Preparing for a Global Katrina

In 1969, Hurricane Camille slammed into the Gulf Coast and left in its destructive wake 255 people dead, 15,000 homeless and over a billion dollars in damage. In 1969, another disaster struck the U.S.—a relatively mild Hong Kong flu pandemic claimed the lives of 34,000 U.S. citizens

In the aftermath of Katrina, the losses of Camille look tame. Similarly, the next pandemic to strike America—and the world—has the potential to dwarf the 1969 pandemic. It has been that estimated a “medium-level epidemic” could kill up to 207,000 Americans and cost $166 billion. An H5N1 avian influenza (the type most feared if it becomes transmittable from human to human), could claim 16 American million lives and impose unimaginable economics costs.

In the August edition of Foreign Affairs Laurie Garrett, a senior fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Affairs, and Michael Osterholm, the Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, had articles warning of the pending dangers of the coming pandemic.

Both experts were careful to note that the next pandemic is difficult to predict. It could be next month, next year or in ten years. But what both said is that the “reality of a coming pandemic cannot be avoided. Only its impact can be lessened.” The warning is eerily similar in its premonitory description to article in National Geographic last October documenting what would happen in the event of a major hurricane slamming into New Orleans.

While the lessons of Katrina are still fresh in our mind, our political leaders must not just focus on figuring what went wrong with our lack of preparation and poor response to Katrina, they must also turn their attention to improving our preparations to deal with the coming pandemic.

We don’t know exactly when it will hit, but—like a major hitting the Gulf Coast—we now it is coming and we know are not doing enough to prepare. Our public health experts are now telling us that our first line of defense against a pandemic—flu antivirals—is pitifully small.

What is tragic is that these antivirals, if aggressively administered at the site of an outbreak, have a good chance—like a strong levy system—of controlling the flu. To date though, the Food and Drug Administration has only been granted an additional $80 million to stockpile antivirals. It is the equivalent of making a small pile of sandbags in advance of a Category 5 hurricane.

Even more shortsighted than this is our failure to create the necessary infrastructure to develop a good vaccine and then quickly distribute it to a global population in the event of pandemic. It is estimated that at peak capacity only about 14 percent of the world’s population would be vaccinated within a year of an outbreak. One potential solution is to bolster the modest $400 million budget of the World Health Organization to address this dangerous shortcoming.

It is now clear that a deadly and destructive global pandemic is somewhere on the horizon. And like a hurricane, it can’t be stopped in its entirety but it can be limited. To do so, however, we must begin fortifying the equivalent of our levee system by creating an adequate supply of flu antivirals, as well as strengthening our emergency response systems by improving out vaccine production and distribution system.

Unfortunately, because of Katrina we now understand the cost of being unprepared. The time to head off this global crisis—a crisis that could quite possibly kill hundreds of millions world and cripple the global economy—is now. The responsibility is ours.

Jack Uldrich is the former head of the Minnesota Planning Agency and the author of Soldier, Statesman, Peacemaker: Leadership Lessons from George C. Marshall.

Challenging the Myths of Iraq

Forty-three years ago today, on June 11, 1962, President John F. Kennedy addressed the graduating class of the Yale University. In his speech he said:

“For the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

At this moment in our country’s history, it is appropriate—indeed, necessary—to reflect on the wisdom of his words. Recently, the secret “Downing Street memo” has proven what many Americans long suspected and what a few former Bush administration insiders (Dick Clarke and Paul O’Neill) have been publicly saying: President Bush—contrary to pronouncements to the American public suggesting otherwise—“had made up his mind to take military action” against Iraq as early as July 2002 and then worked to make sure “the intelligence and facts were being fixed” around this controversial policy.

The president’s “deliberate, contrived and dishonest” comments about his desire to wage war deserve to be treated as “a great enemy of truth” by both Congress and the American public. However, it is not enough to simply hold President Bush accountable for his blatant disregard for the truth. We, as citizens, must also take to heart the second part of President Kennedy’s prescient advice and challenge the many myths that still shroud our policy in Iraq because they are just as insidious—if not more so—than the president’s deliberate lies.

Two myths are especially troubling. The first is that we sought to overthrow Saddam Hussein to establish a democracy in Iraq. The second is that this war is making the world and America a safer place.

To the first myth, I will accept that America is now struggling to establish a democracy in Iraq (and would go even further and acknowledge that we have a responsibility to help the Iraqi people achieve a viable form of self government); but it is sheer hypocrisy to retroactively state that it was our intention all along to establish a democracy. No amount of public posturing, patriotic speech-making or partisan spinning can free us from the fact that we invaded Iraq on the false grounds that Saddam Hussein harbored weapons of mass destruction.

We now know that he did not. Let us have the courage to admit it. Contrary to the opinion of some, our willingness to take a critical look at ourselves and our motives does not make us weaker, it makes us stronger.

Also, the fact that we have fought just and honorable wars in the past and “made the world safe for democracy” does not mean that this war can be made to fit within those same noble notions. As Kennedy reminds us, too “often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears.” The current war in Iraq is not comparable to World War II and it is disingenuous for supporters to suggest otherwise.

The second myth is even more dangerous and will undoubtedly cause a deal of “discomfort” among many supporters of the war who refuse to be shaken from the “comfort of their opinion” and it is the myth that this war is making the world and America more secure.

It is not.

Every time we kill an innocent man, woman or child or falsely imprison one, we gravely wound our future security by fostering an environment that breeds new enemies. And every dollar we spend prosecuting the war in Iraq is another dollar not invested in creating a brighter, more secure future for our own citizens.

Just imagine if instead of spending $200 billion to fight this unnecessary war, Bush had invested a fraction of that money to develop home-grown alternative fuels and instituted a bold energy policy to wean ourselves off of our costly addiction to foreign oil and help extricate ourselves from having to maintain such a large military presence in the Middle East.

Alternatively, imagine for a comparable investment how much more secure our ports, cities, nuclear power plants and food supplies would be from the very real dangers of a possible chemical or biological terrorist attack. Or, better still, imagine how much stronger we would be if the same amount of time, money and human capital we are now spending in Iraq were dedicated to improving our own education, health care and our transportation systems.

To paraphrase another wonderful quote from President Kennedy, it is time for all of us to start asking “what we can do for our country.” And as he reminded us more than four decades ago in his speech at Yale, one simple way we can do that is by challenging our own “comfort of opinion”—as well as those of leaders—and start engaging in the “discomfort of thought” about our current policy in Iraq.

The Courage to Chart New Courses

Two hundred years ago tomorrow (June 2, 2005) as Lewis and Clark and the Corps of Discovery made their way up the Missouri River, they came “to the entrance of a very considerable river.” According to all their intelligence, the river wasn’t supposed to be there. In a great understatement, Lewis noted in his journal that this fact “astonishes us a little.”

He then added “[a]n interesting question was now to be determined; which of these was the Missouri.” It was more than an interesting question. It was a question fraught with danger and it had to be correctly answered if the Corps of Discovery were to successfully cross the Rocky Mountains and reach the Pacific before winter set in. A wrong decision would have jeopardized the entire expedition.

Lewis and Clark quickly dispatched two small parties down each river in an attempt to discern which was the true Missouri. The groups returned with inconclusive evidence. Every member of the Corps—with the exceptions of the two captains who remained open-minded—felt the north fork was the Missouri. Their reasoning was simple. Up to that point the Missouri had been slow, brown and muddy and because the waters of the north fork matched these characteristics, they assumed it was the continuation of the same river.

The group’s thinking was the equivalent of someone today saying that the future is going to look like the past and therefore the surest path to success is to continue along the most similar-looking route.

After traveling down the separate forks themselves, Lewis and Clark concluded otherwise. At some point in the future they reasoned, the river must run faster, colder and clearer because of melting snows from the mountains. As such, they declared the south fork to be the true Missouri.

Their controversial decision was met with wide-spread opposition. In fact, the expedition’s most skilled boatmen and best navigator “declared it as his opinion that the [north] fork was the true genuine Missouri and could be no other.”

To Lewis and Clark’s immense credit, they stuck to their conviction and, after discussing their rationale with their team, ordered everyone down the south fork. It proved to be the right decision.

On the bicentennial of this event, it is fitting to recall the episode not just because of its historical significance to the mission’s success, but because of its relevance for today’s leaders.

As modern advances in information technology, biotechnology and nanotechnology continue their relentless—almost exponential—advances and the forces of globalization continue unabated, even the most established businesses will be presented with an increasing number of new “forks” that challenge old assumptions and represent new paradigms.

Many knowledgeable people will dismiss the notion that the future will be radically different today and confidently declared it can “be no other” way. But, like Lewis and Clark, it is the job of today’s leaders to think differently about the future, challenge conventional wisdom, and have the courage to move their organizations in bold new directions.

Jack Uldrich is the author of Into the Unknown: Leadership Lessons from Lewis and Clark’s Daring Westward Expedition (AMACOM, 2004) and The Next Big Thing is Really: How Nanotechnology Will Change the Future of Your Business (Random House, 2003)

In Praise of "The Architect of Victory"

Sixty years ago today, Winston Churchill and Harry Truman declared V-E Day—victory in Europe. The announcement ignited a series of celebrations from Time Square to Trafalgar Square. In Washington, D.C., Secretary of War Henry Stimson, strolled into George C. Marshall’s office and thanked the General of the Army for his role in the victory by saying “No one is thinking of himself can rise to true heights. You never thought of yourself.”

Stimson knew the modest nature of his remark vastly understated Marshall’s role in victory but he also knew the general would have been uncomfortable and embarrassed with anything more. On this anniversary, however, it is fitting to reflect on how much George Marshall—whom the New York Times once called the “architect of victory”—contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Marshall’s first contribution occurred during the late 1920’s when he was the head of instruction at the Army Infantry School. In this position, he immediately set about discarding the stale and outmoded lessons of the First World War and urged his younger charges to “begin preparing for the first six months of the next war.” Under his tutelage over 200 future World War II generals—including Dwight Eisenhower and Omar Bradley—absorbed the lessons which they later employed with such devastating effectiveness on the battlefields of Europe.

Marshall performed his next invaluable service in the summer of 1941 when, as chief of staff of the Army, he almost single-handedly and in the face of intense public opposition convinced Congress to extend the service of hundreds of thousands of draftees. For his courage, he was publicly scorned and called “Hitler Marshall” and “a Benedict Arnold.” But when the country was attacked at Pearl Harbor just four months later and America was forced to declare war on the Axis Powers, a forgiving public was quietly thankful for the tenacity and foresight Marshall demonstrated in keeping those soldiers in uniform.

While a majority of Americans and many leading military thinkers urged President Roosevelt to defeat Japan first, Marshall quietly asserted his role as America’s leading global strategist and persuaded the president to concentrate on Germany. His rationale was simple: if Hitler was allowed to consolidate his gains on the continent, the Nazi war machine could harness the resources and industrial capacity of those occupied territories and extend the global conflict by years. The “German-first” strategy is considered by many military historians to be the single most strategic concept of the war and it was Marshall who conceived of it.

During this same period, Marshall also put together the team that successfully orchestrated the strategy. He promoted scores of younger officers and relieved hundreds of older officers because he demanded that his troops be led into battle by only the most competent of professional officers. He worked with his naval counterpart, Admiral Ernest King to attain an unprecedented level of inter-service cooperation between the army and navy, and persuaded his naval counterparts to subjugate their desire for an all out effort in the Pacific to the more immediate needs of the overall global strategy. More importantly, Marshall achieved unity of command among the allies, an act which Churchill thought impossible and later called “our greatest triumph.”

And, as if these things weren’t enough, on a daily basis, Marshall balanced the competing needs of five theaters of war, oversaw a logistics system that stretched 60,000 miles, managed the egos of such powerful men as De Gaulle, Chang Kai-shek, Douglas MacArthur and George Patton, and grew the U.S. Army from a modest force of 175,000 troops in 1939 into an 8 million person military juggernaut.

Marshall, of course, would go on to achieve even greater fame—and the win Nobel Peace Prize—for his visionary plan to rebuild war-torn Europe, but on this anniversary of V-E Day, it is fitting to stop and reflect upon the man who, as Churchill said, “called into being by his own genius” the armies that won the war. For while it is true, as Henry Stimson said, that Marshall never thought of himself, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t.

Lewis & Clark’s Happiest Moment

Two hundred years ago this month, Meriwether Lewis, William Clark and the Corps of Discovery were preparing to depart from Fort Mandan on the second—and most difficult—leg of their extraordinary 28 month journey across America. It was a historic moment because as Lewis gazed west, he realized that from this point forward their map was, quite literally, blank.

Meriwether Lewis captured the moment in his journal by noting that “we were now about to penetrate a country at least two thousand miles in width … the good or evil it had in store for use was for experiment yet to determine.” He then added “I could but esteem this moment of my departure as among the most happy of my life.” It is a wonderful quote because—for although Lewis was about to step into unknown—he was not frightened or nervous, he was happy!

Lewis’ statement, however, is more than just a notable quote. It is, as they say, “a teachable moment.” As America continues its two-year long bicentennial celebration of the Journey of Discovery, it is worth reflecting on Lewis and Clark’s willingness to embrace the unknown because of what it shows us about being a leader today.

Just as every new day after leaving Fort Mandan seemed to bring the Corps of Discovery a new challenge—be it grizzly bears, snow-capped mountains or wild, raging, rivers—the 21st century is no less daunting. New advances in biotechnology, stem cell research, quantum physics, and nanotechnology threaten to overturn well-established industries, challenge long-held assumptions and are pushing today’s leaders to confront the future.

It is easy to feel overwhelmed in the face of such dramatic change, but as Lewis and Clark so ably demonstrated, success is often as much a matter of attitude as anything else. In the same journal entry, Lewis wrote that when his “imagination … suffered to wander into futurity,” he had the “most confident hope of succeeding.” And it is this confident approach toward the future that today’s leaders must emulate.

The origin of the two captain’s willingness to embrace the future is not known, but I’d like to believe their optimism stemmed from the fact that they realized that they were not just discovering the future, they were creating it. In the process of doing so—-by continuing their assault up the Missouri River, over the Continental Divide and the Rocky Mountains, down the Columbia River and onward the Pacific—-Lewis and Clark and the Corps of Discovery did more than just fill in the American map, they blazed the trail for the generation of American pioneers settled the western portion of America.

And it is in this same spirit that today’s explorers and pioneers—-be they in business, politics, education or any other numbers of fields—-must also embrace the future. If they do, I suspect, that like Meriwether Lewis, they will but esteem this moment in history as among the most happy of their lives.