Quotes of the Day:

“I would quarrel with both parties, and with every individual of each, before I would subjugate my understanding, or prostitute my tongue or pen to either.” 

– John Adams

"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does." 

– Jean-Paul Satre

​"Wisdom, properly so called, is nothing but this: the perfect knowledge of the truth in all matters whatsoever."

– Thomas Hoobes

​1. Drones Are Changing How Wars Are Fought

2. Will the Strikes on the Houthis Make any Difference?

3. C.I.A. Homes In on Hamas Leadership, U.S. Officials Say

4. Female saboteurs who poisoned 46 Russian soldiers in Crimea are on the run after shoot-out with police, say reports

5. Two Navy SEALs missing after Thursday night mission off Somalian coast

6. Opinion: Furious: How the West is Getting Things So Wrong

7. Opinion: Where is General Gerasimov and Why Does it Matter?

8. Why Taiwan’s Election Matters to the World

9. How Lloyd Austin’s medical mystery ignited a firestorm

​10. Oct. 7 was the opening attack in Iran’s ‘ring of fire’ war against Israel by John Bolton

11. Austin ordered strikes from hospital where he continues to get prostate cancer care, Pentagon says

12. Biden: ‘We do not support independence’ for Taiwan

13. A Navy In Crisis: It's Time For The Conference Of Admirals

14. Human Rights Watch warns of authoritarian slide across Asia region

1. Drones Are Changing How Wars Are Fought

This is an animated article so please go to the link to view the graphics in movement.

https://www.wsj.com/world/drones-are-changing-the-way-wars-are-fought-b6cb4c46?utm

Drones Are Changing How Wars Are Fought

Uncrewed vehicles make combat faster, cheaper and smarter, as shown in Ukraine’s fight against Russia and Houthi attacks in the Red Sea

By Jemal R. BrinsonFollow

, Juanje GómezFollow

, Daniel MichaelsFollow

 and Stephen KalinFollow

Updated Jan. 14, 2024 12:00 am ET

Drones are transforming warfare, from Red Square to the Red Sea. 

Over the past decade, uncrewed aerial vehicles—and recently naval vessels—have put increasingly lethal and effective military equipment in the hands of insurgent groups such as Islamic State, Yemen’s Houthi rebels and underdogs like the Ukrainian military. Kyiv used drones to slow Russia’s invasion in 2022 and later sent longer-range UAVs to hit targets as far away as Moscow.

When Hamas struck Israel on Oct. 7, its attack began with strikes from hobbyist drones on Israeli surveillance posts. The Iran-backed Houthis are using drones to target Red Sea shipping lanes.

The question for the U.S. and its allies now is how to defend against cheap drones without using expensive missiles.

Here’s a look at some of the ways drones are reshaping warfare. 

Sources: DJI (Mavic 3); AeroVironment (Switchblade); Raytheon (Tomahawk); U.S. Air Force (Reaper); U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center (Hellfire)

Roque Ruiz contributed to this article.

2. Will the Strikes on the Houthis Make any Difference?

Excerpts:

Concentrating intense force in time while dispersing in space is the closest a cumulative strategy can come to matching the material and psychological effects delivered by a sequential offensive. Again, though, the odds are stacked against success.

As far as sending a message to the Houthis, they seem indifferent to rational cost-benefit calculations in the Clausewitzian mold. Nor do they seem deterrable, for that matter. These are ideologues, not dispassionate accountants of costs, benefits, and risks. Nor, evidently, do they have the sole say in strategy vis-à-vis Israel and its Western backers. The Islamic Republic of Iran is the Houthis’ behind-the-scenes patron, running weapons and other support to Yemen covertly by sea. Indeed, it’s far from inconceivable that Tehran instigated the Houthi onslaught as a way of striking indirectly at Israel and the West, not to mention at Arab neighbors that defy its claims to regional suzerainty.

So the future holds the possibility of horizontal escalation of fighting on the map as well as vertical escalation to greater violence should Iran come to the aid of its client. The situation bears close scrutiny, needless to say. Projecting what might happen represents the beginning of wise counterstrategy and operational design. Now as always in martial enterprises, foresight is at a premium if also elusive.

And, Wylie might add, coalition overseers must understand, accept, and work around the limits of the offshore approach.

Will the Strikes on the Houthis Make any Difference?

Decisive results against the Houthis seem fanciful, barring an amphibious offensive, an unappealing if not unthinkable option for coalition magnates. 

The National Interest · by James Holmes · January 12, 2024

What would Admiral J. C. Wylie say about yesterday’s air and missile strikes against Yemen’s Houthis?

In all likelihood, the author of Military Strategy: A General Theory of Power Control, a fixture in the strategic canon, would be a confirmed skeptic that the strikes will accomplish anything decisive against the rebels.

For Wylie, the goal of military strategy is control—chiefly control of physical space. And he maintains that it takes soldiers or marines on the ground, not aviators or seaborne rocketeers, to seize control of physical space. He proclaims that, in the end, “the man on the scene with a gun” is the arbiter of victory. The soldier toting superior firepower determines who wins.

So decisive results against the Houthis seem fanciful, barring an amphibious offensive, an unappealing if not unthinkable option for coalition magnates. Hence Wylie’s likely skepticism toward the venture were he among the quick today.

What did the coalition leadership intend yesterday’s strikes to accomplish? According to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, the strikes will “disrupt and degrade the Houthis’ capabilities to endanger mariners and threaten global trade in one of the world’s most critical waterways. Today’s coalition action sends a clear message to the Houthis that they will bear further costs if they do not end their illegal attacks.” The key phrases being disrupt and degrade, clear message, and further costs.

And what Secretary Austin says makes sense on its face. Martial sage Carl von Clausewitz contends that there are three ways to prevail over an antagonist on the battlefield. Imposing unbearable costs is one of them. A rational foe ought to capitulate if convinced it can’t afford to achieve its military goals, or if it doesn’t care enough about its goals to pay the necessary price. Degrade its warmaking capacity enough and its leadership ought to give in. Austin seems to bestride solid ground from a Clausewitzian standpoint.

Nevertheless, Admiral Wylie would probably take issue with this approach. That’s because Wylie classifies aerial bombardment as a “cumulative” operation, in stark contrast to “sequential” operations. Sequential operations are operations in the conventional linear sense. Such a campaign is made up of tactical engagements undertaken in sequence. Each engagement depends on what happened in the last and shapes the next engagement in the series. And on and on until a force reaches its final goal or the enemy confounds the strategy. You can chart sequential operations on a map or nautical chart using continuous lines or curves pointing toward the final objective.

A vector is the proper metaphor for sequential operations.

Not so with cumulative operations. They’re made up of many individual engagements unconnected to one another in time or space. Each action is independent from the others. A cumulative strategy grinds down an opponent, inflicting small-scale damage at many places on the map, rather than pummel it constantly until it capitulates or no longer has the wherewithal to resist. In other words, this is a scattershot approach to combat. Plot the results on a map or chart and it looks like you’ve splattered paint all over the place.

The paintsplatter is the proper metaphor for cumulative operations.

Naval warfare—submarine operations and surface raiding in particular—is cumulative in nature for Wylie. So is insurgent and counterinsurgent warfare. And so is air and missile warfare. He counsels bombardiers that the ability to destroy things on the ground from the air is not the same thing as taking control of them. And without control there is no military victory.

Now, Wylie doesn’t condemn cumulative operations. Far from it. He depicts them as a valuable—sometimes invaluable—adjunct to an overarching military strategy premised on sequential operations. Wearing down an opponent through pinpricks is a difference-maker in combat, bolstering the likelihood that sequential offensives will attain their goals against a weary foe. Yet he regards it as intrinsically indecisive as a standalone strategy. Ergo, he would doubt the efficacy of yesterday’s actions unless the Red Sea coalition mounts an amphibious offensive—a sequential mode of operations that could yield decisive results if astutely conceived and executed.

And it’s doubtful in the extreme that the Red Sea coalition will go ashore in force. That would amount to strategic indiscipline at a time when the United States, its allies, and its partners need to husband their resources for theaters of paramount importance, mainly in East Asia. It’s improbable a campaign from air and sea meant to disrupt and degrade Houthi operations will subdue the militants. But that’s the lone feasible and acceptable option before the coalition.

All of that being said, if coalition leaders want to boost their prospects of success without going ashore, here’s how they should do it. They should go big, applying maximum violence at many key places on the map at the same time, and they should keep up the pressure over a sustained period of time. In so doing they can amplify the shock effect from an air and missile offensive, not to mention the destruction of enemy arms, support infrastructure, and logistics. Again, bombardment from aloft constitutes a dispersed and thus indecisive form of warfare. But concentrating many attacks in time and maintaining constant pressure could conceivably dissuade Houthi leaders from launching fresh attacks on Red Sea shipping.

Concentrating intense force in time while dispersing in space is the closest a cumulative strategy can come to matching the material and psychological effects delivered by a sequential offensive. Again, though, the odds are stacked against success.

As far as sending a message to the Houthis, they seem indifferent to rational cost-benefit calculations in the Clausewitzian mold. Nor do they seem deterrable, for that matter. These are ideologues, not dispassionate accountants of costs, benefits, and risks. Nor, evidently, do they have the sole say in strategy vis-à-vis Israel and its Western backers. The Islamic Republic of Iran is the Houthis’ behind-the-scenes patron, running weapons and other support to Yemen covertly by sea. Indeed, it’s far from inconceivable that Tehran instigated the Houthi onslaught as a way of striking indirectly at Israel and the West, not to mention at Arab neighbors that defy its claims to regional suzerainty.

So the future holds the possibility of horizontal escalation of fighting on the map as well as vertical escalation to greater violence should Iran come to the aid of its client. The situation bears close scrutiny, needless to say. Projecting what might happen represents the beginning of wise counterstrategy and operational design. Now as always in martial enterprises, foresight is at a premium if also elusive.

And, Wylie might add, coalition overseers must understand, accept, and work around the limits of the offshore approach.

Stay tuned.

About the Author: Dr. James Holmes

Dr. James Holmes is J. C. Wylie Chair of Maritime Strategy at the Naval War College and a Distinguished Fellow at the Brute Krulak Center for Innovation & Future Warfare, Marine Corps University. The views voiced here are his alone.

All images are Creative Commons.

The National Interest · by James Holmes · January 12, 2024

3. C.I.A. Homes In on Hamas Leadership, U.S. Officials Say

C.I.A. Homes In on Hamas Leadership, U.S. Officials Say

A new task force at the spy agency is also working to boost intelligence collection on hostages still held in Gaza.

• Share full article
• 
  

A funeral in Israel for a mother and two daughters killed in the Hamas attacks. A C.I.A. task force was assembled to gather information after the Oct. 7 attack in Israel.Credit...Avishag Shaar-Yashuv for The New York Tim​es

By Julian E. Barnes and Adam Goldman

Reporting from Washington and Tel Aviv

Jan. 12, 2024

Sign up for the Israel-Hamas War Briefing.  The latest news about the conflict. Get it sent to your inbox.

The C.I.A. is collecting information on senior Hamas leaders and the location of hostages in Gaza, and is providing that intelligence to Israel as it carries out its war in the enclave, according to U.S. officials.

