Each generation is faced with unique security challenges they perceive to be the gravest ever faced in history. For our grandparents, it was winning “the war to end all wars” and “to make the world safe for democracy”.  For our parents, it was defeating the Axis powers during the second World War, funding the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, and establishing the United Nations.  For the Baby Boomers, our generation, it was ending the Cold War and the nuclear confrontation that threatened the planet for nearly forty years.

In each case, lofty purposes prevailed and Americans achieved victory. The result was preservation of the American Way of Life and the elevation of the United States, as protector of Western values, to the status of the indispensable nation.

So what lies ahead as we Baby Boomers enter into retirement and what security challenges will confront Generation X as it begins its ownership of the American Way of Life? Are the current challenges unprecedented, the gravest ever faced in history? Are the Academy graduates of Generation X prepared to face those challenges?

Even if the existing and looming challenges are not the gravest ever faced in our history, they are certainly of unprecedented magnitude and complexity. A quick review of what I have witnessed while stationed overseas on three different occasions illustrates the growing number of issues that confront the West and by implication the next American generation.

As Chief of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Situation Center in Brussels from 1992 until 1995, I had a ringside seat involving events in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The citizens of the Former Yugoslavia were prepared to solve their differences violently. The United States refused to agree with a way ahead that it viewed was a formula for genocide. Subsequently the Europeans tried to solve the conflict using negotiation, the United Nations attempted to protect citizens under threat with its peacekeeping forces, but it was NATO under the leadership of the United States that intervened in the crisis with overwhelming force and ended the killing. A NATO radically different from the one that had existed at the end of the Cold War.

Karadjic, Mladic, Mlosovic. Slavic names I had never heard before as an American assigned to NATO for the first time. Ethnic cleansing, human shields. Terms that originated from the madness unleashed on Muslims in Bosnia. Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia. Nations borne out of the disintegration of Yugoslavia. Srebrenica, Mostar, Zagreb. Cities with unfamiliar names, Srebrenica epitomizing the inhumane nature of much of the Balkans conflict.

There were historic changes, too: the constitutional crisis that would permit Germany to deploy troops outside its borders for the first time in 50 years; NATO deploying a peacekeeping and peacemaking force outside the NATO area; the Dayton Accords, which would bring an end to senseless violence and stability to the Balkan powder keg.

There was also during that crisis a recognition of the increasing capability gap between the United States and its NATO allies. It would be the precursor of a growing gap in conceptual thinking among the allies about security strategy.

Serving at the NATO Defense College in Rome in 1999 and 2000 as a member of its faculty, I observed  NATO’s first enlargement and assumed my old ringside seat to watch the Kosovo crisis. When Western Europe began drawing new dividing lines between themselves and the former Warsaw Pact countries, NATO under the urging of the United States introduced the Partnership for Peace (PfP). Vaclav Havel quickly claimed the PfP as a mechanism for gaining entry into NATO, shaming the West for its reluctance to integrate the emerging democracies. The Kosovo bombing by the now 19 NATO allies in 1999 ended the ethnic cleansing, proved the growing efficacy of precision airpower and changed the face of media relations employed during conflict.

But the U.S. Supreme Commander Allied Powers Europe during the Kosovo campaign would bristle under “war by committee”, and the capability gap between U.S. military power and that of its allies would prove to have widened still further since the conflict in Bosnia.

Creation of the Euro zone would bring a new dynamic to the world’s economy, Europe asserting its economic power and challenging the dominance of the mighty dollar.

11/9 had brought an end to the Cold War.

9/11 unleashed a floodtide of events that will likely dominate the security landscape for Generation X. Terrorism. Extremism. Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. And the instrumentalization of Islam by extremists to promote all three. The reality and devastation of suicide bombings has crossed the tipping point, with no end in sight to plots by radicalized Muslims in the West designed to wreak catastrophe.

Perhaps in large part because of its experience in Kosovo, the United States made the decision to tackle the Taliban in Afghanistan on its own. The Iraq intervention a little over a year later exposed glaring differences in threat perception among the NATO allies and the best way to cope with them. Preemption became a dirty word. Freedom fries were born. And terms like “hard power” and “soft power” were invented to describe the very different strengths of NATO and the European Union (EU).

