American Foreign Policy for a Changing World

Robert L. Hutchings
Chairman, National Intelligence Council

National Young Leaders Conference
Washington, DC
30 July 2003

It is a pleasure to be here to share some thoughts on my favorite topic: public service leadership. Nearly 40 years ago, when I was about your age, I rolled into this town on a Trailways bus, headed for plebe year at the U.S. Naval Academy. Like many of my generation, I was full of the idea of public service inspired by President John F. Kennedy. The ideal of public service has had its ups and downs since then: the Vietnam war protests, Watergate, the Iran-Contra scandal, the Monica Lewinsky affair, and the current controversy over Iraq have all taken their toll. But I for one have never lost my passion for public service, and I am inspired to see that so many of you are inclined in the same direction.

Let me talk first about American foreign policy for a changing world, and then come back to the question of public service leadership at the end. I will also save time for your questions, so that we can have a dialogue rather than a monologue.

Shortly after I started this job, on the very day the war in Iraq began, I convened a half-day conference of the entire National Intelligence Council - all twelve National Intelligence Officers together with their deputies - to talk about the world after Iraq. It was important for us to look over the horizon at the issues that we would be facing as soon as the dust cleared from the conflict.

Much of our discussion was about what we might call the problem of American power - not just the use of American power (whether we are using it wisely or unwisely), but the very fact of having such unrivaled power. We are in an unusual - some would say unique - period in international politics in which one power dominates so thoroughly.

And this creates new challenges for American policy. It is harder to maintain alliances, because other countries lack the capacity to be full partners. It may prompt other states to make common cause against us - as France, Germany, and Russia did earlier this year - in an effort to constrain American power. It creates resentments on the part of others and fosters anti-Americanism. And it may tempt us to take on more than we can handle, simply because there is nothing to stop us from doing so. (Historians warn about what they call imperial overstretch.)

There have been foreshadowings of this problem ever since the end of the Cold War more than a decade ago, when the disintegration of the Soviet Union left us as the sole remaining superpower. If the Cold War was bipolar, with two principal power centers, the current international environment is unipolar, with just one.

And of course the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were a turning point. Because these were attacks were directed at the United States and carried out on American soil, we were uniquely affected. Other countries sympathized and offered support, of course, but they did not feel the same sense of urgency that we do.

Our European partners, for example, did not see the situation in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East in the same way that we did. For the Bush Administration, the situation there became unacceptably dangerous after 9/11. Many countries in the region had become breeding grounds for terrorists - and this applied to friendly countries as well as hostile ones. And several countries, most notably Iraq under Saddam Hussein, were actively developing weapons of mass destruction that the Administration feared might be used against us. So the action against Iraq was not just about Iraq but about transforming the dynamics of this whole region.

So where do we go from here? Much will depend on how things go in Iraq and the greater Middle East, including Arab-Israeli relations. How we go about reaffirming our relationships with Europe and Russia will also be critical. In this regard, the dispute over Iraq may catalyze new thinking about creating a new patterns and institutions for the international system. Within the National Intelligence Council, we have launched several initiatives aimed at addressing some of these issues.

As we are looking forward, we are also looking backward to consider what we might learn from recent experience. A decade ago, I was involved in a project on "the world of 2010" organized by one of my predecessors as Chairman of the NIC, Joseph Nye, now dean of the Kennedy School at Harvard. We tried to look ahead fifteen years to imagine the shape of the world to come. We described a world that would remain militarily unipolar, with no power or group of powers capable of matching the global reach of the United States, but with a tripolar distribution of economic power among North America, Europe, and East Asia. Beneath the level of these familiar yardsticks of national power, moreover, we saw not the concentration of power but its diffusion among supranational, subnational, and transnational actors beyond the control of any government.

Some of those judgments were overtaken by events, especially the terrorist attacks of 9/11, but the core argument remains valid. At a time when the spectacular performance of our armed forces in Iraq may tempt us to see power in predominantly military terms, it is worth recalling that our preponderance is not so great in other areas and that we continue to live in an interdependent world. We can't wage the war on terrorism by ourselves, and we can't bomb the global economy into submission. Our smart bombs aren't that smart.

Let me conclude by returning to the question of leadership, and then invite your questions and comments.

What I have been talking about with respect to my role as Chairman of the National Intelligence Council are some of the things leaders do: They think about the future. They focus on change. They think strategically. They think in broad terms, beyond the confines of their particular responsibilities. They help set goals and agendas for their organizations. They empower those who work with and for them. I would say that around 85% of my job is to create a climate in which the rest of the people in the organization can do their work most effectively, and then get out of the way and let them do it. The other 15% is what I am uniquely placed to do. Figuring out that 15% is critically important.

Leaders also concern themselves with the ethical dimensions of their work. Because they are engaged as agents of change, they inevitably confront issues that bear on values and principles, so they must think about these aspects. Real leaders exercise moral courage. Leaders are supposed to stand up for their beliefs, so they had better have some beliefs to stand up for.

For those of you who aspire to public service leadership, and I hope that includes many of you, it is not too early to begin thinking about these things. You should begin thinking and acting like a leader long before major responsibilities come your way. This leadership conference is a wonderful opportunity for you to do so, and I wish you every success with it.

TOP