A new task force assembled in the days after the Hamas-led Oct. 7 terror attacks on Israel, in which 1,200 people were killed and some 240 taken hostage back in Gaza, has uncovered information on Hamas’s top leaders, according to U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence assessments.

Immediately after the Oct. 7 attack, Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, sent a memo to the intelligence agencies and Defense Department ordering the task force’s creation and directing increased intelligence collection on Hamas’s leadership, officials said.

The establishment of the task force has not created any new legal authorities, but the White House raised the priority of collecting intelligence on Hamas.

It is not clear how valuable the information has been to Israel, though none of the most senior leaders of Hamas has been captured or killed. The United States is not providing Israel with intelligence on low or midlevel Hamas operatives.

Israel had estimated before Oct. 7 that Hamas had 20,000 to 25,000 fighters. By the end of 2023, Israel had told American officials they believed they had killed roughly a third of that force.

Some American officials believe targeting low-level Hamas members is misguided because they can be easily replaced and because of the unwarranted risk to civilians. They have also said the Israeli military bombing campaign in Gaza — which according to Gaza’s Health Ministry has killed some 23,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians — could end up replenishing Hamas’s bench of fighters.

But eliminating Hamas’s strategic military leadership is another matter. Israel would score a major victory if it kills or captures Yahya Sinwar, believed to be an architect of the Oct. 7 attack, or Mohammed Deif, the commander of Hamas’s military wing. Such an operational success would likely give Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu more latitude with the Israeli public to wind down the military campaign in Gaza.

Targeting Mr. Sinwar is not simply a matter of finding him. Mr. Sinwar is believed to be hiding in the deepest part of the tunnel network under Khan Younis in southern Gaza, according to U.S. officials. But he is also believed to be surrounded by hostages and using them as human shields, vastly complicating a military operation to capture or kill him.

The United States provided no intelligence for Israel’s Jan. 2 strike in a Beirut suburb that killed Saleh al-Arouri, a deputy Hamas leader, U.S. officials said. That strike relied on information collected by Israel on Mr. al-Arouri’s location.

The United States has also stepped up collection on Hamas with more drone flights over Gaza and has increased its efforts to intercept communications among Hamas officials.

A spokeswoman for the C.I.A. declined to comment on the task force or any intelligence provided to Israel.

The creation of the C.I.A. task force comes as America’s spy agencies have raised the priority of intelligence collection on Hamas.

Image

Israeli soldiers in the central Gaza Strip on Monday.Credit...Avishag Shaar-Yashuv for The New York Time

Before the Oct. 7 attack, Hamas was a level four priority, meaning few resources were dedicated to collecting intelligence on the group. Since then, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which helps oversee intelligence priorities, has raised Hamas to a level two priority, according to U.S. officials. Level one, on which the vast majority of intelligence resources are expended, is reserved for international adversaries that could pose a more direct threat to the United States, including China, Russia, North Korea and Iran.

Raising the priority level provides additional funding for intelligence collection and most likely increases the range and volume of information that the C.I.A. tries to collect on Hamas, which the United States has designated a terror organization.

The shift in priority has also opened up new money for the C.I.A. to develop human sources, according to current and former officials. But with both physical access to and regular communication with Gaza extremely difficult, it will take time to develop new sources.

The U.S. military has been pushing Israel to retool its military campaign to focus on killing or capturing top leaders, rather than the broader strikes that have resulted in huge numbers of civilian casualties in Gaza. Gen. Michael Erik Kurilla, the head of U.S. Central Command, has visited Israel at least twice since Oct. 7, and other American generals have gone to Israel to advise officials there to adopt a more targeted plan focused on killing senior leaders.

Before Oct. 7, the United States generally relied on Israel for collecting most intelligence on Hamas, according to U.S. officials.

For Israel, Hamas was a far more important threat, and therefore a top intelligence priority.

But the Oct. 7 attack demonstrated that Israel’s intelligence collection on Hamas had significant weaknesses. American officials have also raised questions about what Israel shared with the United States.

In 2022, Israel collected intelligence that showed Hamas had developed an elaborate plan for a multiwave attack on Israel, code named Jericho Wall. But the information was not shared widely within Israel or with the United States after some Israeli intelligence officials assessed that the plan was aspirational and that Hamas did not have the capability of carrying it out at the time.

Locating the hostages, and developing information about their physical and mental conditions, is also a priority of the new task force. William J. Burns, the C.I.A. director, has been working with David Barnea, the chief of Israel’s Mossad spy agency, to negotiate their release.

In November, 109 hostages were released in return for Palestinian prisoners and a pause in the fighting thanks to U.S., Qatari and Egyptian mediation. About 130 hostages are believed to remain in captivity in Gaza. The United States and Israel are hoping for another exchange, but Hamas has insisted that any further hostage releases only be done in connection with a permanent cease-fire.

The United States has not negotiated directly with Hamas. Instead Mr. Burns and Mr. Barnea have been speaking with Qatari officials, who in turn negotiate with Hamas’s political leadership. Israel appears not to be targeting political leaders of Hamas, who are critical to the negotiations on hostage releases.

American special operations forces, which were in Israel for training exercises before Oct. 7, have remained there to work on the hostage issue.

The F.B.I. and Justice Department have also stepped up their efforts against Hamas by investigating Americans sending money to the group.

Julian E. Barnes covers the U.S. intelligence agencies and international security matters for The Times. He has written about security issues for more than two decades. More about Julian E. Barnes

Adam Goldman writes about the F.B.I. and national security. He has been a journalist for more than two decades. More about Adam Goldman

A version of this article appears in print on Jan. 13, 2024, Section A, Page 11 of the New York edition with the headline: New C.I.A. Task Force Has Uncovered Intelligence on Hamas Leadership, U.S. Says. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

4. Female saboteurs who poisoned 46 Russian soldiers in Crimea are on the run after shoot-out with police, say reports

Excerpts:

Russian military personnel stationed in Crimea have been asked not to take any food or any drinks from strangers and to detain any suspicious young women who approach them to prevent further incidents of poisoning,

Business Insider could not independently verify the report.

There were also been reports of two mass poisonings of Russian troops in Mariupol in 2023.

Acts of sabotage by Ukrainian resistance and partisan groups are used to harass Russian soldiers in Crimea, the Ukrainian peninsula occupied by Russia since 2014, and other occupied territories, and supply intelligence for Ukrainian strikes on military installations.

Female saboteurs who poisoned 46 Russian soldiers in Crimea are on the run after shoot-out with police, say reports

Yahoo · by Alia ShoaibJanuary 13, 2024 at 3:39 AM·2 min read604Link Copied

Russian soldiers in St. Petersburg on August 25, 2022.Photo by OLGA MALTSEVA/AFP via Getty Images

• Russia security forces attempted to arrest two women suspected of poisoning its troops in Crimea.
• The alleged saboteurs pulled weapons and escaped after a shoot-out.
• The women are suspected of giving food and drinks laced with poison to Russian soldiers.

Ukrainian saboteurs who are alleged to have poisoned and killed 46 Russian soldiers are on the run in annexed Crimea after a shoot-out with police, a local report says.

Two young saboteurs who had poisoned members of the Russian military in Simferopol and Bakhchisarai fled when authorities attempted to detain them in Crimea, Telegram channel Kremlin Snuffbox said on Tuesday.

The police went to apprehend the female suspects at a private house in Yalta but were surprised to find them "well armed" and "well prepared," the post said.

The saboteurs opened fire and fled the scene in a car, and authorities do not know their current whereabouts.

Three officers were killed and two were wounded in the shoot-out, a source in Russia's Federal Security Service told the Telegram channel.

It was reported in December that members of a Ukrainian partisan group called Crimean Combat Seagulls poisoned and killed 24 Russian soldiers after lacing their vodka with arsenic and strychnine.

At the time, Snuffbox quoted unnamed sources as saying that "two nice girls" tricked the unit in Simferopol, Crimea, into drinking the vodka, per the Kyiv Post translation.

In another incident, saboteurs killed 18 and hospitalized 14 Russian personnel in Bakhchisarai, Crimea, by putting arsenic and rat poison in pies and beer, Kremlin Snuffbox previously reported.

Russian military personnel stationed in Crimea have been asked not to take any food or any drinks from strangers and to detain any suspicious young women who approach them to prevent further incidents of poisoning,

Business Insider could not independently verify the report.

There were also been reports of two mass poisonings of Russian troops in Mariupol in 2023.

Acts of sabotage by Ukrainian resistance and partisan groups are used to harass Russian soldiers in Crimea, the Ukrainian peninsula occupied by Russia since 2014, and other occupied territories, and supply intelligence for Ukrainian strikes on military installations.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Yahoo · by Alia ShoaibJanuary 13, 2024 at 3:39 AM·2 min read604Link Copied

5. Two Navy SEALs missing after Thursday night mission off Somalian coast

Excertops:

The SEALs were on an interdiction mission, climbing up a vessel when one got knocked off by high waves. Under their protocol, when one SEAL is overtaken the next jumps in after them.

Both SEALs are still missing. A search and rescue mission is underway and the waters in the Gulf of Aden, where they were operating, are warm, two of the U.S. officials said.

Two Navy SEALs missing after Thursday night mission off Somalian coast

militarytimes.com · by Lolita Baldor · January 13, 2024

WASHINGTON — Two U.S. Navy SEALs are missing after conducting a nighttime boarding mission Thursday off the coast of Somalia, according to three U.S. officials.

The SEALs were on an interdiction mission, climbing up a vessel when one got knocked off by high waves. Under their protocol, when one SEAL is overtaken the next jumps in after them.

Both SEALs are still missing. A search and rescue mission is underway and the waters in the Gulf of Aden, where they were operating, are warm, two of the U.S. officials said.

The U.S. Navy has conducted regular interdiction missions, where they have intercepted weapons on ships that were bound for Houthi-controlled Yemen.

The mission was not related to Operation Prosperity Guardian, the ongoing U.S. and international mission to provide protection to commercial vessels in the Red Sea, or the retaliatory strikes that the United States and the United Kingdom have conducted in Yemen over the past two days, the official said Saturday. It was also not related to the seizure of the oil tanker St. Nikolas by Iran, a third U.S. official said.

The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss details that have not yet been made public.

Besides the defense of ships from launched drones and missiles shot from Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen, the U.S. military has also come to the aid of commercial ships that have been the targets of piracy.

In a statement Saturday, U.S. Central Command said that search and rescue operations are currently ongoing to locate the two sailors. The command said it would not release additional information on the Thursday night incident until the personnel recovery mission is complete.

The sailors were forward-deployed to the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations supporting a wide variety of missions.

About Tara Copp, AP

Tara Copp is a Pentagon correspondent for the Associated Press. She was previously Pentagon bureau chief for Sightline Media Group.

6. Opinion: Furious: How the West is Getting Things So Wrong

Opinion: Furious: How the West is Getting Things So Wrong

As US government officials bathe in hollow sound bites while much needed military aid is withheld, the West could be foolishly digging its own grave by betraying Ukraine.

By Doug Hiller

January 14, 2024, 10:01 am | Comments (4)

kyivpost.com · by Doug Hiller

As US government officials bathe in hollow sound bites while much needed military aid is withheld, the West could be foolishly digging its own grave by betraying Ukraine.

