 Tin Pak: What do you believe are the key characteristics that make a great strategic leader, and how can these characteristics be applied in complex, multinational alliances like NATO?
Julazadeh: I think being a great strategic leader requires many characteristics, but let me narrow it down to my top four: vision, integrity, decisiveness, and collaboration. These are the qualities I think help leaders navigate complex situations and lead diverse teams such as NATO. Vision is the ability to see and understand long-term goals and the ability to articulate them in a manner that's clear and compelling for other people to follow. And then you've got to align those long-term goals to short term actions required to actually achieve those goals. In a place like NATO, vision is critical. The stakes are high and each nation has a different approach to the way they handle issues and different priorities. However having a vision allows and ensures the alliance remains aligned and can work toward shared goals and objectives. The second characteristic is integrity, a commitment to ethical principles that helps build trust, which is absolutely critical. Integrity fosters credibility and respect, which is essential for collaboration. In my mind, having integrity is not negotiable. Without integrity, nothing gets done effectively. Nobody trusts you, especially in an alliance like NATO. Everything is built on trust. So, if you lie, cheat, steal, or violate principles of integrity, people are not going to listen to you, and you're going to lose credibility very quickly. The third characteristic is decisiveness, the ability to make clear and timely decisions, even under pressure. You may not have all the information that you need at that moment to make a decision, but sometimes you must make one. In fast-moving situations, you have to make decisions using the best information you have at that moment. You have to be able to weigh the risks and the benefits and then balance that with the urgency of the task and your long-range goals. And then collaboration. In NATO, the ability to collaborate and work with teams and across organizations and to work across nations is absolutely critical. It ensures a unity of effort and, most importantly, capitalizes on the perspectives of 32 different nations. When you're looking at the kaleidoscope of nations in NATO, you have to be able to understand and navigate their interests. The only way you can do that is by collaboration, understanding what they think and feel, what their fears are, and what their concerns are. I developed my own acronym over the last eight years that incorporates these characteristics of leadership. I call it the T2C2 One Voice. The acronym stands for trust, transparency, communication, collaboration, and speaking with one voice. I shared this acronym – and its meaning – and over time, I heard others pick it up. This was my way of ensuring that everybody was on the same page and clearly understood my approach and intent. Especially with NATO, you have to constantly build trust through transparency. You have to communicate in a two-way conversation, thus allowing you to collaborate effectively. Once you've got everybody aligned, you've built trust, you've been transparent, you've communicated and collaborated, now you and they can all speak with one voice. And in an alliance like NATO, you must demonstrate that united front, both internally to the organization and externally to the world. Tin Pak: Looking at your bio, I see you have spent a significant portion of your career in Europe and in NATO-focused roles. What do you consider the most critical leadership challenges when working with multiple nations in NATO, and how can effective leadership bridge the gaps between differing national priorities and strategies to ensure a cohesive alliance? Julazadeh: As the old adage goes, “Where you stand depends on where you sit.” In the case of NATO, a nation's placement on the continent drives its national security concerns. If you're in the East, like Poland or the Baltic States, you're primarily focused on the Russian threat. That's your day-to-day focus. If you're in Spain, Italy, and perhaps Portugal, they're more concerned with terrorism and migration from the South. In the West, nations like France and the UK are looking at broader geopolitical concerns and challenges towards maintaining global influence. And in the U.S., as you're well aware, China has become the primary concern. This diversity of priorities is the most critical leadership challenge within NATO – aligning national priorities while at the same time maintaining unity of purpose. This goal underpins the concept that NATO is built on, which is collective defense. An effective leader in NATO requires balancing all these interests, ensuring everybody is working towards the same shared objectives. I’ll add it's extremely complex to be a strategic leader inside of NATO, to manage those competing interests while keeping a long-term vision of what the core mission of NATO is. Tin Pak: In combat, every decision can have an outsized impact on the trajectory of an operation or war. When confronted with a decision that has the potential to shape the outcome of a conflict, how do you balance tactical urgency with long-term strategic goals? Julazadeh: When confronted with a decision that could shape the outcome of a conflict or an operation, my first priority would be to remain focused on two things: the immediate tactical needs of the event, what must happen right now, and then the long-term strategic vision or strategic goals. As a leader, you've got to be able to set the tone and remain calm. If you start reacting rashly, you're going to cause problems. Remain calm and then remind