alliance politics and theories of war, with publications appearing in International Security, International Affairs, Security Studies, Survival, and other journals. His book Atomic Assurance: The Alliance Politics of Nuclear Proliferation will be published in late

2018 with Cornell University Press. He has a monograph on Baltic security co-authored with Michael Hunzeker that is forthcoming at the Strategic Studies Institute. Alexander holds a Ph.D. from Princeton University.

M. Elaine Bunn Strategic Consultant; former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy

M. Elaine Bunn is a consultant on strategic issues. From March 2013 to 20 January 2017, she served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy (DASD/NMD). As DASD/NMD, she directed the offices of the Under Secretary for Policy that develop and review departmental and national policies for nuclear and missile defense capabilities. Responsibilities included defining requirements for future capabilities, reviewing and adjusting operational planning, and leading discussions to develop strategies and options

with allies. Prior to being appointed DASD/NMD, Bunn was a Distinguished Research Fellow in the Center for Strategic Research at National Defense University’s Institute for National Strategic Studies, where she headed a project on future strategic concepts. Before joining INSS in 2000, she was a senior executive in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), where she worked for twenty years in international security policy. She served as Principal Director, Nuclear Forces and Missile Defense Policy, from 1993-98. During that time, she was executive director of the first Nuclear Posture Review (1994). Bunn was seconded to OSD in 2001 and 2009 to work on the second and third nuclear posture reviews. She has published articles and book chapters on deterrence, assurance of allies, strategic planning, nuclear policy, missile defense, and pre-emption, and has spoken frequently on these issues at U.S. and international conferences.

Major General Edward F. Dorman, lll Director of Logistics & Engineering, J-4, United States Central Command

Major General Dorman assumed the duties & responsibilities of Director, Logistics & Engineering J-4, United States Central Command (CENTCOM) on July 18, 2016. The J-4 Directorate plans, coordinates, integrates and synchronizes logistics and engineering operational and strategic level efforts in peace, crisis, and wartime to support USCENTCOM missions. Major General Dorman is a native of Cookeville, Tennessee and a 1983 Distinguished Military

Graduate of Tennessee Technological University where he received his commission. Prior to his selection as the CENTCOM J4, he served as the Commanding General of the 8th Theater Sustainment Command. Other General Officer assignments include Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4, Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA), G-43 Director of Operations and Logistics Readiness HQDA, Military Assistant to the Commander, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), Director, Afghan Public Protection Force Advisory Group, ISAF CJ-4, and the Army’s 25th Chief of Transportation and Commandant of the Transportation School. MG Dorman has commanded at all levels, from platoon through division, and served in staff assignments at the battalion through Army and Joint Staff level. He served overseas tours in Germany and operational combat deployments including: Commander, Logistics Task Force 530, Operation Enduring Freedom; Commander, Task Force Spear, JSOTF 20, Operation Iraqi Freedom; Sustainment Brigade Commander (Special Operations) (Airborne), Operation Enduring and Iraqi Freedom; and Assistant Chief of Staff-CJ4, Multi-National Corps-Iraq, Camp Victory, Baghdad, Iraq; Director of Logistics CJ4, HQ ISAF, Kabul Afghanistan and Director, Materiel Integration United States Forces Afghanistan, Kabul Afghanistan. MG Dorman is a graduate of the Infantry Officer Basic and Advanced Courses, the Army Command and General Staff College, and the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. He holds a Master of Language Arts in German Language and Literature from Middlebury College and the Johannes-Gutenberg Universität in Mainz, Germany and a Master of Science in National Resource Strategy from the National Defense University. MG Dorman’s awards and decorations include: the Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit (5OLC), Bronze Star Medal (2 OLC), Defense Meritorious Service Medal (1 OLC), Meritorious Service Medal (5 OLC), NATO Medal, Joint Meritorious Unit Award, Army Superior Unit Award, the Ranger Tab, the Expert Infantryman Badge, the Master Parachutist Badge, the Air Assault Badge, and both the Army and Joint Staff Identification Badges.