January 14, 2024, 10:01 am |

US President Joe Biden speaks at a meeting of the National Infrastructure Advisory Council, in the Indian Treaty Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on December 13, 2023. (Photo by Jim WATSON / AFP)

I have studied International Relations dating back to the 1970s and was in the military, stationed in Germany, for six years. I am frustrated and stunned by how wrong and inept our US government is. The world that my grandchildren will live in is needlessly being placed in deep jeopardy by the decisions made, or not made, by our politicians today.

There are several countries across the globe focused intently on tearing up the world order and they have demonstrated a complete disregard for human life and the rule of law in doing so. These are the “CRINK” countries – China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. We seem determined to allow them to get away with it.

The Biden administration (and Germany) dragged out the decision to provide tanks to Ukraine. Anyone paying attention at that time, during the fall and winter of 2022, will remember the drama. By the time tanks were finally showing up in Ukraine, Russia had dug its defenses in deep. Without air superiority, we expected great things of Ukraine’s offensive – which was set up to underperform – and now it is popular in the media and politics to refer to Ukraine’s “failed offensive” and wonder why we should continue to support it.

Enough not to lose, but not enough to win

The Biden administration has tried to carefully avoid angering Russia, while striving to appear heartily in support of Ukraine. The phrase “for as long as it takes” made a great sound bite, even though time is not on Ukraine’s side. We have insisted Ukraine not use any of our provided weapons on Russian soil – which Ukraine has complied with – but, we still refuse to provide the long range weapons they need to really hinder the Russian war machine and logistic supply lines well behind the front line, because those weapons could reach Russia.

Other Topics of Interest

US Policy is Adrift in the Middle East

Why the Westcannot afford to stand back from the Israel-Hammas war and be accused of double standards over Gaza.

We have essentially tied Ukraine’s hands behind their backs and said: “That’s all you get, now go fight – good luck.” It will be truly tragic if Ukraine finally gets F-16s, but we only let them use them to fire the gun, with an effective range of 2-3,000 feet) and drop gravity bombs.

Apparently, US President Joe Biden is listening to some of the guidance he’s getting that says: “We don’t want Ukraine to lose, but we really don’t want Russia to lose either – the Putin administration might collapse, and we might find the resultant chaos more difficult to deal with.”

News flash: One or the other will win. If Russia doesn’t lose, they will win.

So, the Biden administration has fallen short, but the “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) Republicans, with Donald Trump as their guiding beacon, have been a huge monkey wrench in the works, and in power would be much worse.

Trump has indicated his harsh attitude towards “globalists,” his willingness to dump our NATO commitments and throw Ukraine under the bus. Putin and his military would only need to hang on till more and more Ukrainian guns and Patriot missile systems go silent.

For all those with a pen or a voice – stop hinting, suggesting or pursuing the notion that it’s time to engage, or nudge Ukraine to engage, in negotiations as many politicians and the media are lining up to do. (I should say that twice.)

Risks of playing into Putin’s hands

Russian President Vladimir Putin will not negotiate – he evidently doesn’t need to. He can see the West’s commitment drying up and he smells a complete victory just a few calendar pages away.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky will not negotiate – and he shouldn’t. It’s not his first rodeo! He knows Putin will lie, will break any agreement, and will come back with more weapons as soon as he can. The negotiations after 2014, after Russia stole Crimea, were just a prelude to February 2022. Don’t try to tell him to negotiate.

If Russia does win, many US politicians (and people who voted for them) will conclude they really don’t care. Ukraine is – to their minds – way over on the other side of Europe and many of them would be hard pressed to find it on the map.

“It’s not our problem, what’s the harm to us, why should our tax dollars go there?”

Whether living in Michigan, Texas or Ohio, you should care!

Many countries we can find on the map (Brazil, Cuba, India, South Africa and even NATO members Hungary and Turkey) are politically and economically straddling the “gap” between the US and Russia.

If the EU and the US fail to get Ukraine out of Russia’s clutches (and under the NATO umbrella), how far might the allegiance of all the rest of the world drift away from the West? How many countries, in addition to Ukraine, would stop buying Ford, Smuckers and Lockheed Martin products?

But it’s much worse than that. What agreements has Russia made with North Korea?

If Russia is allowed to win in Ukraine, five years after Russia consolidates its hold over Ukraine (and Moldova?), it’s defense industry might provide the North Koreans (who helped Russia in its time of need) with weaponry and technology that allows North Korea to launch a war against South Korea.

The US, so happy to have got through the Ukraine disaster (in this scenario) on the cheap and without committing any troops, might then find itself fully involved in all-out war in the Pacific.

The sons of the folks living in Michigan, Texas and Ohio, and my grandson, might be fighting from trenches in Korea someday. They, and their parents, will be furious that we got it so wrong in 2024.

I’m not waiting. I’m furious now.

The views expressed are the author’s and not necessarily of Kyiv Post.

Doug Hiller

Doug Hiller was a USAF F-16 Instructor Pilot at MacDill AFB, FL from 1983 to 1986. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology from Virginia Tech (1974) and a MS in International Relations from Troy University (1980). He’s an amateur triathlete living in Virginia.

kyivpost.com · by Doug Hiller

7. Opinion: Where is General Gerasimov and Why Does it Matter?

Opinion: Where is General Gerasimov and Why Does it Matter?

“After a series of Ukrainian missile strikes in Crimea, the continued silence from the Kremlin is potentially telling. Is Putin worried that Kyiv is actively targeting his high command?”

By Jonathan Sweet

By Mark Toth

January 14, 2024, 10:22 am | Comments (4)

kyivpost.com · by Jonathan Sweet

It has been a week since Ukraine conducted two deep fire missile strikes against Russian targets in Crimea on January 5th. British Storm Shadow and French SCALP cruise missiles were used to strike a command post near Sevastopol and a radar station in Uyutne near the coastal western city of Yevpatoria.

Visegrád 24 reported shortly afterwards that 23 Russian troops were killed in the Ukrainian attack on the Russian airbase in Saky, Crimea. Nine were purported to be special forces – and five “high-ranking commanders.”

Soon thereafter rumors quickly began circulating that one of those high-ranking commanders was Russian General Valery Gerasimov. WarVehicleTracker tweeted an image from the Telegram channel known as “Ordinary Tsarism” that suggested Russian President Vladimir Putin’s theater commander had been “in a command post near Sevastopol at the time of the attack.”

It is doubtful that he is dead. Indeed, on January 6th, former deputy chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ General Staff, Lieutenant General Ihor Romanenko warned “against believing rumors about the elimination of the head of the Russian General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, in an interview with Radio NV.”

Yet Gerasimov’s continued absence from the public stage and Moscow’s ‘radio silence’ to date on his status are interesting. Gerasimov was last seen in public was December 29th, presenting awards to “military personnel who distinguished themselves during the liberation of Marinka' in occupied Donetsk region, Ukraine.”

Other Topics of Interest

A Call from Kyiv to Davos: Curbing Russian Oil and Gas Would Bring Peace in Ukraine

As Davos deliberates on the economic future, the call from Kyiv is resolute: put an end to Russian oil and gas, and you will not only end the war in Ukraine but also slow the spread of autocracy.

It is odd that there has been no response to explain the whereabouts of Gerasimov – the commander of all Russian armed forces in Ukraine. Especially given the lengths the Kremlin went to deny the death of its commander Admiral Viktor Sokolov immediately following the Storm Shadow missile attack on the Black Sea Fleet Headquarters on September 22nd.

Moscow released a video of Sokolov participating in a meeting with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and other Russian military leaders on September 26th, then another the following day purportedly showing him alive in an interview posted on a Zvezda Telegram channel.

The continued silence from the Kremlin is potentially telling. Is Putin worried that Kyiv is actively targeting his high command?

It would make sense for Ukraine to take a shot at Gerasimov if the opportunity presented itself. A successful strike could very well be that single Jenga-like piece necessary to gain momentum and jumpstart their renewed ground counteroffensive. Putin’s commander is a legitimate military target, and both impact areas were in Crimea – a war zone.

Gerasimov’s death certainly would be a significant blow to Putin’s ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine. By all accounts, he is one of Putin’s most trusted and tenured senior military advisors. A former armor officer with combat tours in the Second Chechen War, Syria and the 2014 incursions into Crimea and the Donbas, he was appointed Chief of the General Staff by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu in 2012.

In 2013, he published a 2,000-word article entitled “The Value of Science Is in the Foresight” in the weekly Russian trade paper Military-Industrial Kurier. It would go on to become known as the Gerasimov Doctrine – a modern day version of Carl von Clausewitz’s total war theory, and one in which the current Russian military is built around.

It is based upon creating chaos across all domains simultaneously. Specifically, Gerasimov specifies that “the objective is to achieve an environment of permanent unrest and conflict within an enemy state.”

Desperate to retrieve his faltering position in Ukraine, in January 2023, Gerasimov was tapped by Putin to replace General Sergei “Armageddon” Surovikin, who served as commander of all Russian armed forces in Ukraine for less than three months. Putin was in search of his Ulysses S. Grant – a closer to bring the war to a conclusion regardless the methodology or cost.

But Gerasimov’s efforts thus far have failed to deliver the knockout blow Putin demanded. Worse yet, Russian forces were turned back in Bakhmut and Avdiivka at an abysmal cost, while the Black Sea Fleet was forced to abandon their headquarters in Sevastopol.

To date, the Ukraine Ministry of Defense reports that 368,460 Russian soldiers have been ‘eliminated.” Notably, the majority of those casualties have taken place on Gerasimov’s watch. Putin has his Grant, however his Grant has yet to find his General William Tecumseh Sherman who can close out Ukraine.

Nonetheless, absent a Sherman-like general, Gerasimov was able to break-up the momentum of Ukraine’s counteroffensive. Consequently, the US, NATO and the European Union are beginning to question further support in what is now increasingly being viewed as an intractable ‘frozen conflict.’

Gerasimov might well be playing for that result lacking a decisive winning hand. The bulk of Russia’s forces in Ukraine, consisting of mobilized Reservists, conscripts, criminals, mercenaries, and foreign fighters, have gone to ground for the winter – forcing the Ukrainian military to once again attack hardened defensive positions at a cost Putin believes the West will not support.

Putin is still putting bodies in uniforms and fill trench lines – and still fighting his style of fight, a war of attrition. Absent precision deep strike weapons, fighter jets, tanks, artillery and engineering equipment, Ukraine is unfairly stuck in a defensive struggle the West has tactically pigeonholed them into.

While Gerasimov has not been able to find a path to victory, his doctrine has experienced certain degrees of success. Particularly in escalating the conflict via proxies in other regional theaters including the Middle East.

If not for the Putin-supported Hamas surprise terrorist attack on Israeli civilians on October 7th, Ukrainian forces may have captured Melitopol, enroute to the Sea of Azov, and an eventual assault to liberate the Crimean Peninsula. Gerasimov, by escalating the conflict in Gaza and launching a Russian offensive on October 9th to encircle and capture Avdiivka, effectively blunted Kyiv’s summer and fall counteroffensive in the south.

