National Churchill Museum sparks conversation on security, role of military

Westminster College professor Dr. Tobias Gibson moderated a panel with retired Gen. Frank Grass and retired Vice Admiral Michael Franken.
Westminster College professor Dr. Tobias Gibson moderated a panel with retired Gen. Frank Grass and retired Vice Admiral Michael Franken.

America's National Churchill Museum often looks to the past, but the future was the center of the discussion Friday.

During a Churchill This Day webcast, the museum invited retired Gen. Frank J. Grass and retired Vice Admiral Michael T. Franken to discuss the threats facing the world and "a new blueprint for national security."

Grass is a United States Army general who served as the 27th Chief of the National Guard Bureau. Franken was deputy director of military operations for the United States Africa Command. The panel was moderated by Westminster College professor Dr. Tobias T. Gibson.

Gibson started the conversation off by asking Franken what threat he believes the world is currently facing.

"Whenever I look at international threats, I always first look in a mirror and look at how we're doing," Franken said.

Franken said that while missions are expanding, assets are being reduced. Everything from technological advances to the Space Force could impact the defense budget.

"The biggest threat to this nation as it stands today, separate from the pandemic, is cyber-attack," he said.

This isn't a new trend, he said; the threat is well-established. He called cyber-threats as damaging as a nuclear strike, but entirely deniable.

"The nation's cyber-warriors, so you know, they usually aren't the ones we see in the parades," Franken said. "But their efforts are total and necessary for what we face in the future."

Gibson asked Grass about the implications of deploying federal forces instances of civil unrest, as well as the health crisis.

"The timing is so critical for our nation, for us to be thinking about these things as we experience them and there will be a lot of lessons learned," Grass said.

Grass explained situations begin at the local level. When governors step in with state forces, they typically are very careful in their interactions with local leaders.

Federal forces aren't allowed to take control unless the president has declared an insurrection or a nuclear disaster has occurred.

"When it comes to dealing with civil unrest, the options that the president has from a military perspective is to declare the insurrection act, with or without the governor's consent," Grass said. "That's the last thing you want to do if you're the president because you've just told the nation that part of your country or a state or a governor has lost control."

So long as guards aren't enforcing law, they can help with disaster relief. In some cases, states do request that the national guard be federalized - that takes control and financial responsibility away from the state.

"That's not who we are as Americans," he said. "We don't want to see troops. Actually at the National Guard, we spend a lot of time talking to our leaders about this. if your governor orders, you go. But try your best to stay away from the American people face-to-face."

In discussion of the pandemic, Franken and Grass agreed it would have a large impact on planning and budgets.

"Ultimately what DOD needs to recognize is that even though at a time of decreasing, in real terms, budget times, strengthening the backbone of America will in the aggregate help DOD in the decades to come," Franken said.

Franken spoke of the importance of remaining strong internally when it comes to infrastructure, education, health, social justice and environmental stewardship.

Both speakers agreed on the importance of better and stronger alliances, as well as cultural understanding. In the future, they hope to see the end of endless peacekeeping missions and a switch to more development and peace-making efforts.

"Everything we do has to be put in perspective of what is the best tool for the crisis you're facing," Grass said. "Defense became the tool that we would use more often than anything else versus letting the diplomatic play out or other portions of our state-craft."

But the military shouldn't be the tool for most scenarios, Grass said, it should be the last resort. Grass urged listeners to think about what the best tool truly is.

Franken told a story that supported this point. Without specifics, Franken said there was once a time when some believed the armed forces should step in and handle a situation. They didn't, but eventually the situation was resolved another way.

"Had we gone in back then, I swear today we would still be in that country because, once in it, is very hard to get out," Franken said. "Diplomacy needs to be done by diplomats. It begins at home and it ends only in a hugely existential situation using the military."