the team what the objectives are, “Here are the short-term objectives, and here are the long-term goals we're trying to achieve.” Next, I would focus on gaining all the information I can. I have to understand the situation as best as possible through real-time intelligence and then coordinate across multiple organizations. NATO is huge. You have to coordinate across multiple nations and agencies. You got to manage the ambiguity as best as possible. You have to ensure that all the teammates, the agencies, the organizations, and the nations have a clear understanding of the situation and what actions you need to take to achieve the goals that have been set. Once you have that clear understanding, now you can take decisive action. I'll give you a quick short story here because I think it's useful. In F-16 training, we were told to wind the clock during an in-flight emergency. Since it is a single-occupant jet, anything that happens inside the jet, you are the only one that can be held accountable. During an in-flight emergency, you might get a series of red or yellow lights on the dashboard. The red lights usually mean something really bad, yellow lights are usually less time critical. The lights can indicate anything from the engine quitting to the hydraulics failing to a simple electrical problem. So, the first thing we're taught whenever we are faced with an in-flight emergency is to wind the clock. Which means, take the time to understand the problem before you react. Take a moment, assess the lights, the instrument panel, and the gauges to decipher the problem before you act. If you rush into action without fully deciphering the problem, you risk making a decision that could exacerbate the situation, delay recovery of the airplane, and, in the worst case scenario, could render the jet unrecoverable. If you execute switch actions in the wrong sequence, the engine may never restart, or the engine fire may not go out, forcing you to eject. I think the same principle applies to combat leadership. While there's a tactical urgency and the timing is important, you have to step back, wind the clock, center the team, collect the information, communicate a shared understanding, and then take decisive action. Tin Pak: The fog of war often leads to unforeseen threats and crises. What steps do you take when confronted with sudden developments, and how can strategic leadership effectively manage ambiguity in high-pressure situations? Julazadeh: In my mind, two-way communication, decisiveness and collaboration are the three key elements to effectively manage high-pressure situations. In high-pressure situations like combat, when time is limited, and decisions have major consequences, we need to be mindful of the impact those decisions have, not just on the short-term mission or event but on the overall strategic objectives. And this is where I think the winding the clock conversation becomes even more relevant. It's critical to pause, assess the situation, determine what the urgency is, and then make the appropriate decisions. Ideally, as a strategic leader, you will have previously war-gamed possible scenarios with your team and have a basic understanding what might occur as a result of your actions or counteractions. What you don't want to do is unnecessarily escalate a crisis, you need to manage it. And the only way you can effectively manage escalation is by understanding the consequences of your actions or inaction and ensuring you're thoughtful in your response. As I mentioned earlier, the added complexity of NATO really makes this decision-making process harder because it involves 32 nations. You have to clearly communicate, ensure shared understanding, and then collaborate with each nation before you make decisions. Tin Pak: With your extensive experience leading and flying combat missions, what do you consider the key principles for achieving and maintaining air superiority in modern conflicts, and how can NATO adapt to evolving air threats in the future? Julazadeh: Air superiority has traditionally been defined through several key principles; control of the air (denying the enemy access to the air domain ensuring we can operate freely; suppression of enemy air defenses or SEAD (neutralizing enemy radar and missile systems); defense of our airspace; air-to-air combat; and operational flexibility. While these principles endure, air superiority in the future will require increased integration across the air, maritime, and land domains but most critically, integration with the emerging domains of space and cyber…and in my opinion the “not yet named” information domain. The space domain is critical for maintaining air superiority; satellites enable communication, navigation, and intelligence. These capabilities are essential for real-time threat detection and decision-making. But space is no longer just a supporting domain, it is also a warfighting domain. As we move forward, gaining and maintaining space superiority will be directly linked to our ability to gain and maintain air superiority. Additionally, other advanced technologies, like AI, cyber, and quantum will really change the face of war. AI will enhance our ability to process vast amounts of information very quickly improving the quality and speed of decision-making. Quantum computing will enhance encryption and improve our communication security, making us more resilient. Hypersonic weapons move so darn fast that traditional systems can't intercept it, changing the entire operational environment. To wrap up, I think the core principles of air superiority remain essential, but success in future conflicts will depend on integrating emerging technologies and capabilities – space, cyber, AI, and quantum – to maintain