Gerasimov has been able to achieve one of Putin’s major war goals: creating Ukraine war fatigue in the West. Nearly two years of sustained combat, targeting grain storage facilities and intentionally targeting population centers in order to weaponize Ukrainian civilians are taking a toll on Washington and Brussels. So too an unrelenting Russian propaganda campaign designed to discredit Ukraine’s battlefield successes on Capitol Hill.

We are also witnessing Gerasimov’s Doctrine in numerous other areas – the Kremlin maintains overt threats of nuclear escalation, actively draws upon ‘arsenals of evil’ in Iran and North Korea to acquire ammunition for their artillery, drones and cruise missiles, played a role in the coup d'états in Niger and Sudan, renewed ethnic conflict in Kosovo, and funneled migrants from “Morocco, Pakistan and Syria” towards Finland.

All distractions away from their battlefield failures in Ukraine.

So yes, removing the architect of the Gerasimov Doctrine from the battlefield is a valid and obtainable option for Ukraine. But does targeting the Commander of Russian Forces in Ukraine somehow cross a line for the Biden Administration, Brussels and the Kremlin?

Did the US provide actionable intelligence for the British and French cruise missiles used in the attacks?

Could this explain the silence on all sides – keep the story under wraps so as to not escalate the situation with Russia?

This was not an issue during World War II when 18 P-38 U.S. aircraft descended upon Admiral Admiral Isoroku Yamamto’s aircraft, killing the architect for Japan’s surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, over the Pacific Ocean near Bougainville during Operation Vengeance. Nor was it an issue when the US killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in an airstrike in Baghdad, Iraq in 2020.

Were the Ukrainian strikes on Sevastopol and Uyutne a response to Gerasimov’s missile attacks on Dec. 29th and Jan. 2nd? Was Gerasimov an intended target, or an unintended consequence?

In time we will know Gerasimov’s fate – or Ukraine may yet to decide it for him before he can find his Sherman and burn down Kyiv.

Yet with or without Gerasimov, the war continues, as does Putin’s war on civilians, most recently with missile and drone attacks in Pokrovsk and Kharkiv.

More air defense weapons are part of the solution of defeating Gerasimov and his doctrine. But the need to enable Ukraine to strike back against the weapons systems launching cruise missiles and drones at their point of origin is paramount. The US, NATO and EU must act now – the burden of proof has long since presented itself.

Dead or alive Gerasimov and his doctrine matters. Defeating both is Washington and Ukraine’s best path to national survival.

The views expressed are the author’s and not necessarily of Kyiv Post.

Copyright 2023. Jonathan E. Sweet and Mark C. Toth. All rights reserved.

kyivpost.com · by Jonathan Sweet

8. Why Taiwan’s Election Matters to the World

Why Taiwan’s Election Matters to the World - The New York Times

By The New York Times

Jan. 14, 2024, 3:40 a.m. ET

nytimes.com · by The New York Times · January 14, 2024

How Taiwan’s Election Fits Into the Island’s Past, and Its Future

Tensions over the island’s status have flared repeatedly for decades, especially as Washington’s relationship with China has grown more strained.

Supporters of Lai Ching-te, who won his presidential race, at a campaign rally in Taipei on Saturday.Credit…Lam Yik Fei for The New York Times

By The New York Times

Jan. 14, 2024, 3:40 a.m. ET

Taiwan’s election on Saturday has big implications not only for the 23 million people who live on the island, but also for China’s superpower rivalry with the United States.

Voters chose as their next president Lai Ching-te, the current vice president, who has vowed to continue his party’s policy of protecting the island’s sovereignty. The vote is a rebuke to Beijing’s claim over Taiwan and the growing pressure it has been exerting on the island democracy.

As in all major Taiwanese elections, how to deal with China was a central focus of campaigning. The question has become only more urgent as Beijing has stepped up its military activity near Taiwan, raising the specter of a future conflict that could have implications for the United States.

What is the controversy over Taiwan’s status?

Since 1949, when the Nationalist government of Chiang Kai-shek fled the Chinese mainland for Taiwan after losing a civil war to Mao Zedong’s Communist forces, the island’s status and future has been disputed.

On Taiwan, Generalissimo Chiang and his Nationalist Party imposed martial law on the island for decades as they nursed dreams of reconquering the mainland. Taiwan, officially known as the Republic of China, lost its membership in the United Nations in 1971, when the mainland People’s Republic of China took over the seat.

A billboard in Taipei last week showing presidential candidates ahead of the election. Taiwan is functionally independent, with its own democratically elected representatives.Credit…An Rong Xu for The New York Times

Democratization in the 1990s paved the way for the emergence of a Taiwanese identity separate from the Chinese one imposed by the Nationalists on the island.

Taiwan, about 80 miles off China’s coast, is functionally independent, with its own Constitution, military, democratically elected representatives, currency and customs regime. Its citizens carry green passports, which are accepted by immigration authorities in many countries. It is now seen as a leader on human rights in Asia — a sharp contrast with authoritarian China.

Only a handful of nations officially recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state, despite being treated almost as such by many countries.

What is China’s position?

China’s ruling Communist Party continues to claim sovereignty over Taiwan, even though it has never administered the island. Beijing refers to the island as “Taiwan region,” and says that any questions over its future are purely an internal Chinese affair. Itdemands that all countries accept its One China principle, which states that Taiwan is part of its territory.

Beijing presses its claim on Taiwan on the international stage by blocking the island’s attempts to join international bodies such as the World Health Organization. When Taiwan competes in the Olympics, it is referred to as “Chinese Taipei.”

Xi Jinping, China’s leader, has said that China would continue to press for a “peaceful reunification” but reserved the right to use force if Beijing deemed it necessary.

Chinese military helicopters flying past Pingtan Island, a part of Taiwan nearest the Chinese mainland, in 2022.

Chinese jets and warships regularly run drills near Taiwan, eroding the informal boundary at the median of the Taiwan Strait, between the mainland and the island, which Chinese forces rarely crossed in the past.

Few analysts believe that an invasion by China is imminent, but Beijing has a variety of tools to exert leverage, in addition to military intimidation.

What is the U.S. position on Taiwan?

The United States is the most important backer of Taiwan’s security, and the island has been a flashpoint between the United States and China since the early years of the Cold War.

Two crises in the 1950s nearly led to military conflict between China and the United States, and Washington for decades backed the Chiang government in Taiwan.

When the United States recognized Communist-ruled China in 1979, Washington adopted a deliberately ambiguous “one China” policy: acknowledging, but not endorsing, Beijing’s position that its territory includes Taiwan.

In the decades since, the United States has maintained ties with Taiwan, including through weapons sales, and the periodic tensions over the island have not derailed the economic relationship between the United States and China.

Why is Taiwan a geopolitical flashpoint?

On Saturday, asked for a response to Taiwan’s election of Mr. Lai as president, President Biden reiterated the longstanding U.S. position that the country does not support the independence of Taiwan, remarks that appeared aimed at reassuring China.

But he has previously said he would defend the democratic island militarily if it were invaded by China, remarks that were a departure from the official U.S. policy of “strategic ambiguity” over how it would respond if China invaded.

The issue of Taiwan has flared again and again, especially as relations between Washington and Beijing have become strained in recent years.

In 2022, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi infuriated Beijing with a trip to Taipei, and a visit to the United States last year by Mr. Lai, who is currently Taiwan’s vice president, drew intense scrutiny. Chinese warplanes have tested Taiwan’s defenses, and American warships have defied Chinese pressure in the Taiwan Strait.

Who is Taiwan’s president-elect?

Mr. Lai is a member of the governing Democratic Progressive Party, or D.P.P., which has long rejected Beijing’s demands for unification. His main rival was a member of the opposition Nationalist Party, which has vowed to expand trade ties and restart talks with China.

President-elect Lai in Taipei on Saturday.Credit…Lam Yik Fei for The New York Times

Now president-elect, Mr. Lai has promised to continue the approach of President Tsai Ing-wen: keeping Beijing at arm’s length while seeking to avoid conflict, and strengthening ties with the United States and other democracies.

“We are telling the international community that between democracy and authoritarianism, we will stand on the side of democracy,” Mr. Lai said in his victory speech on Saturday, promising to defend Taiwan’s identity.

Yet when he takes office in May for a four-year term, Mr. Lai will face difficult questions about how to handle Taiwan’s dealings with Beijing. Mr. Lai has said that dialogue with Beijing is possible if Taiwan is treated with “equal respect.”

Polls show that most Taiwanese people support maintaining the island’s ambiguous status quo instead of pursing outright independence, risking possible retaliation by Beijing.

nytimes.com · by The New York Times · January 14, 2024

9. How Lloyd Austin’s medical mystery ignited a firestorm

This will be a case study in PME institutions for some time to come.

Excerpts:

At the Pentagon, some officials questioned how Austin could have overlooked a rule inculcated into military personnel from the lowest ranks: that troops must report issues up the chain that prevent them from effectively doing their jobs.

“The bottom line is that the political appointee staff failed,” one senior official said of those closest to Austin. “To become a distraction in an election year is pretty unforgivable staff work.”

This past Thursday, the matter that Biden discussed with his aides on New Year’s Day, just hours before Austin’s second hospitalization set off the chaos, came to an explosive head.

American naval and air forces, working with British counterparts, struck dozens of Houthi targets in Yemen, hoping to deal a decisive blow to their ability to threaten maritime commerce. The attack followed widespread international rejection of the group’s escalating attacks, but it also represented a risky move for the Biden administration as it seeks to extinguish, not encourage, regional destabilization.

Pentagon officials said that Austin, still at Walter Reed more than 10 days later, helped to direct the operation from his hospital room.

How Lloyd Austin’s medical mystery ignited a firestorm

The defense secretary’s secretive hospitalization has caused a potentially damaging distraction for President Biden as he seeks reelection and has unleashed a fierce debate over privacy

By Missy Ryan, Matt Viser and Dan Lamothe

Updated January 13, 2024 at 6:13 p.m. EST|Published January 13, 2024 at 12:24 p.m. EST

The Washington Post · by Missy Ryan · January 13, 2024

President Biden joined his top national security aides on a secure call Jan. 1 to discuss the upheaval threatening to engulf the Middle East and, mostly urgently that day, find ways to intensify pressure on Houthi militants in Yemen, whose attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea had jeopardized global commerce.

No one on the teleconference, which also included national security adviser Jake Sullivan, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and other top aides, noticed anything unusual about Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, the intensely private retired Army general known for his low-drama style and loyalty to the president. Like other officials working remotely during the holiday period, Austin was calling in from his home in Northern Virginia. White House officials expected to see him later that week at a military promotion ceremony.

A few hours later, Austin was instead racing across the Washington suburbs in an ambulance, trailed by his security detail. Suffering nausea and intense pain in his midsection, the 70-year-old was admitted to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland, where doctors began immediate treatment for complications from an earlier surgery.

From his hospital bed that night, Austin retained his responsibilities as defense secretary to safeguard America’s nuclear arsenal and oversee 1.3 million military personnel deployed around the world. But the solitary scene was a far cry from the massive retinue that typically surrounds the Pentagon chief on his global movements, including policy and communications staff who provide up-to-the-second operational updates and ensure that he maintains a line to government nerve centers.

Not even Austin’s most senior aides at the Pentagon, top officials at the White House, or Biden himself had any idea of his whereabouts and the threats to his health. Kathleen Hicks, the Pentagon No. 2 who could step in for Austin if needed, was vacationing in the Caribbean.

Four days passed before Austin’s medical crisis was disclosed publicly. The uproar unleashed by the news that the Pentagon chief had undergone two hospitalizations and a surgery following a prostate cancer diagnosis without notifying the White House or Pentagon staff has threatened to overshadow his tenure leading America’s sprawling military enterprise, and created a potentially damaging distraction for Biden as he intensifies his reelection campaign. It has simultaneously triggered a debate over the proper balance between privacy and disclosure for top government officials and what rights, if any, they have in keeping serious medical problems to themselves.

Current and former colleagues said that Austin’s innate introversion and his instinct — honed over decades rising though the Army — to silently manage personal woes may have led him astray.

Austin “is an intensely private person who doesn’t want to be a burden and doesn’t want to be the center of attention,” said one person who knows him well. “It’s in his DNA: be stoic and noble — in this case, maybe to a fault.”

This account of the events surrounding Austin’s hospitalization is based on interviews with more than 10 White House and Pentagon officials, and close scrutiny of the record made public by the administration. Many spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the events.

The cancer diagnosis

When Biden tapped Austin as his pick for defense secretary following his 2020 victory, it was a sign that the incoming president would prioritize dutifulness and order in his handling of global security.

Unlike an earlier crop of generals who had angered the former vice president as they cultivated large media followings and vigorously pushed their preferred policy outcomes, Austin had proven himself as a reliable officer who shunned the limelight. The general had gotten to know Biden’s late son Beau when the younger Biden served under him in Iraq. He had uncomplainingly executed the 2011 withdrawal from Iraq despite his recommendations against it. Austin’s selection would also represent a milestone for the Pentagon, which had never been led by an African American.

In early December, following routine medical checks, Austin learned he had prostate cancer. The disease, the second most common form of cancer for men, had been caught in its early stages and was considered highly treatable.

But the timing could hardly have been worse. In addition to the escalating violence linked to Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip, U.S. forces were facing a drumbeat of attacks by Iran-linked militants in Iraq and Syria. The Pentagon was also struggling, following a major two-year effort, to help Ukraine gain the upper hand in its war against Russia. In Moscow, Kremlin officials gleefully highlighted the president’s inability to persuade Republican lawmakers to authorize additional aid to Kyiv.

On Dec. 20, Austin returned to Washington after a grueling tour of Middle Eastern capitals, where he struggled to tame escalating regional tensions. Two days later, on the first day of his holiday leave, he was admitted to Walter Reed for a planned prostatectomy, undergoing general anesthesia as doctors removed at least part of his prostate. He returned home the next day.

Not even his chief of staff, Kelly Magsamen, a veteran national security staffer and among those closest to Austin at the Pentagon, knew about the surgery or the cancer diagnosis. While Austin had taken steps ahead of his procedure to temporarily transfer authority for certain operational matters to Hicks, his deputy, while he was in surgery — which required sending an email to Hicks’s staff — it was a periodic move that, in this instance, Magsamen and others didn’t know was linked to medical issues.

Two days later, on Christmas Day, with administration officials scattered for the holidays, Sullivan convened another call to discuss the administration response to the spate of drone and missile attacks on American forces in Iraq and Syria.

Sullivan and Austin, who was then recovering at home, coordinated between themselves before a second call with Biden and other top officials. Austin recommended that Biden authorize a strike in Baghdad to assassinate the head of an Iran-backed militia deemed responsible for orchestrating numerous attacks on American troops. Biden did so. The strike would be conducted during an upcoming window, whenever military leaders identified the optimal moment.

Word begins to spread

When Austin returned to the hospital on New Year’s Day, he had severe pain in his leg, hip and abdomen. According to his physicians, he had developed a urinary tract infection and, they discovered, a blocked intestine. The next day, Jan. 2, he was sick enough that his doctors placed him in intensive care. His junior military aide, who had returned from holiday leave when he learned what had happened, was notified and arrived at Walter Reed to see his boss.

Only then, the day after he was admitted, did word of Austin’s whereabouts begin to spread among a small group of top Pentagon aides. Among those who learned on Jan. 2. were Magsamen, who was home that week with the flu; Lt. Gen. Ronald Clark, Austin’s senior military assistant; Christopher Meagher, a senior public affairs official; and Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder, the Pentagon press secretary.

No one moved to inform the White House or Hicks, who by then was on vacation with her family in Puerto Rico. That was despite the fact that Austin, facing a serious emergency, had decided to again delegate key operational authorities as he was moved to the ICU, making her responsible for the most consequential, life-or-death matters the Pentagon oversees.

Officials said that Hicks, a veteran defense policy expert, had traveled to the Caribbean in a military plane, accompanied by communications and other staff, in keeping with the department’s rules. While she could operate from afar, she remained in the dark about the reason for the authority transfer.

Back in Washington, the Biden administration was slowly lurching into action after the holidays. That evening, Biden returned from his vacation in St. Croix, where he had been accompanied by Sullivan and other aides.

The next day, on Jan. 3, Sullivan led a White House meeting focused on spiraling insecurity in Haiti. Representing the Pentagon was Sasha Baker, a top policy official, and Adm. Christopher Grady, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. No one at the White House suspected that Austin was in the ICU — or that Hicks had been designated to act on his behalf.

They remained unaware the following day when, on Jan. 4, U.S. forces carried out the airstrike targeting a senior militia commander in Iraq, culminating the operation that Austin had recommended on Christmas Day. Gen. Michael “Erik” Kurilla, head of U.S. Central Command, which coordinates American military activity throughout the Middle East, directed the attack, keeping the Pentagon and White House informed.

The next morning, senior military officials informed White House officials about the operation, and Biden was briefed on the results. Later that afternoon, Sullivan and his deputy, Jon Finer, were driving to Fort Myer across the Potomac in Arlington, Va., for a ceremony honoring James Mingus, an Army general who was being elevated to the service’s vice chief of staff. They had been expecting to see Austin there and meet with him afterward to discuss several issues.

But as they were en route, shortly before 4 p.m., Sullivan received a call from Magsamen. Austin had been in the hospital for the past three days, she told him.

Austin would not be at the Mingus event. And Sullivan quickly realized the administration had a bigger problem at hand. He called White House chief of staff Jeff Zients, telling him that there was an issue to discuss and that he needed to brief him immediately upon return to the White House.

Informing the president

When Sullivan and Finer arrived back at the White House, they gathered in Zients’s office in the West Wing. It was just before 6 p.m., and they quickly pulled in senior adviser Anita Dunn, White House counsel Ed Siskel, and John Kirby, the coordinator for strategic communications at the National Security Council.

Sullivan relayed to everyone that he had just found out that afternoon that Austin had been in the hospital and was in intensive care. Sullivan called Magsamen at the Pentagon. They established a line of communication with Hicks, who had been informed herself of Austin’s situation only that afternoon, also by Magsamen. Sullivan and Zients told both Magsamen and Hicks, in separate conversations, that as soon as possible they had to publicly disclose that Austin had been hospitalized.

Sullivan and Zients briefed the president shortly before 7 p.m. While no one at the White House or the Pentagon knew exactly what Austin’s initial surgery or condition had been, they knew they needed to move fast to address the fact that he was in intensive care.

After Hicks found out, she began planning to cut short her vacation and return to Washington, officials said, but decided to remain in Puerto Rico after learning that Austin was planning to resume his duties the following day, Jan. 5.

Despite the White House’s urging, the Pentagon did not disclose the news for nearly 24 hours, issuing a terse three-sentence statement after 5 p.m. that Friday that vaguely referenced an elective procedure but failed to mention Austin’s earlier stay at Walter Reed or the underlying medical issue. The timing of the statement, and its dearth of information, was met with concern from lawmakers and outrage from the Pentagon press corps.

By Saturday afternoon, Jan. 6, with questions rippling across Washington, Biden placed a call to Austin. Rather than being angry about the lapse, aides said, the president wanted to hear how his defense chief was doing and wish him well.

The call was brief, and administration officials described it as “warm.” But when the two men hung up, Biden still did not know what Austin’s medical issue was, either because the president didn’t ask or Austin didn’t offer it.

‘Unforgivable staff work’

As the days passed and more details dripped slowly into public view, administration officials realized their attempts to stanch the uproar were falling short. On Capitol Hill, Republicans accused Austin of endangering national security and violating notification rules. Soon, even Biden’s Democratic allies were making their objections known. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the influential chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, demanded that such a lapse “never happen again.”

The news wasn’t bad only for the Pentagon. Even as they stood by Austin, officials at the Pentagon and White House privately expressed puzzlement and frustration about his instinct for secrecy. By Monday, Jan. 8, his hospitalization — and, particularly, the continued mystery surrounding the underlying condition — had overshadowed a news cycle the White House had hoped would highlight Biden’s campaign rollout and distracted from a speech he gave in South Carolina, a key state in the 2024 election calendar.

On Tuesday morning, Jan. 9, the extended mystery came to an end. Pentagon officials learned of the diagnosis as they worked with Austin’s doctors to put out a statement on his medical timeline. At the White House, Zients informed Biden that it was prostate cancer. Biden has been particularly impacted by cancer — his son Beau died of brain cancer — and he has made both fighting it and grieving over its impacts a key way to connect with voters and push it as a policy priority.

Biden, in his most direct comments so far, said Friday that it was a lapse in judgment for Austin not to inform him earlier but reiterated that he still had confidence in his defense secretary.

But while lawmakers from both parties expressed their sympathy, they continued to demand accountability and answers from the Pentagon: who knew what, when, and why breakdowns in such sensitive communications had occurred.

Hoping to contain the fallout, Zients sent a memo to Cabinet members, launching a review of procedures for when they are hospitalized or need to delegate their authority. In such instances, he said, they need to inform the White House.

Magsamen ordered a separate Pentagon review of what had occurred. Several days later, the department’s inspector general launched its own investigation.

At the Pentagon, some officials questioned how Austin could have overlooked a rule inculcated into military personnel from the lowest ranks: that troops must report issues up the chain that prevent them from effectively doing their jobs.

“The bottom line is that the political appointee staff failed,” one senior official said of those closest to Austin. “To become a distraction in an election year is pretty unforgivable staff work.”

This past Thursday, the matter that Biden discussed with his aides on New Year’s Day, just hours before Austin’s second hospitalization set off the chaos, came to an explosive head.

American naval and air forces, working with British counterparts, struck dozens of Houthi targets in Yemen, hoping to deal a decisive blow to their ability to threaten maritime commerce. The attack followed widespread international rejection of the group’s escalating attacks, but it also represented a risky move for the Biden administration as it seeks to extinguish, not encourage, regional destabilization.

Pentagon officials said that Austin, still at Walter Reed more than 10 days later, helped to direct the operation from his hospital room.

Abigail Hauslohner and Michael Birnbaum contributed to this report.

The Washington Post · by Missy Ryan · January 13, 2024

10. Oct. 7 was the opening attack in Iran’s ‘ring of fire’ war against Israel by John Bolton

Excerpts:

What Israel, the United States and other allies will do in coming days is as uncertain as Iran’s war plan. To restore lasting international peace and security, Israel must accomplish its stated objective of eliminating Hamas politically and militarily. The same could be said about Hezbollah, the Houthis and the Shia militias.