Brigadier-General Derek Basinger Director General Capability and Structure Integration in Chief Force Development, Canadian Armed Forces

Brigadier-General Basinger joined the Canadian Army as a Reservist in December 1985. Upon finishing high school, he entered the Royal Military College of Canada (RMC) Kingston, graduating in 1991 with a Civil Engineering degree. Colonel Basinger has served with 1 Combat Engineer Regiment (Chilliwack, Edmonton and Croatia), with 2 Combat Engineer Regiment (Petawawa and Bosnia), and commanded 4 Engineer Support Regiment in Gagetown. He also deployed to Kandahar as Task Force Engineer and Chief of Staff for Task Force Afghanistan. Between Regimental postings Brigadier-

General Basinger has instructed at the Army Tactics School, the Canadian Forces School of Military Engineering, coordinated exercises for the National Strategic Studies Program at the Canadian Forces College and led a seminar at the United States Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS). Brigadier- General Basinger is a graduate of the Canadian Land Forces Command and Staff College, the Canadian Forces College, and SAMS.

Since receiving a Bachelors Degree in Civil Engineering, he has received a Masters in Defence Studies from the Royal Military College of Canada (RMC) Kingston, a Masters of Military Art and Science in Strategic Studies from the United States Army Command and General Staff College and is a member in good standing of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of New Brunswick. Posted to Ottawa in 2012, Brigadier-General Basinger has worked in the Strategic Joint Staff on Force Posture and Readiness, in Chief Force Development as Director Capability Integration, and in the Army Staff as Director Army Staff. In March 2015 Brigadier-General Basinger was appointed Director of the Corps of Royal Canadian Engineers and in July 2016 as Commandant of the Canadian Army Command and Staff College in Fort Frontenac, Kingston. He assumed his current duties as Director General Capability and Structure Integration in Chief Force Development in April 2018.

Kristin Ven Bruusgaard Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow, Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University

Kristin Ven Bruusgaard is a Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University, and a Ph.D. candidate in Defence Studies at King’s College London. Her research focuses on Russian nuclear strategy and deterrence policy in the post-Cold War era. Kristin is currently on leave from the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies (IFS). She has previously worked as a senior security policy analyst in the Norwegian Armed

Forces, as a junior researcher at the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI) and has interned at the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in Washington, D.C., and at NATO HQ. She holds an MA in Security Studies from Georgetown University, a BA with Honours from Warwick University, and is a certified language officer in the Norwegian Army. Her work has been published in Survival, Security Dialogue, U.S. Army War College Quarterly Parameters, War on the Rocks and Texas National Security Review.

Dr. Cori E. Dauber Professor of Communication, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Dr. Cori E. Dauber (@coridauber) is Professor of Communication at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where she is also a Research Fellow at the Triangle Institute for Security Studies (TISS.) She is co-editor of Visual Propaganda and Extremism in the Online Environment, (US Army War College Press, 2014) and the author of You Tube War: Fighting in a World of Cameras in Every Cell Phone, Photoshop on Every Computer, (US Army War College Press, 2010.) She has been the Visiting Research Professor at the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College. Her research focus is the communication strategies of terrorist groups, with a particular focus on their use of visual imagery. Her work has been published in journals such as Military Review, Armed Forces and Society, Jihadology.net and Rhetoric and Public Affairs, and she has presented her research to the Council on Foreign Relations, the John Kennedy School for Special Warfare, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies of the National Defense University among others. Dr. Dauber holds a PhD and BS from Northwestern University, and an MA from Chapel Hill, all in Communication Studies.

Colonel Walter Wood Acting Director-General Cyberspace, Canadian Armed Forces

Colonel Wood first joined the Canadian Forces as a high school militiaman on 4 November 1982. He graduated from Royal Military College of Canada (RMC) Kingston, with a BEng (Electrical) in 1988 and then completed Signals officer training in 1989. As a junior officer he commanded at troop level in Petawawa (SSF Sigs), Cyprus (254 UNFICYP Sigs), and Germany (3 RCR) and as a squadron 2IC within the Signal Regiment in Kingston. He also held a variety of staff appointments within the 1 Canadian Division HQ Kingston, the

Canadian Joint HQ in Somalia, the Land Force Central Area HQ in Toronto, and the NDHQ J6 Staff. As a major he completed a master’s degree in engineering management and then served in a number of technical management positions within Materiel Group’s DLCSPM and served as the Canadian Task Force G6 in Bosnia-Herzegovina, October 2002 to April 2003. From July 2005 to July 2006 he commanded 731 Sig Sqn, Shilo. As a lieutenant-colonel he served as DLR 4 (Army C4ISR Program) and completed a tour of duty as the ISAF Deputy CJ6 in Kabul, Afghanistan from November 2009 to June 2010. From June 2011 to June 2013 he was the commandant of the Canadian Forces School of Communications & Electronics in Kingston. Promoted in 2013, Colonel Wood was assigned to Information Management Group as the Director, J6 Coordination. From May 2014 to July 2016 he was appointed commander of the Canadian Forces’ premier CIS support formation that he successfully transformed to become 7 Communication Group. In February 2013 he completed the NATO Defense College “Senior Course” in Rome, Italy, and subsequently the National Security Programme in June 2017. Since then he has been first the Deputy, and now the Acting Director-General Cyberspace.