our edge and ensure operational dominance. Tin Pak: How do you see the integration of AI, quantum computing, and other technological advancements shaping warfare in the coming years, and what strategic steps should NATO take to stay ahead of these emerging threats and capabilities? Julazadeh: AI, quantum computing, and space are revolutionizing modern warfare. These emerging technologies are essential for ensuring NATO stays competitive. AI accelerates decision-making by enabling real-time data analysis, improving situational awareness and enabling more informed choices on the battlefield. Quantum computing is a game changer, particularly in data processing and intelligence collection, allowing us to process information faster than anything else. NATO Center for Maritime Research and Experimentation, or CMRE, is advancing quantum sensing, which will enhance navigation precision especially in GPS-denied environments. Additionally, as I mentioned perviously, quantum advancements will improve communications and data security, making NATO’s cyber systems resilient to emerging threats. Cyber defense remains a priority. NATO just stood up the NATO Integrated Cyber Defense Center to help protect NATO networks and critical infrastructure. They're going to focus on identifying cyber threats and securing NATO’s networks to ensure operational continuity. To stay ahead, NATO must rapidly integrate these technologies into operations. While traditional domains like air, land, and sea are well understood, operationalizing cyber, space and potentially the information domain is crucial. NATO must adapt its strategy to incorporate the emerging domains and ensure its forces are equipped to address the complexities of future warfare. Tin Pak: As the former Deputy Chief of Staff of the Capability Development at NATO Allied Command Transformation, what do you believe are the most critical areas NATO must prioritize to remain agile and effective in the face of evolving security threats, particularly in areas like cyber, space, and multi-domain operations? Julazadeh: To stay competitive and effective in future conflicts, NATO must integrate space, cyber, and AI capabilities into a unified framework of multi-domain operations (MDO). MDO allows us to combine all domains into a unified operational framework. This is the future of warfare and it’s crucial that we break down traditional silos between these domains to provide rapid, coordinated responses to complex and evolving threats. The first priority is strengthening interoperability among NATO member nations. While each of the 32 nations bring strong capabilities to the table, not all of them work together seamlessly. Interoperability issues – like radios or satellite communication systems remain a hurdle. While we've made progress, there is still much to improve. Next, we must focus on interchangeability – the ability to seamlessly swap equipment and tactics between nations in order to response rapidly to emerging threats. Interchangeability is critical if we want to be able to respond quickly to evolving threats. The ability to interoperate and exchange systems between units from different nations will vastly improve operational effectiveness and increase resilience. Finally, adaptability is critical in today’s ever-changing threat environment. From cyber attacks to hybrid warfare, NATO must be able to pivot quickly. However, adaptability is only effective when supported by interoperability and interchangeability. So, NATO must prioritize the full integration of MDO to ensure we can operate cohesively and respond effectively across all domains. By combining interoperability, interchangeability, and adaptability we can ensure that NATO remains agile and ready to confront the threats of the future. Tin Pak: Shifting gears towards, more specifically, the U.S. and how they can prepare for the future. Given the evolving security landscape with threats from China, Russia and the Middle East, do you believe the U.S. military is mentally and physically prepared for another major war, and how should the U.S. enhance its readiness to face future conflicts, especially in light of technological advancements and global alliances? Julazadeh: The interconnectedness of today's global economies means no one truly wins a major war. Political and diplomatic efforts must always be the focus, but if we must defend our way of life, we must defend the four freedoms outlined by President Roosevelt: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. We must be ready, resilient, and capable of facing any adversary from any direction. Fortunately, I think the U.S. military is well-positioned to meet these challenges. We maintain a strong technological and strategic edge, and we're investing in critical areas like AI, quantum computer and sensing, hypersonic, and space. The U.S. Space Command and Space Force are transforming space into a warfighting domain, not just a supporting domain. We're strengthening our alliances, especially with NATO and Indo-Pacific partners, ensuring seamless operations domains and nations, which improves readiness and increases capabilities. We're improving our cyber defensive and offensive capabilities. And we continue to focus on training, readiness, and resilience. I believe we have the right foundation in place, and we're heading in the right direction. Preparedness is our duty and responsibility, embedded in the fabric of our military. I believe the U.S. military is in a very strong position to defend our values and remain a leader in maintaining global peace and security. Tin Pak: Excellent. I'd like to thank you again for participating in this interview and sharing your insights.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |