In the modern world, dangers against Americans abound.
U.S. decision-makers are confronted with myriad complex issues, including the Islamic State group and “lone-wolf” terrorists, China, cyber attacks from unknown hackers, al-Qaida, cyber attacks from known hackers, Iran, domestic budget cuts, North Korea, climate change, drug cartels straddling its borders, and Russia’s continued ability to reduce the North American continent to a radioactive crisp.
The job of commander-in-chief has perhaps never been more difficult, and public disagreement among the president’s top advisers gives the appearance to those outside the White House Situation Room that top U.S. national security infrastructure doesn’t know where to start.
[READ: Meet the New Joint Chiefs of Staff]
July saw top officials from across the government asked publicly what they believed served as the greatest threat facing the U.S. Their responses gave insight into the most closely guarded meetings within the executive branch where the commander-in-chief and his top lieutenants cannot settle for anything less than accurately anticipating the future. It’s a job the U.S. has never quite perfected, and it is perhaps more difficult now than ever.
“You’re hearing a cacophony of views, because it’s almost unpredictable,” says Barry Pavel, a former senior national security adviser to presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, and longtime Pentagon policy official. He cites, for example, the “fantastical scenario” a decade ago that the Russian military would act belligerently and march on a foreign country. What may have been considered a fringe forecast turns out to have been pretty accurate.
“It does reflect that there’s no single overriding existential threat to the U.S. as there was during the Cold War,” says Samuel “Sandy” Berger, the national security adviser to President Bill Clinton until 2001. And during that time, the U.S. and the Soviet Union each knew roughly how many missiles the other had. “It was an easy framework to think about.”
So how to prepare for a far more complex world? It became a favored question of Sen. Joe Manchin last month. The West Virginia Democrat exploited a time of almost unprecedented turnover among the Joint Chiefs of Staff to grill the nation’s new top officers about what they fear most.
“My assessment today, senator, is that Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security,” came a snappy answer from Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, in his nomination hearing. His characteristic clarity surprised some, who figured the infantry commander who earned his combat chops in Iraq and Afghanistan might prioritize Islamic extremism or the cauldron of violence that now serves as much of the Middle East.
“In Russia, we have a nuclear power,” the general responded to Manchin’s request for further details. “We have one that not only has capability to violate sovereignty of our allies to do things that are inconsistent with our national interests, but they’re in the process of doing so.”
Russia poses an existential threat to the U.S., he finished. And its behavior “is nothing short of alarming.”
Perhaps predictably, Obama’s pick to become Dunford’s No. 2 answered accordingly a few days later. Air Force Gen. Paul Selva prioritized his top threats in order: “Russia, China, Iran and North Korea and all of the organizations that have grown around the ideology that was articulated by al-Qaida early in the turn of this century.” He visibly irked Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., for not emphasizing the dangers posed by the Islamic State group, but offered a thoughtful response to the strict opponent of Obama’s foreign policies.
“ISIS does not present a clear and present threat to our homeland and to the existence of our nation,” Selva declared. “It is a threat we must deal with and we must help our regional partners deal with, but it does not threaten us at home.”
Army Gen. Mark Milley, tapped to become the service branch’s new top officer, echoed Selva’s remarks in his own confirmation hearing, specifically citing Russia’s continued aggression in Ukraine, as well as its actions in Crimea last year and in Georgia in 2008. “So I would put Russia, right now, from a military perspective, as the No. 1 threat,” he said, adding China, North Korea, the Islamic State group and Iran.
Marine Lt. Gen. Robert B. Neller, however, upset the streak. Obama’s pick to lead the Marine Corps agreed Russia poses the greatest threat among nation states, adding an important qualifier.
“I don’t think they want to fight us,” he said. “Right now, I don’t think they want to kill Americans.”
[PHOTOS: The Big Picture — July 2015]
Then he explained his read on regional hearts and minds.
“I think violent extremists want to kill us. And their capability is not that great but their intent is high, and the fact that they have a message that seems to resonate around the world, not just in this country but in other countries in the Western world. They concern me equally.”
Rounding out the top ranks, Navy Adm. John Richardson added to the complexity of dangers during his confirmation hearing.
“Our nation is pulled in so many different directions,” the career submariner and nuclear officer said, before listing the “Indo-Asia-Pacific,” Russian aggression and violence in the Middle East as the top threats. Then he turned his attention to Congress, blasting the across-the-board mandatory cuts known as sequestration as a threat to national security. He pointed to the fact that many officers feel the cuts have gutted their forces and become a symptom of a growing divide between the military and the public it serves
“It’s remarkable how different officials say pretty markedly different things about the prioritization of threats,” says Elbridge Colby, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. “What it means is the U.S. needs to be prepared to deal with plausible contingencies.”
Selva, for example, says the Islamic State group is not a threat to the homeland, akin to Obama’s dismissal of the extremist group before its onslaught in Iraq as a “JV team.” However, Neller states that they want to kill Americans, unlike Russia. Those who have operated in the White House Situation Room call this “pieces of partial advice.”
“What they have both answered is, ‘What is the greatest threat to the homeland?’ That’s different than ‘What is the greatest threat to the United States?'” says Berger, the former Clinton adviser and now co-chairman of the Albright Stonebridge Group. “If I’m the president, obviously the homeland is my first responsibility. But America has security interests in the world that go beyond the direct safety of the American people.”
And instability in places like Syria could foment further extremism within key allied states like Turkey or Saudi Arabia.
“Is that a threat to the homeland? No. Would it be? Yes,” Berger says.
Preparing for these threats requires more than simply giving advice. In addition to offering their unvarnished counsel, top officials must also worry about how they’re going to pay for their subsequent marching orders.
Milley, the former special forces operator and airborne infantryman, is facing severe cuts to the total number of Army soldiers by as many as 40,000, on top of existing reductions of 80,000. The potential for ground war in Europe, he says, might encourage Congress to open up its coffers to reduce those cuts. The same logic would apply to the Air Force, whose nuclear forces continue to struggle, and the Navy, which may not be able to afford to operate all of its ships.
That funding can be difficult to justify, considering the U.S. track record. NATO militaries during the Cold War and after were aligned to defend against Russian tanks rolling across Eastern Europe. Instead, the U.S. was wrong-footed by Putin’s ability to deploy “little green men” commandos to incite insurrection in eastern Ukraine and provide the critical feint to occupy Crimea.
Adding further complication, the military’s foreign concerns clash with the concerns of its domestic counterparts.
Top officials overseeing homeland security focus squarely on a more endemic threat: the Islamic State group, and its ability to recruit foreigners to fight for its cause. Others prioritize what are known as domestic “lone wolves,” perhaps those inspired by the Islamic State group’s so-called caliphate in Syria and Iraq. They are almost impossible to find and stop.
[RELATED: The Death of the Bush Doctrine]
“The threat that ISIL poses to the U.S. is very different in kind, in type, in degree than al-Qaida,” FBI Director James Comey said, speaking to an audience at the Aspen Security Forum late last month. “ISIL is not your parents’ al-Qaida.”
He discussed the organization’s ability to “crowdsource terrorism” through social media and the difficulties the U.S. has had in tracking Americans who have traveled to Syria to join its cause. Comey wouldn’t divulge specific numbers, but estimates it’s in the dozens. They range in age from 16 to 62, and include men and women, all drawn to “that siren song that is buzzing on their Twitter feed.”
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson offered similar concerns earlier in July.
“Without a doubt, there is the potential, the very real potential, of domestic acts of terrorism,” he told a congressional panel. “The terrorist threat to the homeland from overseas that I’m concerned about is one that is making active efforts to recruit people in response to ISIL’s recruitment efforts. And so we’ve been, as you know, very focused on that.”
So what is a single commander-in-chief to do, when presented by his top lieutenants with such a myriad of threats?
Colby, who has previously advised top officials at the White House, Pentagon and Foggy Bottom, says each officer is doing his job by prioritizing different dangers.
“I want my director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the director of the FBI and the Homeland Security secretary to be focused on the terrorism threat,” he says. “I want my military to be able to deal with [threats] if their intentions change or if their intentions prove to be more maligned.”
That balance can help determine the real capability of these powers and their actual intent.
“The threats are additive,” says Pavel, now with the Atlantic Council. “We can’t say, ‘This one is more important than that one.’ We have to address five or six threats.”
“You engage in the process. You make sure you allocate resources both for investing in future capabilities, but also dealing with the here and now of our military exercises and work with allies and partners.
In short, he says, “you have to do it all. Which makes it difficult.”
A simple understatement. And as Obama enters his last 18 months in office, it remains unclear whether he’ll be able to soothe world threats for his eventual successor.
More from U.S. News
The Death of the Bush Doctrine
Meet the New Joint Chiefs of Staff
Obama Channels Kennedy, Reagan in Iran Deal Defense
The Greatest Threat to America originally appeared on usnews.com