Professor Douglas Lovelace Director, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College

Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., became the Director of the Strategic Studies Institute in May 2000. He held the Douglas MacArthur Professor of Research Chair at the U.S. Army War College. His Army career included a combat tour in Vietnam and a number of command and staff assignments. While serving in the Plans, Concepts and Assessments Division and the Conventional War Plans Division of the Joint Staff, he collaborated in the development of documents such as the National Military Strategy, the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan, the Joint Military Net Assessment, national security

directives, and presidential decision directives. He also was Director of Military Requirements and Capabilities Management at the U.S. Army War College. He is a graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College and the National War College. He holds an MBA from Embry Riddle Aeronautical University and a J.D. from Widener University School of Law. He is a member of the Pennsylvania and New Jersey bars. He has published extensively in the areas of national security and military strategy formulation, future military requirements and strategic planning.

Dr. David Lai Asian Security Affairs, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College

Dr. David Lai joined the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) of the U.S. Army War College in July of 2008. Before assuming this position, Dr. Lai was on the faculty of the U.S. Air War College, Maxwell AFB, Montgomery, AL. Born and grew up in China, Lai witnessed China’s “Cultural Revolution,” its economic reform, and the changes in China’s foreign relations, the most important of all, U.S.-China relations. He earned his bachelor’s degree in China and his Master’s degree and Ph.D. in political science from

the University of Colorado. His teaching and research interests cover international relations theory, war and peace studies, comparative foreign and security policy, U.S.-China and U.S.-Asian relations, Chinese strategic thinking and operational art. Dr. Lai has been to most of the Asian nations.

In recent years, Dr. Lai has also made visits to Europe, thanks to the European growing interest in China and China’s advances in Europe. These visits and academic engagements keep Dr. Lai in close touch with the regional as well as global perspectives on U.S.-China, U.S.-China-Asia, and U.S.-China-Europe relations. Dr. Lai is an author and editor of more than 10 books and numerous foreign and security policy articles. He is also the home host of the most enduring annual conference on the study of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in the United States.

Dr. Jae Ku US-Korea Institute, Johns Hopkins SAIS

Jae H. Ku is a consultant in Asian security. He was most recently the Director of the US-Korea Institute (USKI) at Johns Hopkins SAIS. Before joining USKI, he was the Director of the Human Rights in North Korea Project at Freedom House. He has taught at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and Brown University. His research interests are: Inter-Korean Relations, US-Korea relations, Democracy in Asia, and Human Rights in North Korea. He has been a recipient of both Fulbright and Freeman fellowships.

He received his PhD from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies; MSc from the London School of Economics; and AB from Harvard University. His recent works include Author and Co-editor, “Korea Peninsula Contingencies for Joint Staff: Joint Operating Concept,” a report submitted to J-7, U.S. Department of Defense, January 2018; Energy Security Cooperation in Northeast Asia, Ed. By Bo Kong and Jae H. Ku, Routledge, New York, 2015; “The Decline of Political Participation in Korea Between 2000-2011,” in Incomplete Democracies in the Asia-Pacific, Ed. By Giovanna Maria Dora Dore, Jae H. Ku, and Karl D. Jackson, Palgrave MacMillan, London, 2014; Co-Editor, China’s Domestic Politics and Foreign Policies and Major Countries’ Strategies Toward China, Korea Institute for National Unification, Seoul, South Korea, December 2012; Co-Author, “The Uneasiness of Big Brother-Littler Brother Relationships: China’s Relations with Neighboring Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Mongolia, and Myanmar,” in China’s Domestic Politics and Foreign Policies and Major Countries’ Strategies Toward China, Korea Institute for National Unification, Seoul, South Korea, December 2012; Co-Author, Northeast Asia in Afghanistan: Whose Silk Road?, US-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins SAIS, March 29, 2011; and Co-Editor, Nuclear Security 2012:Challenges of Proliferation and Implication for the Korean Peninsula, Korea Institute for National Unification, Seoul, South Korea, December 31, 2010.

Dr. C. Christine Fair

Provost’s Distinguished Associate Professor in the Security Studies, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University

C. Christine Fair is a Provost’s Distinguished Associate Professor in the Security Studies Program within Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. She previously served as a senior political scientist with the RAND Corporation, a political officer with the United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan in Kabul, and a senior research associate at USIP’s Center for Conflict Analysis and Prevention. She has served as a Senior Fellow at West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center, a Senior Resident Fellow at the Institute

of Defense Studies and Analysis (New Delhi) and will take up a Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellowship in the spring of 2017. Her research focuses on political and military affairs in South Asia (Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka). She is the author of Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army’s Way of War (Oxford University Press). Her forthcoming book is In Their Own Words: Understanding Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (Hurst, 2018). Additionally, she has as authored, co-authored and co-edited several books, including Pakistan’s Enduring Challenges (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015), Policing Insurgencies: Cops as Counterinsurgents (Oxford University Press, 2014); Political Islam and Governance in Bangladesh (Routledge, 2010); Treading on Hallowed Ground: Counterinsurgency Operations in Sacred Spaces (Oxford University Press, 2008); The Madrassah Challenge: Militancy and Religious Education in Pakistan (USIP, 2008), and The Cuisines of the Axis of Evil and Other Irritating States (Globe Pequot, 2008), among others.

Dr. Fair is a frequent commentator in print (New York Times, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The National Review among others) as well on television and radio programs (CBS, BBC, Al Jazeera, CNN, Voice of America, Fox, Reuters, BBC, NPR, among others). She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Women in International Security, International Studies Association, American Political Science Association, the American Institute of Pakistan Studies, the American Institute of Bangladesh Studies, the American Association for Afghan Studies, and the Association for Asian Studies and serves on the editorial board numerous scholarly and policy-analytic journals. She resigned her membership with the International Institute of Strategic Studies to protest its consistent failure to address diversity issues. She has a PhD from the University of Chicago, Department of South Asian Languages and Civilization and an MA from the Harris School of Public Policy, also at the University of Chicago. She speaks and reads Hindu, Urdu and Punjabi.

Professor William G. Braun III Professor of Practice, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College

William G. Braun III is a Professor of Practice with the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI), U.S. Army War College (USAWC). Professor “Trey” Braun’s research agenda includes national strategy and policy analysis, land forces employment, military leadership and management, and military-society relations. He last deployed as the Director, CJ-7 (Force Integration, Training, and Education Direc-torate), Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan. His 30-year U.S. Army career included multiple tactical aviation and planner assignments at Division and Corps, and multiple

force management assignments on the Army staff, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, and the U.S. Army Recruiting Command. Professor Braun holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Alfred University and master’s degrees from the USAWC in strategic studies, the School of Advanced Military Science in military art and science, and Webster University in business.

Dr. Chris Bolan Middle East Security Studies, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College

Dr. Chris Bolan is Professor of Middle East Security Studies at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College where he researches and teaches graduate level courses on U.S. national security, foreign policy, and Middle East security issues. He served as a foreign policy advisor on Middle East and South Asia affairs for Vice Presidents Gore and Cheney from 1997-2003. He is a retired U.S. Army colonel with overseas tours in Korea, Egypt, Jordan, and Tunisia. He holds a PhD in International Relations and Master of Arts Degree in Arab Studies from Georgetown University. He has published over 20 articles in professional journals and online

national security websites including the U.S. Army War College Quarterly, DefenseOne.com, RealClearDefense.com, and WarOnTheRocks.com.

Dr. Phil Williams Director, Matthew B. Ridgway Centre, University of Pittsburgh

Phil Williams holds the Wesley W. Posvar Chair in International Security Studies at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh and is Director of the University’s Matthew B. Ridgway Center for International Security Studies. Professor Williams has published extensively in the field of international security. During the last 20 years his research has focused primarily on transnational organized crime and he has written articles on various aspects of this subject in Survival, Washington Quarterly, The Bulletin on Narcotics, Scientific American, Crime Law and Social Change, and International Peacekeeping. In addition,

Dr. Williams was founding editor of a journal entitled Transnational Organized Crime and has edited several volumes on combating organized crime, Russian organized crime, and trafficking in women.

He has been a consultant to both the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime and United States government agencies and has also given congressional testimony on organized crime. He was also a joint author for the United Nations of a study on Offshore Financial Centers and Money Laundering. He has also focused on alliances among criminal organizations, terrorist finances, drugs and violence in Mexico, and complexity theory and intelligence analysis. In 2001 and 2002, Dr. Williams spent a sabbatical at CERT where he worked on intelligence analysis for cyber-threats and financial cyber-crime. Dr. Williams has worked more recently on terrorist finances, ungoverned spaces, and drug trafficking through West Africa. In academic years 2007-8 and 2008-9 he was Visiting Research Professor at the Strategic Studies Institute, (SSI) US Army War College, where he wrote a monograph on The New Dark Age: The Decline of the State and U.S. Strategy and another one, published in August 2009 entitled Criminals, Militias and Insurgents: Organized Crime in Iraq. Dr. Williams contributed three chapters to Fighting Back, an edited volume on terrorism published by Stanford University Press and has published an article on Mexican drug violence in a special issue of Terrorism and Political Violence. He also has a chapter on Nigerian organized crime in the Oxford Handbook of Organized Crime. In addition, he is co-editor of a volume published by SSI on Cyberspace: Malevolent Actors, Criminal Opportunities, and Strategic Competition and co-author of a monograph, Military Contingencies in Megacities. He has been researching the crisis of governance in Central America and is currently completing a book on Transnational Organized Crime.

Dr. Chloe Berger Research Advisor, Middle-East Faculty NATO Defense College (Rome)

Dr. Chloe Berger is a Research Advisor at the Middle-East Faculty of the NATO Defense College. Before joining NDC, Chloe Berger held different positions in French educational institutions, public and private, in Syria and Egypt. At the same time, she worked as a consultant for risks analysis and strategic monitoring on Middle-Eastern issues (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine).

Chloe Berger is also an associate researcher at the Center Thucydide (Paris 2 University). She is a graduate from the Political Studies Institute of Paris (Sciences-Po Paris) in Public Affairs and she received a PhD in Political Sciences from Paris II – Assas University. She also holds a Master 2 in “International Security and Defense” from Pierre-Mendes France University (Grenoble). Her research work focuses mainly on Levantine non-state actors, Partisan warfare, the Arab-Israeli conflict and Levantine political and economic issues. A French national, Chloe Berger speaks English and Arabic.

Professor Kim Richard Nossal Professor, Political Studies, Queen’s University

Kim Richard Nossal is a professor of political studies and fellow with the Centre for International Defence Policy. He is the author of a number of works on Canadian foreign and defence policy, including The Politics of Canadian Foreign Policy, 4th ed., co-authored with Stéphane Roussel and Stéphane Paquin (2015); Charlie Foxtrot: Fixing Defence Procurement in Canada (2016), and The Politics of War: Canada’s Afghanistan Mission, 2001–14, co-authored with Jean-Christophe Boucher (2017).

Professor Stephen M. Saideman Paterson Chair in International Affairs, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University

Stephen Saideman holds the Paterson Chair in International Affairs at Carleton University’s Norman Paterson School of International Affairs. His research interests are in the fields of international security, comparative foreign policy, civil-military relations, and ethnic conflict. Before joining Carleton University, Prof. Saideman was Canada Research Chair in International Security and Ethnic Conflict at McGill University. Prior to that, Prof. Saideman spent 2001-2002 on the U.S. Joint Staff working in the Strategic Planning and Policy Directorate as part of a

Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellowship. He also received the Social Science Research Council’s Abe Fellowship (co-funded by the Japan Foundation Center for Global Partnership) and served as a Visiting Fellow at the Air Staff College of Japan’s Air Self-Defense Force. He has also taught at Texas Tech University and the University of Vermont. He has won two awards for teaching, one for mentoring other faculty, and one for public commentary as well as three Duckies for Excellence in Online Achievement in International Studies. He has written The Ties That Divide: Ethnic Politics, Foreign Policy and International Conflict; For Kin or Country: Xenophobia, Nationalism and War (with R. William Ayres); NATO in Afghanistan: Fighting Together, Fighting Alone (with David Auerswald), and Adapting in the Dust: Lessons Learned from Canada’s War in Afghanistan. He has written on nationalism, ethnic conflict, civil war, and civil-military relations in leading academic journals, including International Organization and International Studies Quarterly. His research has been funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Department of National Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, the Carnegie Corporation, and the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation. Professor Saideman writes online at Political Violence at a Glance, Duck of Minerva and his own site (saideman.blogspot.com). He also tweets too much at @smsaideman. He has also appeared in more traditional media (newspapers, television and radio) in Canada and elsewhere.

Loren DeJonge Schulman Deputy Director of Studies, Center for a New American Security

Loren DeJonge Schulman is the Deputy Director of Studies and the Leon E. Panetta Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. She is also a co-host of the national security podcast Bombshell at War on the Rocks. Ms. Schulman most recently served in government as the Senior Advisor to National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Before returning to the White House in 2013, she was Chief of Staff to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. She also served as Director for

Defense Policy on the National Security Council staff from 2011–2012. Prior to that, she worked as a special assistant to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, first supporting the Obama administration's transition in the Department of Defense and later advising on strategy and budget initiatives. Ms. Schulman is an affiliate of Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation and an adjunct professor at George Washington University. She began her career in government as a Presidential Management Fellow. Raised in Texas, she received her Bachelor of Arts in political science and international studies from Trinity University and her Master in Public Policy from the University of Minnesota as a Distinguished Fellow for International Peace and Conflict Studies.

Professor Hugh White Professor of Strategic Studies, Australian National University

Hugh White AO is Professor of Strategic Studies at the Australian National University. He has worked on Australian strategic, defence and foreign policy issues since 1980. He has been a journalist, a ministerial adviser, and a senior official in the Defence Department. His publications include Power Shift: Australia’s Future between Washington and Beijing published in September 2010, The China Choice: Why America should share power, first published in 2012 and since republished in Chinese, Japanese and Korean, and Without America:

Australia’s Future in the New Asia published in November 2017. In the 1970s he studied philosophy at Melbourne and Oxford Universities.

Gordon Venner Associate Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence

In October 2017, Gordon Venner was appointed as Associate Deputy Minister for the Department of National Defence. Prior to assuming this role, Mr. Venner was Assistant Deputy Minister (Policy) from July 2014 to October 2017. Previously, he has held the following positions within the Government of Canada: Assistant Deputy Minister, G8 Sous-Sherpa and APEC Senior Official, at Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada; Assistant Deputy Minister for the Middle East, Maghreb and Afghanistan

in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade; Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet for Foreign and Defence Policy in the Privy Council Office; Director General of the Middle East and North Africa Bureau at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. He has also served as Director of the International Economic Relations Division at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade where he was responsible for G8, APEC, and OECD issues. From 2004 to 2006, he served as Canadian Ambassador to Iran. From 1996 to 2000 he was Counsellor at the Canadian Mission to the European Union. Mr. Venner holds a Master’s degree from the London School of Economics and a Bachelor’s degree from the University of Western Ontario.

· KINGSTON CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SERIES ·

KCIS 2017: Developing the Super Soldier: Enhancing Military Performance Edited by William G. Braun, III, Dr. Stéfanie von Hlatky, Dr. Kim Richard Nossal. How can military leaders develop soldiers to ensure unity of purpose, optimal physical and cognitive performance, resilience, and ethically applied fighting spirit? How can the armed forces balance military effectiveness with a stated commitment to reflect society’s values and norms? How do we anticipate individual soldier enhancements required to maintain a competitive edge at the individual level of performance?

KCIS 2016: Engagement Between Peace and War: How Soldiers and Military Institutions Adapt Edited by William G. Braun, III, Dr. Stéfanie von Hlatky, Dr. Kim Richard Nossal. Today, military operations are conducted across a broad spectrum of conflict. How do we prepare our armed forces to achieve policy objectives in the ambiguous space between peace and war? What cultural awareness and human interactive skills would enhance the military’s ability to conduct operations at the lower end of the spectrum of conflict? What are the defense policy, training and doctrinal implications? KCIS 2016 examined how soldiers and military organizations adapt to rapidly changing conflict dynamics with a focus on addressing rivals who challenge Canada, the US and their allies in the “gray zone” and employ tactics associated with “hybrid warfare”. This edited collection features contributions from academic and military experts who examine the theme of adaptation across various dimensions: civil-military relations, interagency cooperation, leader development and spiritual resilience.

KCIS 2015: Robotics and Military Operations Edited by William G. Braun, III, Dr. Stéfanie von Hlatky, Dr. Kim Richard Nossal. In the wake of two extended wars, Western militaries find themselves looking to the future while confronting amorphous nonstate threats and shrinking defense budgets. The 2015 Kingston Conference on International Security (KCIS) examined how robotics and autonomous systems that enhance soldier effectiveness may offer attractive investment

opportunities for developing a more efficient force capable of operating effectively in the future environment. This monograph offers 3 chapters derived from the KCIS and explores the drivers influencing strategic choices associated with these technologies and offers preliminary policy recommendations geared to advance a comprehensive technology investment strategy. In addition, the publication offers insight into the ethical challenges and potential positive moral implications of using robots on the modern battlefield.?