Now I am back again at the NATO Defense College as its Dean under the auspices of a still larger 26-nation Alliance, and once again events that promise to change the course of history are underway in the Middle East. Israel, Palestine, Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, Syria. Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah. Danish cartoons. All are elements forcing moderate Muslims to choose sides and flushing out the cockroaches that have hidden in the shadows for many years. Elements that demand dialogue, that recognize the dangers of radicalization, that are making the international community take proactive action to face that which it would prefer not to confront.

Emerging giants China and India. A re-emerging Russia. Energy as the focus of foreign policy. Globalization and its growing impact on all aspects of national existence and international relations. Demographics and immigration, and the unseen transformation taking place on the European continent with its low birthrates and stagnant economic growth.

Central Asia, Caucasus, Black Sea. Regions once known best only to experts but now important for access to energy, their long isolated populations demanding the right for integration into the international community on their own terms.

Latin America and Cuba. Hugo Chavez. The passing of Castro. Change that promises to further complicate relations in the Western hemisphere.

Nanotechnology, biotechnology, robotics, space, missile defense, alternative energy sources and Moore’s Law. The future of technology depends on research, and the United States spends ten times more than Europe on high-tech research and development. America continues to be the world’s engine for technology innovation.

A frustrated NATO is faced with an uncooperative European Union, victim of French ambitions and Turkish use of the relationship between the two organizations as an instrument to effect change it believes important to its national interests. The capability gap between the United States and its allies is still growing, and the transatlantic link, some say, is still feeling the hangover from the crisis that swept into the open in the days leading up to the conflict in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the conflict in Iraq may be changing domestic politics in America. Primaries were introduced to take power from party operatives and to give voters the right to choose who would represent them in election campaigns. We may be witnessing the emergence of third party candidates, who run as independents in reaction to special interest groups that use the primaries to target politicians they don’t agree with. Powerful politicians who won previously by large margins will likely refuse to accept the outcome of primaries manipulated by activists that involve ten percent of registered voters.

Growing reliance on technology is changing how we perceive and interact with the world. The Internet has transformed how we acquire and share knowledge, how we communicate, and how we entertain ourselves. People are obsessed with staying connected. The relationship between information and intelligence is blurring.

Information is being exploited in ways that many find uncomfortable, whether it’s for economic gain, criminal purposes, or to prevent terrorist attacks.

So, will the next generation face challenges of the gravest nature? Yes. The gravest ever? Perhaps not. But what it does face that is unique in history is the interconnection between almost everything and the number of issues that one must master to be an effective security practitioner in the third Millennium. The Baby Boomers have only themselves to blame if Generation X fails. After all, we prepared them for this day.

The Air Force Academy and its core education program that requires each cadet to take a broad range of courses from the social sciences, humanities, basic sciences and engineering divisions are designed to prepare graduates to deal with a complex world and rapid change. During their four years, cadets are required to uphold the highest standards of integrity and to develop depth of character. My interaction with Academy graduates at the NATO Defense College continues to corroborate the wisdom of the Academy’s approach. Graduates prove to be agile thinkers, able to grasp complex concepts and analyze complex relationships, and they possess basic knowledge across the board that helps them understand the multitude of issues confronting the international community.

The two areas that Academy graduates need to be stronger, but which they quickly master when provided the opportunity, are human interoperability and consensus building skills. Human interoperability is the ability to appreciate other ways of thinking about and viewing issues, the ability to appreciate and understand the unique ideas, customs, and cultural norms associated with other countries, the ability to interact effectively with persons from other cultures significantly different from one’s own, and to debate controversial issues thoughtfully. Consensus building is finding agreement on difficult issues that well exceeds the lowest common denominator and to identify common approaches to challenges that are proactive and effective.

The world is complex. The issues are many. As we enter retirement, we hand over to Generation X the reigns of responsibility for America’s future. Just as our predecessors successfully confronted the challenges of their generation, and just as we also led America to bring about historic change, our children are now charged to do their part.

I am confident that the next generation of Academy graduates is well prepared to take on their important responsibilities and to serve the United States with excellence and integrity. History will judge whether the rest of Generation X was also prepared to rise to the occasion to protect and to preserve the American Way of Life.