The real problem, of course, is Tehran. Until a sane government, even if not Jeffersonian democracy, replaces the mullahs, there will be no peace and security for anyone in the Middle East.

This is a hard truth for many to swallow because it inevitably requires regime change in Iran. Yet, inarguably, that is what Iran’s people want. Not since the 1979 Islamic Revolution itself has the regime been so weak and threatened. Success for Iran in the current conflict, after facing down Israel, America and the West generally, will only strengthen the ayatollahs’ rule. That’s why Winston Churchill’s World War II admonition to Britain applies today to Israel: “without victory, there is no survival.”

Oct. 7 was the opening attack in Iran’s ‘ring of fire’ war against Israel

BY JOHN BOLTON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 01/14/24 6:45 AM ET

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4407277-oct-7-was-the-opening-attack-in-irans-ring-of-fire-war-against-israel/

When Hamas launched its blitzkrieg from Gaza on Oct. 7, it did not mark the onset of yet another Arab-Israeli war. Nor was it a war of Palestinians against Israel. Instead, the barbaric onslaught marked the beginning of an Iranian war against Israel, carried out by Tehran’s terrorist proxies. The war’s future course and duration are murky, but the ayatollahs’ underlying strategy is clear: close their long-envisioned “ring of fire” around Israel, permanently weakening or even paralyzing the Jewish State.

Jerusalem’s leaders and most neighboring Arab rulers grasp this reality. Sadly, however, the threat has not fully registered throughout the West. Instead, too many decisionmakers see only unrelated regional crises. They worry about an imminent “wider war,” heedless that the wider war began Oct. 7. The West is not thinking strategically about defeating Iran’s coalition, but is distracted by criticisms, often implicitly or explicitly antisemitic, purportedly expressing “humanitarian” concern for Gazans or the hostages Hamas kidnapped.

Also unclear is whether Israel has sufficient resolve to persevere until achieving true peace and security for its people. What Thomas Paine wrote of America now applies to Israel: “these are the times that try men’s souls.”

Consider the politico-military battlefield as it now stands.

Gaza remains the most active front in this multi-front war. Since the Oct. 7 surprise, timed almost exactly to the 50th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, which also caught Israel off-guard, Israel Defense Forces have made steady progress. Right after Oct. 7, U.S. military advisers cautioned the IDF to proceed prudently, minimizing its own and Gazan civilian casualties.

Ironically, given current White House pressure to conclude major Gaza operations quickly, Americans stressed that their campaigns in Iraq to subdue Fallujah and Mosul took between nine and 12 months. This counsel proved wise, especially given the extraordinary tunnel system Hamas had spent 15 years digging under the Gaza Strip, not to benefit Gazans economically but to enable Hamas and its patron Iran to wage war against Israel. Accordingly, diversionary arguments like whether Hamas had command operations under the al-Shifa hospital, which it did, are beside the point. Al-Shifa hospital management and many others undoubtedly knew about Hamas’s activities and intentions.

The continuing debate over whether Iran “ordered” Hamas to attack on Oct. 7, or whether Hamas acted independently, obviously implicates Iran’s role in the broader conflict. Initially, Iran and Hamas vehemently denied Tehran’s leading role, awkwardly coupled with fervent pleas of mutual support. Now, even this pretense is gone.

Iran’s foreign minister recently threatened that, “if the U.S. continues its military, political and financial support of Israel and helps manage Israel’s military attacks on Palestinian civilians, then it must face its consequences.” Qassem Soleimani and his Quds Force worked for years to bring Iran’s terrorist proxies across the Middle East into closer alignment, arguing correctly that greater coordination and joint strategies would increase their collective threat to Israel. That has now come to pass.

Moreover, debate about Iran “ordering” Hamas is misplaced. Politico-military alliances rarely have rigid hierarchical structures. America leads NATO, but no one seriously believes Washington “orders” the other allies. Extensive planning and coordination precede most NATO decisions. Doubtless, senior political and military leaders in Tehran are frustrated with Hamas and others not seeing things exactly as they do, but friction and contention among coalition members cannot obscure the ultimate locus of power.

The other belligerent terrorist groups also act at Iran’s behest. Yemen’s Houthi rebels, for example, could not endanger commercial shipping or Western naval vessels in the Red Sea without Iranian arming, equipping, training and financing. The Houthis’ geographical location affords them enormous leverage over the southern Red Sea, and therefore the Suez Canal, through which 12 to 15 percent of the world’s trade (and some 30 percent of container-shipping traffic) passes. Insurance rates and prices on a wide variety of goods are rising and will increase as the conflict continues.

In recent years, Houthis launched Iranian drones and missiles against civilian airfields and oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, giving Iran launching platforms in the backyards of its Gulf Arab foes. The Houthis are a threat because of what Iran provides. Iran is not doing so as charity for Houthis, but to advance Tehran’s own interests. On January 11-12, after months of inaction, a U.S.-led coalition finally struck at Houthis targets in Yemen. Whether this long-delayed military response will suffice to deter further Iran-Houthi depredations remains to be seen.

Hezbollah, in Lebanon and Syria, is the crown jewel of Iran’s decades-long effort to create terrorist networks with global reach. Hezbollah’s shelling of Israel resumed after Hamas’s initial attacks, but the group has not yet launched an all-out war. Some therefore say Hezbollah is a reluctant Iranian partner, which may have some basis. But, as with the Houthis, the tens-of-thousands of Iranian-supplied missiles are not to empower Hezbollah but to extend Iran’s striking power against Israel.

We do not know Iran’s next steps; perhaps even Iran is uncertain. But when Tehran decides the hour has come, Hezbollah will do what its paymasters demand. The same is true for Syria’s Assad regime, although its military capabilities are much less consequential.

Understandably, many Lebanese fear more intense conflict, but Hezbollah and Iran may leave Israel few options. Hezbollah’s massive missile arsenals could overwhelm Israel’s air defenses, causing untold destruction, which Jerusalem, also understandably, will not passively await.

Westerners constantly calling for “avoiding a wider war” are blissfully free from the consequences if their focus is mistaken. Objectively, limiting Israeli or U.S. self-defense only benefits the aggressors, who see restraint not as a sign of goodwill but of weakness, thereby inviting future attacks. Israeli preemptive strikes may be unavoidable, without which this conflict’s trajectory remains under Tehran’s control.

In Iraq and Syria, Shia militia groups, also fully supplied and financed by Iran, form another front, directed primarily against American military and civilian personnel. Since Oct. 7, there have been well over 100 militia attacks, including the rocketing of America’s embassy compound in Baghdad. Casualties to date have thankfully been low, but Pentagon officials attribute that relative good fortune to luck — hardly an adequate strategy. Washington’s military responses have increased gradually, most recently eliminating a militia commander in Baghdad, but these minimal actions have not deterred further assaults.

Iran’s own naval and air assets constitute a potential fifth front. Tehran has seized oil tankers and other ships in its vicinity for years, unfortunately not effectively challenged or deterred to date. Accordingly, Iran can decide when to raise the stakes in the region yet again — and, as if on cue, it did so last week.

Significant developments outside the Middle East have also been unhelpful. Most notably, Moscow seems to be switching sides, moving from relatively good relations with Israel (stemming from Russian Jewish emigration) to outright hostility and alliance with Tehran. Almost immediately after Oct. 7, Russia’s UN ambassador asserted that, as an “occupying power,” Israel had no legitimate right of self-defense against Hamas. While Vladimir Putin later walked that comment back, the argument spread widely among Hamas advocates.

Russia also ordered the Wagner Group to supply Hezbollah with sophisticated Russian air-defense systems, obviously to protect against Israeli strikes. Moreover, Moscow’s foreign ministry condemned Israeli raids against shipments of sophisticated Iranian weapons to Hezbollah as violating Syrian sovereignty and international law. Previously, so long as Israel deconflicted with Russia’s military before entering Syrian airspace to avoid Russian casualties, Moscow gave Jerusalem a free hand. If that has changed, it is a significant new military reality, highly adverse to Israel.

The United Nations role in the current conflict has been all but invisible. As in Cold War days, the Security Council is in near-total gridlock. With Russia and China providing Iran and its proxies political cover, it is impossible to hold to account Hamas’s barbarism, Houthi interference with freedom of the seas, Hezbollah’s looming menace or Shia militia terrorists. Instead, protecting Israel from the antisemitic performance art and propaganda now displayed at UN headquarters falls mostly to Washington. The UN bureaucracy remains riddled with anti-Israel personnel, and UNRWA, its relief agency in Gaza and the West Bank, appears to effectively be an arm of authoritarian and terrorist Palestinian rulers.

What Israel, the United States and other allies will do in coming days is as uncertain as Iran’s war plan. To restore lasting international peace and security, Israel must accomplish its stated objective of eliminating Hamas politically and militarily. The same could be said about Hezbollah, the Houthis and the Shia militias.

The real problem, of course, is Tehran. Until a sane government, even if not Jeffersonian democracy, replaces the mullahs, there will be no peace and security for anyone in the Middle East.

This is a hard truth for many to swallow because it inevitably requires regime change in Iran. Yet, inarguably, that is what Iran’s people want. Not since the 1979 Islamic Revolution itself has the regime been so weak and threatened. Success for Iran in the current conflict, after facing down Israel, America and the West generally, will only strengthen the ayatollahs’ rule. That’s why Winston Churchill’s World War II admonition to Britain applies today to Israel: “without victory, there is no survival.”

John Bolton was national security adviser to President Trump from 2018 to 2019, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from 2005 to 2006 and held senior State Department posts in 1981-83, 1989-93, and 2001-2005.

11. Austin ordered strikes from hospital where he continues to get prostate cancer care, Pentagon says

Excerpts:

Austin’s delays in disclosing his prostate cancer and his hospitalization have roiled the administration, Pentagon and Congress. Pentagon officials have repeatedly said that Austin has been performing his duties for the last week, even as he remains hospitalized.

Speaking to reporters Friday as he toured local businesses outside Allentown, Pennsylvania, Biden said “yes” when asked if it was a lapse in judgment for Austin not to tell him about his condition. He replied, “I do,” when asked if he still had confidence in Austin’s leadership.

Austin ordered strikes from hospital where he continues to get prostate cancer care, Pentagon says

BY TARA COPP, LOLITA C. BALDOR AND SEUNG MIN KIM

Updated 5:08 PM EST, January 12, 2024

AP · by SEUNG MIN KIM · January 12, 2024

By TARA COPP, LOLITA C. BALDOR and

Share

WASHINGTON (AP) — From his hospital room, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin first orchestrated and then watched in real time as the U.S. retaliatory attack on Yemen-based Houthi militants unfolded Thursday night.

Austin’s hospital-room leadership was the latest in a series of actions the defense chief has carried out from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, where he has been recovering from complications due to treatments for prostate cancer. Austin only revealed he had prostate cancer on Tuesday — the same day that the Houthis launched their most aggressive onslaught to date of 18 drones and missiles at commercial and military vessels in the Red Sea. That attack that set the stage for Thursday’s military operation.

Austin is now in his 12th day of hospitalization at Walter Reed and the Pentagon does not know what day he will be released.

On Friday, President Joe Biden said it was a lapse in judgment for Austin to keep his hospitalization and prostate cancer diagnosis a secret, but said he still has confidence in the Pentagon chief.

In the days since, Austin has turned his room into a secure communications suite. He’s called top military leaders, talked to the president, considered options and later ordered the strikes, Pentagon press secretary Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder said Friday.

Austin’s hospital room setup is not unlike when he is on the road, where full security and communications teams accompany him with all of the secure, classified equipment needed to keep him connected. Austin’s aides and support staff have been with him all week at Walter Reed as well.

So on Tuesday, as the Houthis launched 18 one-way attack drones and anti-ship missiles, Austin was watching the attacks and the U.S. and British response intercepting those drones by secure video in real time, as were Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. CQ Brown and U.S. Central Command chief Gen. Erik Kurilla. The three have remained in contact and been in regular calls with the National Security Council over the past few days.

The Houthis’ Tuesday attack occurred after the U.S. and a host of international partners had already issued an ultimatum to cease the attacks or face severe consequences.

Shortly after that attack, Austin recommended to the White House that military action was necessary. On Thursday, President Joe Biden approved the response and Austin gave the order to strike.

That evening, Austin again monitored real-time operations from his hospital room, this time the strikes he’d ordered. Brown was also watching via secure communications from inside his official residence, where he’d been hosting a reception, a U.S. official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details that have not been publicly released.

Shortly after, Austin issued a statement on the operation, which involved F/A-18 fighter jets and E-2C Hawkeye radar planes launching from aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower, U.S. Air Force warplanes, a U.S. submarine and several other U.S. and British ships firing more than 150 missiles at 28 locations involving more than 60 targets in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen.

Following the strikes, Austin spoke with the National Security Council, the Joint Chiefs chairman and the head of U.S. Central Command for an initial post-strike assessment. While the Pentagon has not released a damage assessment, multiple officials have said they believe that the Houthis’ ability to conduct another round of ship attacks has been degraded.

Austin has been hospitalized since Jan. 1, when an ambulance took him to Walter Reed. The defense secretary was conscious at the time but in severe pain, and was admitted to the intensive care unit. A surgery he’d undergone Dec. 22 to address his prostate cancer had resulted in an infection including an abdominal fluid collection, and it had to be drained by placing a tube through his nose to drain his stomach. For days, few knew he was in hospital or in intensive care — the White House only learned on Jan. 4 that he was at Walter Reed.

Austin’s delays in disclosing his prostate cancer and his hospitalization have roiled the administration, Pentagon and Congress. Pentagon officials have repeatedly said that Austin has been performing his duties for the last week, even as he remains hospitalized.

Speaking to reporters Friday as he toured local businesses outside Allentown, Pennsylvania, Biden said “yes” when asked if it was a lapse in judgment for Austin not to tell him about his condition. He replied, “I do,” when asked if he still had confidence in Austin’s leadership.

—-

Seung Min Kim reported from Emmaus, Pennsylvania.

SEUNG MIN KIM

Seung Min is a White House reporter.

twittermailto

AP · by SEUNG MIN KIM · January 12, 2024

12. Biden: ‘We do not support independence’ for Taiwan

​An American (and universal) ideal is that the people have the right to self determination of government. Just saying.

Biden: ‘We do not support independence’ for Taiwan

By OLIVIA ALAFRIZ

01/13/2024 11:55 AM EST

Politico

Biden’s words reinforced the administration’s position to Taiwan’s new president Lai Ching-te, who has faced strong opposition from Beijing.

Lai Ching-te celebrates his victory with running mate Bi-khim Hsiao in Taipei, Taiwan, Jan. 13, 2024. | Louise Delmotte/AP

01/13/2024 11:55 AM EST

President Joe Biden had a blunt message after voters in Taiwan elected a new president Saturday: “We do not support independence” for Taiwan.

Biden’s words, delivered as he departed for Camp David, reinforced the administration’s position to Taiwan’s new president Lai Ching-te, who has faced strong opposition from China over his calls for independence.

The administration has clarified that while it does not support Taiwanese independence, it favors dialogue between Taipei and Beijing and expects differences to be resolved peacefully and without coercion.

Lai, Taiwan’s vice president who won a third successive term for the Democratic Progressive Party, on Saturday delivered a measured call for “exchanges and cooperation with China” with “dignity and parity.”

Lai’s sense of victory will likely soon be overshadowed by an extended period of uncertainty over Beijing’s next move against its neighboring territory. China called the election a choice between war and peace. The U.S. previously warned that China was interfering with the democratically held election.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken congratulated Lai in a post on X, adding that “we also congratulate the Taiwan people for participating in free and fair elections and demonstrating the strength of their democratic system.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson also welcomed the election results, writing in a social media post that “the United States is eager to work with President-elect Lai and build on the strong partnership we’ve enjoyed with President Tsai.”

“To underscore the ongoing commitment of Congress to security and democracy, I will be asking the chairs of the relevant House Committees to lead a delegation to Taipei following Lai’s inauguration in May,” Johnson continued.

Republican lawmakers including Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) broadly welcomed the development.

Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wisc.) and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), respectively chair and ranking member of the House committee on China, said in a statement that, “During this transition period and into President-elect Lai’s forthcoming term in office, the United States will continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our friends in Taiwan.”

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Taiwan in 2022, the first visit by a high-ranking U.S. official in decades, prompting China to launch days of military drills around the self-governing island.

Two weeks after her trip, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) led another congressional delegation to Taiwan, and several more have followed since. Lawmakers have made clear that such trips telegraph a firm stance against Chinese aggression in the region.

“The U.S. stands with you and will protect you,” House Foreign Affairs committee chair Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) told Taiwanese officials during a visit in April. That trip was Congress’ largest bipartisan trip to the island since the 1979 passage of the Taiwan Relations Act, a measure that codified the American commitment to support the island’s democracy without direct antagonism of China.

Biden met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in November in an attempt to ease tensions between the two global powers. During the meeting, Xi demanded the U.S. “stop arming Taiwan” and said that its “reunification” with China was “unstoppable,” while Biden reiterated that U.S. policy on Taiwan had not changed.

Phelim Kine and Giselle Ruhiyyih Ewing contributed to this report.

POLITICO

Politico

13. A Navy In Crisis: It's Time For The Conference Of Admirals

Excerpts:

It’s time for Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro and Chief Of Naval Operations Admiral Lisa Franchetti, to sound the alarm and recall all Admirals. This includes not only Navy Admirals and Marine Generals but also US Coast Guard, NOAA, and US Merchant Service Admirals who are currently facing the same shipbuilding challenges as Del Toro brilliantly explained in his recent address to Harvard.

There is one important caveat. When I was appointed captain of BP’s most technologically advanced and complicated ship, which was in the earliest stages of being built, I was completely overwhelmed by the sheer amount of work and number of problems ahead. What allowed us to complete that ship on time and on budget was by focusing on just one problem a day. Not just any problem, but the single most important problem that could prevent the hull from getting wet on delivery date.

Any senior leadership meeting runs the risk of falling apart as parochial problems cloud the primary objective. This conference cannot solve all the problems of the Navy, it must only solve this ONE most existential crisis. Before attending this conference it would be helpful if every Admiral read the first chapter in Garry Keller’s seminal book The ONE Thing: The Surprisingly Simple Truth About Extraordinary Results.

It was the ability of the USS Carney to focus on ONE threat that allowed it to achieve incredible results.

With the increase in China’s Navy and the growing geopolitical threats in the world’s oceans, the US Navy is facing a critical situation with the Constellation class frigate. It is imperative for the Secretary of the Navy to raise awareness by sounding the general alarm to convene an all-hands meeting for every flag officer. During this meeting, each Admiral must be tasked with addressing the Navy’s one most pressing issue today, its one truly existential threat: expediting the launch of hulls.

And no Admiral should be allowed to leave this conference until white smoke signifies that all support whatever plan they decide on.

A Navy In Crisis: It's Time For The Conference Of Admirals

gcaptain.com · by John Konrad · January 13, 2024

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III provides remarks at the relinquishment of office ceremony for Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael M. Gilday at the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, (DoD photo by Chad J. McNeeley)

A Navy In Crisis: It’s Time For The Conference Of Admirals

John Konrad

Total Views: 74399

January 13, 2024

Share this article

by Captain John Konrad (gCaptain OpEd) Today, the US Navy is experiencing two contrasting situations. On one hand, the USS Carney and other warships continue to demonstrate their power and capabilities in the Red Sea. On the other hand, it has been reported that the Navy’s latest ship, the Constellation class frigate, has been delayed by a year as ongoing schedule assessments are being conducted.

There is a one-year delay in the delivery of the first Constellation-class frigate, named the future USS Constellation (FFG-62). This delay is mainly due to workforce shortages at Fincantieri Marinette Marine in Wisconsin and numerous construction change orders. A legislative source has confirmed that an independent review of the shipyard’s delays has resulted in a new anticipated delivery date of 2027, as reported by the US Naval Institute.

This news comes just two weeks after USS Carney, the formidable Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer renowned for its role in safeguarding ships in the Red Sea last month, triumphantly returned to its base in the Persian Gulf. In a ceremony held in Bahrain, the entire crew was honored with navy combat medals for successfully neutralizing 14 unmanned drones launched by Houthi forces in the Red Sea.

This is the dichotomy. Operationally, the world is dazzled by the US Navy’s success but flabbergasted by the fact the Chinese Navy now has more hulls and over 200 times the shipbuilding capacity while the US Navy is unable to build a single ship on time and on budget.

There is no doubt that the best combat ships of the US Navy are effective. However, the issue lies in the fact that the Red Sea is approximately the size of California, and the US Navy lacks sufficient destroyers to escort all the ships passing through to the Suez Canal. Furthermore, the US has only managed to persuade a few nations to contribute warships in support of Operation Prosperity Guardian (OPG), the US-led coalition aimed at safeguarding merchant ships in the Red Sea.

OPG does not have enough warships to escort all the ships wishing to transit the Red Sea but the failure to do so will result in billions of dollars in costs to the global economy for each day that the Red Sea remains unsafe.

Two unfortunate facts are compounding this issue. First, the Navy’s large fleet of Littoral Combat Ships was initially designed to combat non-peer adversaries close to the shore, which is exactly the type of threat posed by the Houthis, but these ships are equipped with only eleven anti-air missiles with limited range, making it risky to deploy them to the Red Sea. Second, US Navy destroyers like the USS Carney are required to return to port to reload expensive vertically launched anti-air missiles, which takes them out of the fight.

The United States’ closest ally, the United Kingdom, has also faced a reduction in its Navy. To address this issue, they have equipped their destroyers with relatively small caliber Bofors guns as a cost-saving alternative to missiles. This strategy proved successful on Greyhound Day when the destroyer HMS Diamond shot down at least one drone using guns. Additionally, the Royal Navy has deployed at least two frigates, which are smaller versions of the powerful destroyer, to the region for assistance.

The US Navy does not have frigates to augment and extend the reach of the USS Carney.

The Navy should prioritize the installation of more guns, possibly on US Flag merchant ships and manned by Marines, as well as the acquisition of frigates, possibly taking them on loan from Korean shipbuilders. However, the US can learn an even more important lesson from the UK. As Winston Churchill immortalized, “Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.”

Historians debate whether Churchill said these exact words, but they resonate with the majority of Americans who understand the shipbuilding problems America is facing. New ship designs, such as the Littoral Combat Ship, have proven to be flawed, and super-ships like the USS Zumwalt have proven to be too expensive. The Constellation class frigate is based on a proven Italian FREMM multi-mission frigate parent design, which was modified by ship designer Gibbs & Cox to meet Navy survivability and equipment requirements. However, the modification of the design has altered almost every drawing of the FREMM, causing delays and second and third order problems.

The US Navy acknowledges that its main issue is the insufficient number of effective (both on the surface and undersea) hulls. This problem arises from delays and cost overruns resulting from modified design requirements, as well as a lack of investment and attention to America’s industrial base, which includes shipyards. The solution is straightforward: refrain from making changes to proven designs like the FREMM and prioritize the support of industrial necessities such as steel mills, weapons factories, and shipyards.

Accomplishing this is not as simple as it may sound. The US Navy does not face a shortage of ships due to insufficient budget, lack of imagination, or a lack of effort. It has genuinely exhausted all other options – at great cost – and has now set its sights on the most suitable course of action: constructing a significant number of frigates based on the FREMM design… but these ships are now delayed.

The question is: how can you ensure that a behemoth bureaucratic organization like the Department of the Navy “does the right thing”? How do you persuade the 86,000 employees of its shipbuilding arm NAVSEA to minimize paperwork, meetings, and change orders, and instead focus on building off-the-shelf designs? How do you hold program managers accountable for failures? How do you convince Congress to not only produce a few new frigates but a flood of new hulls? Moreover, with the recent news of elections in Taiwan, how can you accomplish all of this without causing additional delays?

The answer is surprisingly simple: hold a Conference of Admirals.

The US Navy is currently experiencing a high level of activity, resulting in a heavy workload for all Admirals in uniform. As a result, they cannot allocate time to solely focus on shipbuilding, even for a few days. It’s important to note that many of the department’s Flag Officers, such as Vice Admiral Christopher W. Grady, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and US Marine Corps General Michael E. Langley, Commander of Africa Command, primarily focus on operational command rather than shipbuilding. Vice Admiral Cooper, Commander of Operation Prosperity Guardian, may be the busiest of them all. Some, like Vice Admiral Carl Chebi, Commander of Naval Air Systems Command, have their own serious problems unrelated to shipbuilding.

We need all of them for this to work because often it’s the leaders furthest from the problem who can see the solutions most clearly and have influence that comes from advocating for problems beyond their own interest.

Every few decades, the Catholic Church encounters an existential crisis. During these times, it becomes irrelevant how busy each Cardinal is or what duties they are performing. They all come back to Rome to address the issue at hand. The Sacred College of Cardinals solves this problem.

This is also true on the civilian side. During World War Two, there was a high demand for physicists. The best physicists were working on extremely important projects such as codebreaking and radar systems. However, a decision was made to gather the best physicists in Los Alamos and focus on one crucial problem: developing a bomb before Germany did.

In the case of the Navy, the comparable issue was the destruction of the fleet at Pearl Harbor. During that time, every flag officer was extremely occupied, but they all united, either physically or through communications and coordination, to address one problem: the salvage and reconstruction of America’s fleet.

Operationally, this is also true aboard the USS Carney. Despite being overworked and incredibly busy, when the general alarm sounded to notify the crew of the Houthi’s barrage of drones, every sailor stopped their tasks and promptly went to battle stations. Their sole focus was on the imminent threat of incoming explosive warheads.

It’s time for Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro and Chief Of Naval Operations Admiral Lisa Franchetti, to sound the alarm and recall all Admirals. This includes not only Navy Admirals and Marine Generals but also US Coast Guard, NOAA, and US Merchant Service Admirals who are currently facing the same shipbuilding challenges as Del Toro brilliantly explained in his recent address to Harvard.

There is one important caveat. When I was appointed captain of BP’s most technologically advanced and complicated ship, which was in the earliest stages of being built, I was completely overwhelmed by the sheer amount of work and number of problems ahead. What allowed us to complete that ship on time and on budget was by focusing on just one problem a day. Not just any problem, but the single most important problem that could prevent the hull from getting wet on delivery date.

Any senior leadership meeting runs the risk of falling apart as parochial problems cloud the primary objective. This conference cannot solve all the problems of the Navy, it must only solve this ONE most existential crisis. Before attending this conference it would be helpful if every Admiral read the first chapter in Garry Keller’s seminal book The ONE Thing: The Surprisingly Simple Truth About Extraordinary Results.

It was the ability of the USS Carney to focus on ONE threat that allowed it to achieve incredible results.

With the increase in China’s Navy and the growing geopolitical threats in the world’s oceans, the US Navy is facing a critical situation with the Constellation class frigate. It is imperative for the Secretary of the Navy to raise awareness by sounding the general alarm to convene an all-hands meeting for every flag officer. During this meeting, each Admiral must be tasked with addressing the Navy’s one most pressing issue today, its one truly existential threat: expediting the launch of hulls.

And no Admiral should be allowed to leave this conference until white smoke signifies that all support whatever plan they decide on.

​14. Human Rights Watch warns of authoritarian slide across Asia region

Excerpts:

1. Some advances in LGBT rights in Asia

2. Same-sex marriage and recognition

3. A handful of political prisoner acquittals

4. Gains for women's rights in some countries

5. Hope for better coordination to protect civilians from explosives

War crimes and human rights atrocities

Human Rights Watch warns of authoritarian slide across Asia region

ABC.net.au · by Libby Hogan · January 12, 2024

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has warned of "an authoritarian slide" across the region from China to Myanmar as the watchdog released its annual world report.

Wartime atrocities intensified, while there was also an alarming trend of selective government outrage and "transactional diplomacy" when responding to conflicts, the report said.

Still, there were several milestones in the Asia-Pacific region in 2023, particularly for LGBT rights and same-sex marriage.

1. Some advances in LGBT rights in Asia

The Japanese parliament passed its first law on sexual orientation and gender identity, addressing anti-LGBT discrimination last year.

Human Rights Watch's Asia director Elaine Pearson told the ABC the decision came after years of campaigning and "will hopefully result in better protections for LGBT people".

The report heralded Japan's Supreme Court ruling that the country's law mandating sterilisation surgery for transgender people as a requirement for legal gender recognition was unconstitutional.

The Japanese parliament passed its first law to protect LGBT people from "unfair discrimination".(Kyodo via Reuters)

Local rights groups expressed similar relief at the decision.

"In general we are so happy, but there are some things that we still need to keep fighting for," said Akira Nishiyama, deputy secretary-general of the Japan Alliance for LGBT Legislation.

Judges stopped short of making a ruling on a separate clause, meaning it still remains law that the genitals of people who want to change their gender must resemble those of the opposite gender.

2. Same-sex marriage and recognition

Maya Gurung and Surendra Pandey were the first same-sex couple to legally marry in Nepal last year.(AP Photo/Niranjan Shrestha)

The HRW report hailed Nepal's step forward for same-sex marriage after the Supreme Court instructed authorities to recognise same-sex marriages while it considers a case demanding full marriage equality rights.

Towards the end of last year Thailand passed a draft law on marriage equality.

"Thailand could certainly be the first country in South-East Asia to legalise same-sex marriage," Ms Pearson said.

"These are really encouraging signs."

The draft is yet to be made public.

3. A handful of political prisoner acquittals

The targeting of rights defenders or opposition parties in several countries escalated over the past year, the report found, but there were some victories in the Philippines.

A Manila court acquitted Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Rappler CEO Maria Ressa of tax evasion charges, and former senator Leila de Lima was released after a court granted her bail in the last drug case filed against her by the Rodrigo Duterte administration.

"Occasionally, you know, cases where there's a lot of international heat and pressure, human rights defenders are being acquitted from charges," Ms Pearson said.

These gains were encouraging but not systematic and "there's many, many more cases where we've seen an intensification of prosecutions of activists", she added.

4. Gains for women's rights in some countries

Activist questions Japan's trial of morning-after pill sales

A long-awaited trial of over-the-counter sales of emergency contraceptives is underway in Japan, but activists worry access to this essential medicine might only be temporary.

Read more

Japan approved medical abortion, a step forward for reproductive rights in the country.

It also revised the definition of rape to include "non-consensual sexual intercourse" and extended the reporting limitation to 15 years.

These were some highlights among an otherwise bleak outlook for women's and girls' rights in the region.

One of the worst examples HRW singled out in their report was Afghanistan's Taliban denying girls access to secondary school and higher education which they say amounts to crimes against humanity.

5. Hope for better coordination to protect civilians from explosives

Eighty-three countries, including the world's top eight arms exporters, adopted a political declaration to better protect civilians from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.

HRW said the pledge was the first to "formally address the long-standing practice of warring parties to use aerial bombing, artillery, rockets, and missiles in villages, towns, and cities — the leading cause of civilian casualties in armed conflict around the world".

Members of the Myanmar diaspora community demonstrated in Sydney last year calling on the Australian government to do more to pressure the country's military government. (Supplied: Mon Zin)

War crimes and human rights atrocities

The report offered a grim review of the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

Israel's blockade of aid and fuel to Gaza following the Hamas attack on Israel that killed an estimated 1,200 people was described by HRW as "a form of collective punishment" that amounted to a war crime. Israel strongly denies this.

The watchdog documented Hamas' range of abuses — from taking hostages to indiscriminate rockets fired at Israeli communities — "all of which are war crimes".

In Myanmar, the report said the military's use of a thermobaric bomb or vacuum bomb during an attack on an opposition building, which HRW said appeared to be a war crime.

Ms Pearson told the ABC a united international response and concrete actions like a global arms embargo were urgently needed rather than only a handful of countries imposing sanctions.

"There's been a lot more attention on what's happening in Ukraine and in Gaza," Ms Pearson said.

"But, you know, we have seen repeated, unlawful air strikes by the Myanmar military on civilians, including children."

Large parts of Gaza have been destroyed during the recent war.(AP Photo: Adel Hana)

The report's opening message delivered a scathing picture of "transactional diplomacy" with superpowers showing "little appetite" to hold human rights abusers accountable when these countries might be key to advancing their own domestic agendas.

HRW cited examples of governments failing to speak out on China's arbitrary arrests of Uyghurs and Vietnam's suppression of independent press and freedom of speech.

China previously denied the existence of Uyghur internment camps and insisted they were "vocational centres".

The ABC goes inside Xinjiang

For several years, the region of Xinjiang has been shut off from most of the world's media. The ABC got to go inside, but all was not as it seemed.

Read more

"Vietnam, the Philippines, India, and other nations the US wants as counters to China have been feted at the White House without regard for their human rights abuses at home," HRW chief Tirana Hassan said.

HRW also criticised Australia's pursuit of "quiet diplomacy", saying one example was Canberra's failure to publicly raise India's crackdown on Muslims and minorities under Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese refused to engage in criticisms of Modi during his visit to Australia.

The report warned, "when governments pick and choose which obligations to enforce, they perpetuate injustice … and can embolden abusive governments to extend the reach of their repression."

ABC.net.au · by Libby Hogan · January 12, 2024

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

Phone: 202-573-8647

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com